DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

[Tadpole12]

Heyya Roy.

Originally Posted by Roy23

It is the only way Dee Dee. You obviously haven't read Kolar's book either. As it turns out the DNA from the unsterile clippers did not have all the issues that you claim above. They tested all the autopsies done by the Coroner and none of the samples matched any of them.

Yes. Also, the dna of LE and Med staff was also compared to dna found on JBR.
Still, even with this limited pool of dna comparatives, contamination from unknown source can not be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Roy23

You can't get any conviction or make any arrest without answering the DNA. Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker if you paid attention to the book. They tried to provide an innocent reason the DNA is there and failed but they need to keep trying.

Hmmm. How So ... "Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker."
So he sees it as contaminate or result of casual contact?

[Tadpole12]

Roy, does Kolar mention the cigarette butts found in the alley?

[Roy23]

Originally Posted by Tadpole12

Heyya Roy.



Yes. Also, the dna of LE and Med staff was also compared to dna found on JBR.
Still, even with this limited pool of dna comparatives, contamination from unknown source can not be eliminated.





Hmmm. How So ... "Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker."
So he sees it as contaminate or result of casual contact?

Tad,

That is my point really. As long as you have unknown source, it will continually plague any kind of resolution to this case. We know they have tried to test investigators and those known to have been around JBR in recent days. But still, no match. Kolar isn't saying it is contaminate or casual contact. He doesn't know like the rest of us but he is suggesting that other things are more important.

I am not saying what is and what is not. But I feel pretty confident that they have a CODIS level DNA sample in a 6 year olds underwear that was corroborated as match by the TDNA in 2008. You cant get a conviction on a Ramsey or maybe anyone else until you find this source of DNA. If it is there innocently, I think they could find it.

[Roy23]

Originally Posted by Tadpole12

Roy, does Kolar mention the cigarette butts found in the alley?

No sir. I have no information if that is true or if it was ever tested.

[Whaleshark]

Wonder what the IDIs would think of Kolar if he did not read the case files or the autopsy report before making his assertions, alluding to any theory, and especially writing his book?

Yet, Lou Smit DID NOT read the case files and autopsy report.

So, how can any theory he created without having all the most pertinent information needed, be counted at all?

At all?

I think this bit of information about Lou Smit needs to be posted as either a Sticky, or a Thread title at the very least.

"LOU SMIT DID NOT READ THE CASE FILES OR AUTOPSY REPORT".

Does this not tell the whole world about any and all 'evidence', 'theories', 'information', 'ideas', 'investigating', and any and ALL assertions stated by Lou Smit as completely unreliable at the 'nicest', and 'fraud' at the boldest, if he is passing his theory off as an investigator as part of his JOB, based on 'all the facts', supposedly?

At this point, I have done more research than Lou Smit ever did, because at the very least, I have read numerous case files, autopsy, interviews and testimony, reviewed photos, discussed all options, etc.

With that in mind, Mary Lacey and the DA's office should put more stock in what I say then, than what Lou Smit had to say.

This is serious information that every IDI needs to know and consider, and for any newbies to this case before learning about who he was to the Ramseys, and then reading his 'theory'.

I guarantee that if an RDI -- or ANYONE -- posited a theory from an 'Investigator' or ANYONE ELSE who had NOT READ THE CASE FILES OR THE AUTOPSY -- would not put any stock in that person's theory, and tell them to go do their homework before putting out a theory based on no (or completely biased) information.

***Dam*it!

[Tricia]

Ok Everyone,

Please back away from the computer.

Remember the Websleuths mantra: Attack the post and not the poster.

Peace and Love,

Tricia

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by Roy23

It is the only way Dee Dee. You obviously haven't read Kolar's book either. As it turns out the DNA from the unsterile clippers did not have all the issues that you claim above. They tested all the autopsies done by the Coroner and none of the samples matched any of them.

You can't get any conviction or make any arrest without answering the DNA. Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker if you paid attention to the book. They tried to provide an innocent reason the DNA is there and failed but they need to keep trying.

