Who owns the smoke and mirrors?

Who owns the smoke and mirrors?

  • PR and/or JR

    Votes: 9 90.0%
  • RDI

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • Total voters
    10
The fiction is that both PR DNA and JR DNA are present.
The report is plain that it was too close to call. Again, it’s clear that the lab is providing the so called “spin”. I am merely giving the flip side of the report. A great many people have been excluded, interesting that JR and PR were not.
 
The report is plain that it was too close to call. Again, it’s clear that the lab is providing the so called “spin”. I am merely giving the flip side of the report. A great many people have been excluded, interesting that JR and PR were not.

Its a flip side alright. And its your theory.

Just remember how many things had to happen for this to be the case.

1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear.
2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns.
3. JR and PR were both involved in murder.
4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA.
5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs.
6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS.
8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS.
9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA.
10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA.
 
Its a flip side alright. And its your theory.

Just remember how many things had to happen for this to be the case.

1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear.
2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns.
3. JR and PR were both involved in murder.
4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA.
5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs.
6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS.
8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS.
9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA.
10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA.

Flip, as in flipping the two headed coin that the DA used to decide what to do with lab report.
“Heads” it’s an intruder, “tails” it’s a mix. Well, what do you know; it came up “heads”.

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.”

1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear. As per the lab report, yes
2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns. They both contacted the long johns. JBR's, PR's, and JR's skin cells would be present.
3. JR and PR were both involved in murder. I believe that is not in serious dispute.
4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case.
5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs. No, the lab report gives two possibilities; the DA chose the one that would keep them on the Ramsey payroll. Bode simply looked for and found the CODIS profile.
6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case.
8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS. The lab report makes this a possibility, like it or not.
9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA. No evidence whatsoever that it is not. (Presumptive tests for saliva have been around for a long time.)
10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA. As I said before, it is hardly likely if they had more that it would not be announced. I doubt ML would have been able to control herself.
 
You do that, SD.

Don't patronize me, HOTYH. You brought it up, and for what it's worth, they're good questions and I'm willing to hear it out with you. But if you don't want to play your own game, there's no point in me wasting any time on it.

Meanwhile, I can take being shut out 7-0. Its no problem.

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific.

However, I will point out that while RDI can't prove PR and JR used smoke, I can prove RDI used mirrors.

Well, it's your right to feel that way, HOTYH. The way I look at it is, the only people who are fooled by the R's smoke and mirrors are the people who WANT to be fooled. I can't put it any plainer than that. And I ought to know. I resembled that remark for a long time.
 
Flip, as in flipping the two headed coin that the DA used to decide what to do with lab report.
“Heads” it’s an intruder, “tails” it’s a mix. Well, what do you know; it came up “heads”.

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.”

1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear. As per the lab report, yes
2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns. They both contacted the long johns. JBR's, PR's, and JR's skin cells would be present. JR grabbed JBR by the waist. The longjohns didn't necessarily have to reach that high at that time. That JR contacted the longjohns is an assumption on your part, stated as fact.
3. JR and PR were both involved in murder. I believe that is not in serious dispute. Yes it is. RDI believes there was NO MURDER.
4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add.
5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs. No, the lab report gives two possibilities; the DA chose the one that would keep them on the Ramsey payroll. Bode simply looked for and found the CODIS profile. Are you accusing the DA's office of a crime? Or is 'on the payroll' just a figure of speech?
6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add.
8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS. The lab report makes this a possibility, like it or not.
9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA. No evidence whatsoever that it is not. (Presumptive tests for saliva have been around for a long time.) Aha! Your premise involves the assumption that both are skin cell DNA. Just as I suspected. Your argument is based on assumption not fact, that is the lab could simply blow it away in a word. Unless you wish to modify your theory that they mixed saliva with skin and came up with the same DNA match, you've no idea that this mix theory is even a remote possibility.
10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA. As I said before, it is hardly likely if they had more that it would not be announced. I doubt ML would have been able to control herself. More assumptions. I'd say the reverse is more likely, based on the strength and wording of the exhoneration letter.

I dunno, its like you're on a rampage on your theory and want me to call the lab to see if its true.
 