No I haven't read it yet. I won't be home till September, (babysitting for my overworked daughter and son-in-law because the kids' summer day camp ends August 3). I'll order it as soon as I get home. So it isn't that I haven't "paid attention" to the book.

[KoldKase]

Just to correct a mistake: "They" did not "test all the autopsies done by the Coroner...." That's false.

From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?, by A. James Kolar; pages 137-38:

Investigators were able to obtain the DNA samples from eight
(8) of the autopsy examinations that preceded that of JonBenét.
These samples were analyzed, but none of these matched
the unknown male and female samples collected from JonBenét’s
fingernails. Perhaps more disappointing, was the fact that the
unknown samples lacked sufficient identifying markers that
permitted their entry into the state and national DNA databases.

[Roy23]

Lol!!!!

[Roy23]

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

No I haven't read it yet. I won't be home till September, (babysitting for my overworked daughter and son-in-law because the kids' summer day camp ends August 3). I'll order it as soon as I get home. So it isn't that I haven't "paid attention" to the book.

I understand. Hope all goes well. Got mine in summer camp to and getting ready for the school year.

[cynic]

Originally Posted by Roy23

Sure, all of it is significant. I got a lot of info from Kolar's book. But when he can't get information from the 1997 DNA that we already know about right, that concerns me.

What concerns me is that you are making that assertion without providing an official source.

[Solace]

Hi KK - haven't been around in a long time - do you think this book is worth reading? Solace

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by Solace

Hi KK - haven't been around in a long time - do you think this book is worth reading? Solace

Glad to see you back. I haven't read it yet, but I plan to order it as soon as I am back home. I feel ANY book on the case, especially by someone who investigated it, is worth a read. Any book except JR's that is...

[txsvicki]

The dna on the cords are probably from a store clerk or shopper and the same with the underwear. Even if tubes or packages are sealed customers can get them open and clerks are good at resealing and selling the items. Dna being found in the panty seam is curious and could point more to factory worker or inspector. The panties being so big and probably waist high with the longjohns could transfer one to another?

[cynic]

Originally Posted by Roy23

Finding the source of the DNA is the only way possible for resolution. It sucks, but its true.

Originally Posted by Roy23

You can't get any conviction or make any arrest without answering the DNA.

Originally Posted by Roy23

You can’t get a conviction on a Ramsey or maybe anyone else until you find this source of DNA.

Over, and over, and over again you state this as if it were true. The fact of the matter is that it isn’t true.
Cases are not only prosecuted, but prosecuted successfully with not only unidentified and unresolved DNA but also with unexplained fingerprints, missing murder weapons, missing bodies etc, etc.
The reason for this is because cases are prosecuted on the strength of the totality of the evidence.
Don’t get me wrong, though, this case will never see the light of a courtroom for a number of reasons, IMO, but to suggest that DNA stands in the way and MUST be resolved is false.

Some examples below:

The Noura Jackson Case:
Status: Defendant successfully prosecuted and currently in prison
Type of Case: Matricide, circumstantial
DNA: “There was DNA from someone else at the crime scene.”

Detectives now have their theory that Noura is the killer. But there’s one big problem: there was no DNA, blood or fingerprints from Noura at the crime scene.
There was DNA from someone else at the crime scene.
"We know there was some unknown DNA that was on a bed sheet," Merritt said.
"It could have been skin. It could have been sweat," added Miller.
The investigators were never able to find out whose DNA it was. The only thing they could say for sure was that it wasn't Jennifer’s or Noura's.
"I think we know who did it," Noura said. "We just have to find them."
"I’ve never had a case where a daughter killed her mother…18-years-old. You don’t want to think that, but who else is there?" said Sgt. Tim Helldorfer of the Memphis Police Department.
Even though police have almost no scientific evidence against her, they are convinced Noura hated her mother, snapped that night and killed her in a fit of rage.
"I think the biggest concern everybody had was we don’t have the eyewitness. We don’t have the smoking gun and we didn’t have the DNA," Sgt. Helldorfer said. "But what we had was a lot better than what we didn’t have."
Three-and-a-half months after Jennifer Jackson was stabbed to death in her bedroom, police finally arrested her daughter and charged her with first-degree murder.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_16...;videoMetaInfo


The Ernie Scherer Case:
Status: Defendant successfully prosecuted and currently in prison
Type of Case: Matricide, Patricide, circumstantial
DNA: “…foreign DNA found mixed in with the victim's blood does not match Ernie.”

Awaiting his trial, a confident Ernie Scherer mocked the case against him.
"That was one of his statements to me: 'I wanna be free by Christmas. Hey, come on,'" said Det. Scott Dudek.
Prosecutor Mike Nieto admits his evidence is circumstantial.
"I want you to tell me about the witness who saw Ernie enter his parents' home that night" Peter Van Sant asked Nieto.
"There is no witness that saw Ernie enter his parents' home," he replied.
"Are there any fingerprints?"
"There were no fingerprints."
"So no witness, no fingerprints...and you can't verify the car."
"Yes."
"That's a strong case?"
"It is," Nieto replied. "When you consider everything together, everything points to Ernie being responsible."
The defense counters with solid forensic evidence, saying foreign DNA found mixed in with the victim's blood does not match Ernie.
"That's your killer, isn't it?" Van Sant asked Dudek.
"That's what the defense would have you believe," he replied. "Just because someone's DNA is present, that doesn't mean they're the responsible party. ...Could've been one of the first responders at the scene. It could've been anyone that had been in the Scherer home prior to March 7th, 2008."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_16...in;contentBody

Part One

Scherer1 - YouTube

Scherer1 - YouTube

Part Two

Scherer2 - YouTube

Scherer2 - YouTube

Part Three

Scherer3 - YouTube

Scherer3 - YouTube

The Glenn McNeill Case:
Status: Defendant successfully prosecuted and currently in prison
Type of Case: Homicide, circumstantial
DNA: Analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females. Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants…

The murder case of Janelle Patton clearly illustrates that matching DNA in three locations can have an innocent explanation and have no bearing, whatsoever, on the prosecution of the case. The DNA of the man who committed the crime (McNeill) was not found on the body of the victim.
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/artic...220&ref=imthis

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/t...-1111113128516
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.

Part One

Janelle P 1 - YouTube

Janelle P 1 - YouTube

Part Two

Janelle P 2 - YouTube

Janelle P 2 - YouTube

Part Three

Janelle P 3 - YouTube

Janelle P 3 - YouTube

Part Four

Janelle P 4 - YouTube

Janelle P 4 - YouTube

The Steven DeMocker Case:
Status: Prosecution in progress
Type of Case: Homicide, circumstantial


DNA: DNA from 3 unidentified men found in 3 locations:

• Under the fingernails of the victim’s left hand.
• On the victim’s left hand
• On a cell phone held by the victim.

Although the prosecution of DeMocker began with the DNA being of unknown origin, one profile (out of three unknown profiles) was later identified as contamination from a prior autopsy. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...519issues.html

September 1, 2010
A scientist who works at a private laboratory testified Wednesday that Carol Kennedy had DNA from three unknown men underneath the fingernails of her left hand.
Alexis Brown, a supervisor at the Sorenson Forensic laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah, told a jury in the murder trial for Kennedy's ex-husband, Steven DeMocker, that Kennedy also had DNA from three unknown males on her left hand itself.
In addition, Brown said, a cordless phone that her laboratory tested showed the DNA from three unidentified males. Tests found that the DNA had not come from DeMocker, she said. Kennedy was talking to her mother on the phone in the evening of July 2, 2008, when she suddenly exclaimed, "Oh, no," and the call ended. Her mother, Ruth Kennedy, became alarmed when she could not then reach her daughter and eventually called the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office. A deputy looked into a window of Carol Kennedy's Williamson Valley home and saw her body on the floor of a room she used as an office. A cordless phone lay nearby.
Brown said tests excluded DeMocker's DNA from the samples taken from Kennedy's hand, nails and the cell phone.
…
Previously, Dr. Philip Keene, who performed the autopsy on Kennedy, said the nail clippers he used to clip her nails were pulled from a drawer and might not have been sterile.
DeMocker, who voluntarily gave a statement to detectives the night of his former wife's death, said that he had been riding his mountain bike on trails near Granite Mountain at the time of her death. He offered to give them blood and DNA samples.
Det. Luis Huante, one of the initial investigators, testified that DeMocker aroused his suspicions when he came to Kennedy's Bridal Path house that evening after his younger daughter told him that her mother died. DeMocker asked Huante if he was a suspect. Also, Huante noted scratches on DeMocker's arms and legs that DeMocker said came from bushes along the trail.
…
http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?Sec...=293&btnView=1