I dunno, its like you're on a rampage on your theory and want me to call the lab to see if its true.
1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear. As per the lab report, yes
2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns. They both contacted the long johns. JBR's, PR's, and JR's skin cells would be present. JR grabbed JBR by the waist. The longjohns didn't necessarily have to reach that high at that time. That JR contacted the longjohns is an assumption on your part, stated as fact. I see, so it’s a game of inches now?
3. JR and PR were both involved in murder. I believe that is not in serious dispute. Yes it is. RDI believes there was NO MURDER.???
4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add. Actually I’m not contesting the results at all. You are by refusing to acknowledge that various Ramsey family members are not excluded as donors as long as two are acting together. (One of which must be a male.)
5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs. No, the lab report gives two possibilities; the DA chose the one that would keep them on the Ramsey payroll. Bode simply looked for and found the CODIS profile. Are you accusing the DA's office of a crime? Or is 'on the payroll' just a figure of speech? I will leave that to your imagination.
6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add. Actually I’m not contesting the results at all. You are by refusing to acknowledge that various Ramsey family members are not excluded as donors as long as two are acting together. (One of which must be a male.)
8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS. The lab report makes this a possibility, like it or not.
9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA. No evidence whatsoever that it is not. (Presumptive tests for saliva have been around for a long time.) Aha! Your premise involves the assumption that both are skin cell DNA. Just as I suspected. Your argument is based on assumption not fact, that is the lab could simply blow it away in a word. Unless you wish to modify your theory that they mixed saliva with skin and came up with the same DNA match, you've no idea that this mix theory is even a remote possibility. My argument is based on the lab report which as I have said gave the DA two paths to follow. I am pointing out that PR and JR acting together and consequently leaving DNA behind is a possibility that was not excluded by the lab. I have read that some 200 people have been excluded on the basis of DNA, and yet in this lab report we find that JR and PR are not.
10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA. As I said before, it is hardly likely if they had more that it would not be announced. I doubt ML would have been able to control herself. More assumptions. I'd say the reverse is more likely, based on the strength and wording of the exhoneration letter. If ML had a stronger profile available she would have flaunted it.

BTW, I am not “on a rampage” with respect to this theory. If people didn’t grab the screen captures of the DNA report, I would not have considered this theory. The lab report exists, that is a fact. It is the only DNA lab report that anyone in the general public has ever seen (although we were probably not meant to see it).
As I have said repeatedly, it does not exonerate PR and JR as long as they acted together. It also suggests that a single unknown donor may be responsible.

If there is unknown male DNA present then there are a number of plausible “innocent” explanations.
Just a sampling from your …and perhaps an innocent explanation… thread:

“The Ramseys had had huge exposure to stranger DNA that day; their clothes and hands and faces had not been washed; Patsy admitted to hating doing laundry and, in fact, JBR's bedroom floor was was scattered with dirty clothing (including undies with faecal matter on them) and no one knew when JBR had last been bathed or how freshly-laundered the LJs were; the Ramseys' clothes were not tested at the appropriate time to find whatever traces of DNA there were on them; this is touch DNA.” .

“Well, just off the top of my head, here's something. As you know, kids at that age get into a lot of trouble. I certainly did. When I was that young, we had Christmas parties at other people's houses too. During the evening, it was customary for the kids to be alone with the kids and the adults to be alone with the adults. This was usually just before dinner. It seems possible that this could have happened. So, JB and the other children are alone and they start getting ideas. Pretty soon one of the boys decides to see what makes a girl a girl. I don't know why, but that idea has always struck me.”

“Secondary transfer via hand contact by one or more of the following: JBR, PR, JR.
Secondary transfer through use of a contaminated item such as a wash cloth or towel.
Contamination and / or cross-contamination by someone involved in the collection, testing or storage of the long johns and panties.”

“IF one of her parents shook hands with the male donor at the White's (or touched something the male donor had touched) some of the donor DNA transferred to the parent(s) hands. When they pulled the long johns and panties on some of the skin cells got on those items.
JB herself could also have touched those same surfaces at the White's, including toilet handles and surfaces. This could explain the long johns, but not the panties unless she wore those huge size 12s to the White's (as Patsy suggested) but I don't think she did.”