In September of 2010, the prosecution was pretty sure that the unidentified DNA that the defense was touting as DNA from the “real killer(s)” was the result of contamination. They were right.
6 months later the owner of the major DNA profile in the case was identified

March 21, 2011
DeMocker trial: Mystery DNA identified
Results support prosecution's nail clipper contamination theory

PRESCOTT - The DNA found on fingernail clippings of the victim in the murder trial of Steven C. DeMocker has been identified as being that of a man who may have died prior to or shortly after Carol Kennedy, according to documents obtained by the Courier.
The results may substantiate claims by the prosecution that the nail clippers used by the medical examiner were contaminated.
The prosecution in the DeMocker trial on Monday asked Judge Warren R. Darrow to order the Chino Valley Medical Center and the Yavapai Regional Medical Center to release the medical records of Ronald Lloyd Birman, who, the document said, "has been identified as the major donor of the DNA profile, previously unknown" by the Department of Public Safety's crime lab.
…
The Yavapai County Medical Examiner, Dr. Philip Keene, did an autopsy and determined Birman bled to death after an arterial graft failed.
DeMocker is accused of beating to death Kennedy, his ex-wife, on July 2, 2008.
…
The timing of the Birman's death will play a crucial role in DeMocker's retrial, as will the existence of DNA on Kennedy's body from what appears to be a totally unrelated person, which may point to contamination at Keene's office, as previously reported in the Courier.
Kennedy's fingernail contained DNA from three people, one "major" profile and two "minor" profiles. The DNA test results are believed to refer to the "major" profile, according to testimony quoted in the Courier.
On Aug. 24, 2010, Dr. Keene testified under examination by Deputy County Attorney Joseph C. Butner III that the clippers used to trim Kennedy's nails for evidence had not been sterilized.
The prosecution says in the motion that it wants to "corroborate the findings of the DPS crime lab."
Because a gag order has been imposed on the trial, neither side was able to speak about the motion or the identification made by DPS.
Scott Orr, The Daily Courier
http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?Typ...ionID=1&Page=3

[cynic]

Originally Posted by Roy23

Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker if you paid attention to the book. They tried to provide an innocent reason the DNA is there and failed but they need to keep trying.

Kolar’s book makes it pretty clear it didn’t come from a factory worker
Really?????
Please source your statements when presenting them as fact.
While I’m on the subject, I still require a source for the following statement from post #70

I got a lot of info from Kolar's book. But when he can't get information from the 1997 DNA that we already know about right, that concerns me.

Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigative scene, the FBI laboratory had already conducted random DNA tests on underwear purchased off the shelf. They determined that DNA samples could be obtained from new, unopened packages of children‘ s underwear, suggesting the possibility that the genetic material deposited there had come from the manufacturing / packaging end of the line. I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
Under those circumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. Its presence was puzzling, but I felt that this single piece of DNA evidence had to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that had been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 272 - 273

[SNIP]

Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear to determine if trace biological DNA samples could be obtained from brand new clothing that had been shipped from the manufacturer. He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear.
The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear.
It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article. Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion. We talked about some other aspects of the case, and he pointed out that he was only a scientist and not familiar with the details of the investigative side of the case.
It was my understanding that the Bloomies brand of underwear, worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body, was manufactured and produced in Taiwan, making it entirely possible that this article of clothing was produced in a garment sweatshop. Sweatshops have historically employed child labor, and as there is currently no scientific method available that allows us to determine the age of a contributor, I had thought it feasible that the unknown forensic sample of male DNA found in JonBenét’s underwear could belong to a Taiwanese boy. Furthermore, there is no scientific method to determine when a biological specimen was placed at the scene of a crime.
Under those circumstances, I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 - 305

[Tadpole12]

Originally Posted by cynic

Kolar’s book makes it pretty clear it didn’t come from a factory worker
Really?????
Please source your statements when presenting them as fact.
While I’m on the subject, I still require a source for the following statement from post #70


Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigative scene, the FBI laboratory had already conducted random DNA tests on underwear purchased off the shelf. They determined that DNA samples could be obtained from new, unopened packages of children‘ s underwear, suggesting the possibility that the genetic material deposited there had come from the manufacturing / packaging end of the line. I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
Under those circumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. Its presence was puzzling, but I felt that this single piece of DNA evidence had to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that had been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 272 - 273

[SNIP]

Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear to determine if trace biological DNA samples could be obtained from brand new clothing that had been shipped from the manufacturer. He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear.
The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear.
It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article. Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion. We talked about some other aspects of the case, and he pointed out that he was only a scientist and not familiar with the details of the investigative side of the case.
It was my understanding that the Bloomies brand of underwear, worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body, was manufactured and produced in Taiwan, making it entirely possible that this article of clothing was produced in a garment sweatshop. Sweatshops have historically employed child labor, and as there is currently no scientific method available that allows us to determine the age of a contributor, I had thought it feasible that the unknown forensic sample of male DNA found in JonBenét’s underwear could belong to a Taiwanese boy. Furthermore, there is no scientific method to determine when a biological specimen was placed at the scene of a crime.
Under those circumstances, I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 - 305

The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. James Kolar, pages 304 - 305

Heyya cynic.
So this is new info to 'us'. Previously, with respect to dna on panties
it had not been revealed, that "the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear."

[Linda7NJ]

I ordered the book and simply can not wait for it to arrive. I must know the answer to this question.

Is there any mention of Ramsey DNA on JonBenet? The rope?

If not, we know that's impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cynic]

Originally Posted by Linda7NJ

I ordered the book and simply can not wait for it to arrive.

I understand, you won't be disappointed

Is there any mention of Ramsey DNA on JonBenet? The rope?

No, and no.
The only mention of Ramsey DNA, (other than JonBenet’s) as per my first post, is on the nightgown, that TDNA sample belonging to the combination of Patsy and Burke.
Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét. This Touch DNA belonged to Patsy and Burke Ramsey.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 414

[cynic]

Originally Posted by Tadpole12

Heyya cynic.
So this is new info to 'us'. Previously, with respect to dna on panties
it had not been revealed, that "the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear."

Hey Tad,

It is new to us, definitely.
It actually reminded me of something that you brought up some time ago with respect to the issue of control samples.

The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 304

I pointed out that Ramsey attorneys and intruder theorists had continued to hail the DNA identified in JonBenét’s underwear, Distal Stain 007-2, as proof that a lone sexual predator was responsible for her murder. This partial sample is microscopic, and the strongest specimen was located in the crotch of the panties with weaker samples located along the waistband and seams of the underwear.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 425


While it's unclear, but doubtful, that samples from the leg bands / seams were used in any sense as control samples they do present themselves as a possibility.
As Kolar noted in his conversation with LaBerge, “It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article.”

[Whaleshark]

If the touch DNA means so much to IDI, then doesn't the touch DNA of both Patsy and Burke found on the Barbie nightgown that was at the crime scene mean anything to them?

If not, then why would any other touch DNA mean anything either?

[OpenMind4U]

Originally Posted by Whaleshark

If the touch DNA means so much to IDI, then doesn't the touch DNA of both Patsy and Burke found on the Barbie nightgown that was at the crime scene mean anything to them?

If not, then why would any other touch DNA mean anything either?