“WRT the DNA, JBR scratching (as we all do) could transfer a fair bit of DNA. I'd imagine that a child with chronic vaginitis who hadn't been bathed for a day or two and who had on brand new undies that hadn't been washed before being worn would do some scratching. I don't see why the DNA on the Bloomies coming into contact with the LJs during the redressing can't also be seen as a reasonable explanation for the DNA. Dr Lee demonstrated that unwashed, new Bloomies usually have DNA on them. The Bloomies obviously came into contact with the LJs. Also, the coroner touched both and could have transferred the DNA from one to another. I have actually today discussed this with someone, who, while not a forensic DNA expert, works on the Human Genome Project so knows more than most about it. Her biggest concern was contamination and lab procedure failure which are both more common than we'd like to believe. It's also common currency among DNA scientists that prosecutors aren't yet properly educated in interpreting DNA evidence.”
 
I dunno, its like you're on a rampage on your theory and want me to call the lab to see if its true.

Hi Hotyh.

When you call the lab, I wouldn't mind knowing about the process of using a 'control' in the touch dna test of the longjohns, how do we know that the longjohns were not previously worn by the IDI dna source/donor?
 
Hi Hotyh.

When you call the lab, I wouldn't mind knowing about the process of using a 'control' in the touch dna test of the longjohns, how do we know that the longjohns were not previously worn by the IDI dna source/donor?

According to the Bode website, the simple washing of clothes removes touch DNA.
 
Hi Hotyh.

When you call the lab, I wouldn't mind knowing about the process of using a 'control' in the touch dna test of the longjohns, how do we know that the longjohns were not previously worn by the IDI dna source/donor?

Darn fine question.

HoldontoyourHat said:
According to the Bode website, the simple washing of clothes removes touch DNA.

True, but do we know when they were washed last?
 
Hi Hotyh.

When you call the lab, I wouldn't mind knowing about the process of using a 'control' in the touch dna test of the longjohns, how do we know that the longjohns were not previously worn by the IDI dna source/donor?



Great question...Now this is possible cause not every child are the same size..A boy can be 9 and fits smaller clothes...See all the time....And if a friend did stay a night with BR on a whim could had fit those longjohns and since they didn't look that girly....


And can Bode tell us when things have been washed last...
 
My argument is based on the lab report which as I have said gave the DA two paths to follow. I am pointing out that PR and JR acting together and consequently leaving DNA behind is a possibility that was not excluded by the lab. I have read that some 200 people have been excluded on the basis of DNA, and yet in this lab report we find that JR and PR are not.

What lab report?

Is this the lab report from the underwear DNA that somebody waved around on TV years and years ago?

If this is true, then maybe a 'mix potential' existed then, and not necessarily now. Is there a lab report from Bode that also identifies a potential mix?

Both labs have to present a potential mix in order for your theory to hold any water. Therefore if Bode said their DNA matched CODIS DNA it can't be assumed it matched because they also had a mix. They developed the DNA the usual way and that reduces the risk of a mix as compared to LCN DNA. Bode could state right now that a mix is impossible. Remember they pulled DNA from both sides of the longjohns and they both matched.

The chances that three (3) independent mixes of DNA would result in the same >9 marker values, thus being interpreted as the same DNA profile, is astronomically remote.
 
What lab report?

Is this the lab report from the underwear DNA that somebody waved around on TV years and years ago?

If by years and years ago, you mean back in 2006, then yes.

As I have said previously, the only lab report referencing DNA in this case that the general public has ever seen is the one referring to the bloodstain.

They developed the DNA the usual way and that reduces the risk of a mix as compared to LCN DNA.
To my knowledge, LCN procedures were not used in this case by any lab.
You seem to be under the impression that DNA testing done in the “normal way” is somehow unassailable. DNA is normally processed in the “normal way”, just as the bloodstain was processed in the “normal way”
If processing in the "normal way" is so perfect, then why were there only 9 ½ loci in the “unknown” DNA profile?
If processing in the “normal way” is without issues, then why only 2 or 3 markers in the DNA found under the fingernails of JBR?
Processing in the “normal way” means only two things:
The sample tested had a minimum of 250 picograms of DNA present.
And
The sample was amplified using about 28 PCR cycles.
That doesn't mean it's not subject to any problems or misinterpretation. It does mean that it's subject to fewer problems than a sample that needs LCN processing in order to obtain a profile or partial profile.

Dependent upon the casework assessment, coupled with information about the quantity of DNA present, a decision is made whether to analyze using 28 cycles (conventional: >250 pg in the total PCR reaction) or whether LCN protocols are followed (4), using 34 PCR cycles if <250 pg and/or the DNA is highly degraded.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/33/2/632.pdf

Getting in touch with "touch" DNA
When people touch things, they leave behind "touch DNA," explains Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "Some people upon touching things slough off more cells from the skin of their fingertips than others," says Kobilinsky, who serves as a consultant to national news programs on issues related to forensic science. "How many cells they slough off depends, in part, on whether they're sweating a lot, for example. Or, there could be health-related reasons that cause some people to slough off more skin cells than others."