IMO, because JBR was found INSIDE of Ramsey home it would be common to find a LOT of Ramsey's DNA. The amount of their DNA should be everywhere, on the longjohns, on the pants, on the shirt (especially, if according to PR she was the one to change her and tuckle-in for the night. Even JR's DNA should be on JBR clothes because according to JR - he was the one to hold her on his arms to cary her up the stairs). So, I could understand that. What I cannot understand is why if IDI then there wasn't any STRONG DNA anywhere. This 'intruder' should spend considerable amount of time inside of their home, touching a lot of items around. Even if we'll assum that this 'intruder' was waring the gloves then did he removed these gloves to touch the certain parts of the longjohns and Bloomy pants only? Nope, I don't think so. Plus, by moving around in this maze house - he/she should leave some kind of traces from his/her clothing as well. But nothing was found (as much as we know). What DOES alert me is the following: the fibers from PR jacket INSIDE of rope loops; fibers from JR shirt on JBR crutch area. These items shouldn't be there and no one can convince me that this is due to the 'transfer'. If 'transfer' card has played to explain evidences against Ramsey then the same 'transfer' card should be applyed against the 'intruder', period. JMO. And if we'll use 'transfer' argument everytime - then let's throw-out all existing evidences (fibers, 'intruder' TDNA/DNA, PR and BR DNA) out of the broken window of Ramsey basement....

[Roy23]

Originally Posted by cynic

Kolar’s book makes it pretty clear it didn’t come from a factory worker
Really?????
Please source your statements when presenting them as fact.
While I’m on the subject, I still require a source for the following statement from post #70


Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigative scene, the FBI laboratory had already conducted random DNA tests on underwear purchased off the shelf. They determined that DNA samples could be obtained from new, unopened packages of children‘ s underwear, suggesting the possibility that the genetic material deposited there had come from the manufacturing / packaging end of the line. I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
Under those circumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. Its presence was puzzling, but I felt that this single piece of DNA evidence had to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that had been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 272 - 273

[SNIP]

Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear to determine if trace biological DNA samples could be obtained from brand new clothing that had been shipped from the manufacturer. He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear.
The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear.
It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article. Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion. We talked about some other aspects of the case, and he pointed out that he was only a scientist and not familiar with the details of the investigative side of the case.
It was my understanding that the Bloomies brand of underwear, worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body, was manufactured and produced in Taiwan, making it entirely possible that this article of clothing was produced in a garment sweatshop. Sweatshops have historically employed child labor, and as there is currently no scientific method available that allows us to determine the age of a contributor, I had thought it feasible that the unknown forensic sample of male DNA found in JonBenét’s underwear could belong to a Taiwanese boy. Furthermore, there is no scientific method to determine when a biological specimen was placed at the scene of a crime.
Under those circumstances, I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 - 305

Yawn!!!

Of all the tests DNA found was about 1/10th the strength of the DNA in the panties. Do I need to give you a math test?

Also, you have along with Mr. Kolar had a complete misunderstanding concerning the fingernail DNA. And it is very very important. CODIS did not become fully operational until 1998. CODIS only recognizes the 13 markers obtained through STR analysis plus Amlogenin to identify gender. So, the 1997 DQA1TM/Polymarker DNA results were not submitted because....

1. STR testing was NOT used, nor was it allowed to be used in Colorado until 2001.

2. CODIS was not "fully operational until 1998.

Soon enough Mr. Beckner is going to explain why they are not looking at a Ramsey as the killer. Mr. Kolar wrote a really good book. But the DNA is something he doesn't understand or chose to ignore to make a buck. And I look forward to the day when they explain it to you.

[cynic]

Originally Posted by Roy23

Yawn!!!

Of all the tests DNA found was about 1/10th the strength of the DNA in the panties. Do I need to give you a math test?

Also, you have along with Mr. Kolar had a complete misunderstanding concerning the fingernail DNA. And it is very very important. CODIS did not become fully operational until 1998. CODIS only recognizes the 13 markers obtained through STR analysis plus Amlogenin to identify gender. So, the 1997 DQA1TM/Polymarker DNA results were not submitted because....

1. STR testing was NOT used, nor was it allowed to be used in Colorado until 2001.

2. CODIS was not "fully operational until 1998.

Soon enough Mr. Beckner is going to explain why they are not looking at a Ramsey as the killer. Mr. Kolar wrote a really good book. But the DNA is something he doesn't understand or chose to ignore to make a buck. And I look forward to the day when they explain it to you.

Kolar also suggested that further testing …
I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
might well produce what was found in the JonBenet case.

Re the fingernails, where precisely does it say that he was using or relying on the 1997 lab report? (Source still required.)
It’s an interesting and classic straw man argument but you haven’t got even the slightest bit of proof.
The DNA from one of the samples from the crotch of the panties was analyzed using standard PCR STR testing for CODIS markers.
Are you suggesting that the samples from the fingernails were not, or could not have been later analyzed in that way?
You keep referring to Beckner and how he’s is going to straighten everyone out regarding this case and the DNA.
You are forgetting that Beckner was at the 2009 Task Force meeting, you know, the same meeting that Kolar was at – THE SAME MEETING WHERE ALL THE DNA INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED THAT KOLAR PRESENTS IN HIS BOOK. WHY DIDN’T BECKNER CORRECT ALL OF THIS "MISINFORMATION" DURING THE MEETING? ANSWER: THERE WAS NO "MISINFORMATION."
Just to be clear this is the full context:
It was not disclosed during the task force presentation the exact strength of these markers, or how they compared to other samples previously discovered on JonBenét’s body (i.e. The male and female DNA collected at autopsy from beneath her fingernails), but it did not prevent the outgoing DA from exonerating the Ramsey family in this murder investigation. Knowing the history of Mary Lacy’s announcements, I should not have been surprised when D. A. Investigator Andy Horita shed further light on the Touch DNA test results during the Cold Case Task Force meeting held in February 2009.
I had supervised Horita during my stint as chief investigator at the D.A.’s office, and it was my opinion that he had a promising future ahead of him. He had no experience as a police officer, but he was an extremely intelligent young man. He looked decidedly dejected as he delivered the news about the additional DNA test results. Horita confirmed the public announcements Lacy had made about matching DNA found in the leggings worn by JonBenét.
He went on to report, however, that additional samples of trace male DNA had been discovered on the cord used in the wrist bindings, and the garrote that had killed JonBenét. These trace “Touch DNA” samples were genetically unique from one another, and were believed to belong to different individuals. It took several moments for this information to be absorbed by the cadre of law enforcement experts filling the room before one of the female laboratory technicians voiced her observation. It went something like this: “Are you telling me, based on trace Touch DNA testing results, that we are now looking at six different people being involved in this murder?” Horita reluctantly nodded his head. We collectively recapped the DNA evidence that had been analyzed in this investigation, and it included the following:
1.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that was identified as belonging to her.
2.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an unidentified male.
3.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female DNA.)
4.) There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-2.
5.) The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear.
6.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the wrist bindings that belonged to a different unidentified male.
7.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the garrote that belonged to yet another unidentified male.
By our count, we were looking at six separate and independent DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising a group that consisted of five males and one female.
But there was more. Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét. This Touch DNA belonged to Patsy and Burke Ramsey. No surprise there: they all lived in the same house.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 412 - 414

[BOESP]

Seems to me that the clothing and ropes were exposed to possible DNA contact of many, many people before landing in the Ramsey house. For instance, the rope...how many handlers touched that rope before the person who put it around JonBenet's neck touched it. Where had this rope been prior to being on JonBenet?

Seems to me one could say the same about the brand-new, just-out-of-the-package panties.

Seems like the under-the-fingernail DNA could have come from anywhere in Boulder since JonBenet had so much contact with many children and adults in the days before her death.

The main reason folks seem to believe the DNA indicates it came from the Killer-Intruder is just because Mary Lacy said so. Whoever heard of anyone being exonerated until someone is arrested, tried and convicted?