To obtain a DNA profile, he says, "in theory, all you need is one cell. In practice, however, using PCR commercial technology, 1 nanogram (or 150 to 160 cells) of DNA is required for amplification. A typical diploid cell has about 6.6 picograms of DNA (a picogram is 1/1,000th of a nanogram)."

Low copy number DNA profiling, used in the UK on DNA from fingerprints or partial fingerprints, typically uses only five to 20 cells, he continues. "If you use an ordinary PCR technique on these five to 20 cells, you will not get any results," he says. "But if you modify the amplification procedure, you can produce a DNA profile. Some laboratories do this using 'nested PCR;' you have PCR within a PCR, like a double PCR procedure. Other methods extend the number of replication cycles. Normally, PCR is performed with a number of temperature shifts to drive the replication process. Each cycle consists of three temperature shifts that result in a doubling of DNA. Normally, 30 cycles are performed for a typical normal amplification. However, in the case of low copy number analysis, although you can get a DNA profile, a stochastic effect can occur. Sometimes instead of all genes or alleles (one variant of a gene) being amplified, one or more may simply drop out. In the overall genetic profile for the specimen, you would then be missing several genes and therefore the result could be misleading. The genetic profile that you get is not always the right profile. Allele drop out is only one problem. Another is 'spurious' alleles appearing that have nothing to do with the case, perhaps because they were there before the crime was committed.
http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/DNA-from-Fingerprints/1$25197


Both labs have to present a potential mix in order for your theory to hold any water. Therefore if Bode said their DNA matched CODIS DNA it can't be assumed it matched because they also had a mix. Bode could state right now that a mix is impossible. Remember they pulled DNA from both sides of the longjohns and they both matched.

The chances that three (3) independent mixes of DNA would result in the same >9 marker values, thus being interpreted as the same DNA profile, is astronomically remote.

An example of a full 13 loci/marker profile that might be found in CODIS:
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (9, 9.3), (8,8), (11, 11), (X, Y)
(From my DNA Revisited thread)

Let&#8217;s subtract a few markers to bring it to 9 ½
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, not available), (X, Y)

When looking for a &#8220;match&#8221; you are looking for peaks on an electopherogram that correspond those positions.

The first lab report indicates that after JBR is removed from a JBR, PR and JR mix that is possible to interpret the remaining information that you are left with as:

Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, not available), (X, Y)

As long as further touch DNA testing reveals 9 ½ markers or less, this profile could be found in 2,3, or more locations on the long johns, it all can still be interpreted in the same way that the bloodstain mix was interpreted because those alleles exist at those markers when JR and PR leave their DNA behind on a given surface.

As I have stated before, we have absolutely no idea as to whether Bode found 5, 5 ½, 6, 6 ½, 7, 7 1/2, 8, 8 ½, 9 or 9 ½ markers in the touch DNA profile. If they found more than 9 ½ markers, the CODIS profile should have been updated to reflect this new finding.
Where is the headline?:
DA Mary Lacy announces a full intruder profile has been found using touch DNA! New profile uploaded to CODIS.
It is quite possible, that even less that 9 ½ markers were found. This does not imply any dishonesty, as there certainly can be a &#8220;match&#8221; with 7 &#8211; 9 markers. What was dishonest, and spin of the highest order, was Lin Wood&#8217;s contention that the contaminated DNA from beneath JBR&#8217;s fingernails &#8220;matched&#8221; the bloodstain DNA based on 2 or 3 markers.

There is a method available to determine whether the male DNA component in this case is from a known male donor such as JR. Y-STR testing targets male specific loci and was developed largely as a means of distinguishing male DNA donors in gang rape scenarios.
And, as has been suggested by many, other items of evidence that would be difficult to explain by an intruder theory should also be tested using Touch DNA analysis. These items should include at least the ligature and paint brush handle.
 
When looking for a &#8220;match&#8221; you are looking for peaks on an electopherogram that correspond those positions.

Ok but this might be a little misleading.

Its not a yes/no at each marker. Each marker has an amplitude or value. If there is a mix, these values are not going to repeat very well from one sample to another. If there is no mix, that is if it represents an actual person, this value will repeat from sample to sample. Thats why they use DNA to identify people in the first place.

If the mix theory were as valid as portrayed here, there would never be a DNA case anywhere.

Like I've said before, Bode would reject the mix theory out-of-hand in two seconds, and provide a solid basis for doing so.
 
Ok but this might be a little misleading. Its not a yes/no at each marker.
Actually it is. If you are looking for alleles 8 and 12 at a particular locus/marker and those are alleles are present in the sample being analyzed then you have a match. You then move on to the next marker and so on.

Each marker has an amplitude or value.
At each locus, there will be either one peak or two if the DNA is from only one individual. There will be one peak if the donor inherited the same allele from both parents or two peaks representing two different inherited alleles. What happens if a touch DNA sample has skin cells from two donors? At each locus there will be anywhere from 2 to 4 peaks. With three donors there would be 3 to 6 and so on. The peak heights are determined by the scale used by the lab, and the amount of DNA in the sample.

If there is a mix, these values are not going to repeat very well from one sample to another. If there is no mix, that is if it represents an actual person, this value will repeat from sample to sample. Thats why they use DNA to identify people in the first place.
Touch DNA is obtained by obtaining DNA from skin cells that have been sloughed off.
One person making contact with an item will leave behind skin cells that will be found by a razor scrape.
Two people making contact with an item will both leave skin cells that will be found by a razor scrape.
The sole difference is that the DNA sample will be larger as a result of two people leaving behind approximately twice the amount that one donor would.

If the mix theory were as valid as portrayed here, there would never be a DNA case anywhere.
In terms of your feeling that this somehow invalidates all DNA testing, that is of course not true. Unidentified DNA from blood or semen has always been and always will be very solid evidence. It simply and obviously does not have the “transfer” potential that skin cells do.
Let’s face it, unknown DNA from semen found on JBR would be far different from what we have here.
In terms of epithelial cell transfer, whether through primary, secondary or tertiary transfer more care will be needed to consider the possible ways that DNA may have come to be where it was found with respect to a criminal investigation. In cases where trace evidence from skin is the sole source of DNA, it ceases to be the “smoking gun” and must be weighed carefully with other evidence in the case to determine its relevance.
In terms of the “mix theory”, again, as I have said in a number of posts, the lab statement is clear in providing two possibilities
1. An individual unidentified male donor.
2. A mix, potentially involving JR and PR.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits

Like I've said before, Bode would reject the mix theory out-of-hand in two seconds, and provide a solid basis for doing so.
How could they reject something that they may not be aware of? If they were given the CODIS profile which is simply a set of alleles at particular loci, they looked for those alleles, they found them, and declared they had a match.


A little food for thought with respect to touch DNA:

First, "touch DNA," like standard DNA and fingerprints for that matter, doesn't tell the investigator when the DNA was left on the evidence. It could have been left an hour ago or a week ago. Of course the investigator may be able to narrow down the time range based on certain facts of the particular case.

An example is a suspect's baseball cap left behind at a murder scene. The lab swabs the inside and outside of the hat. A DNA profile from two individuals is developed. Even if there's more DNA from one contributor than the other, you still can't say who was wearing the hat at the time of the murder.

Also, "touch DNA" is so sensitive that it's possible to pick up background DNA. For example, if a shirt is made by hand, then someone has touched the shirt even before it's packaged and sold. It's possible "touch DNA" could liberate these skin cells from the evidence, even though this person has nothing to do with the investigation.

And of course, "touch DNA" doesn't tell the investigator how the DNA made its way onto an item. It doesn't provide the culpable mental state of the individual that committed the crime.

It's up to the lawyers to argue whether the "touch DNA" is the result of a casual contact, or from the suspect forcefully grabbing the victim's shirt. The bottom line is that good police work is necessary to piece together the events surrounding the commission of the crime.

Schleicher wants agencies to be aware of the power and limitations of the technology. Agencies need to clearly understand the questions they want answered. Why is this piece of evidence important? What will it tell me about the commission of the crime? Law enforcement agencies just need to be prepared for the answers, even if the answers aren't what they were expecting.

David Spraggs is a major crimes detective and a certified bomb tech for the Boulder (Colo.) Police Department. He is a member of the POLICE Advisory Board and a frequent contributor.
http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Technology/Articles/2008/12/Just-a-Touch/Page/2.aspx
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
967
Total visitors
1,040

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,708
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top