DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

[TroyinTX]

WE all know that Beth Holloway is someone that is regarded as an advocate and fighter of injustice. She would not have gone near that man if she had any inkling he had hurt his dd. Her nod says a lot.

I have not seen this case discussed in years without the whole conversation being about how the R's were falsely accused..

Why? Because the evidence supports it.

Please provide links to some of these discussions where talking heads and pundits are claiming the Ramsey's were falsely accused? If there are that many of them that you can claim the "whole world" is turning toward their innocence, then they should be easy for you to find.

 

[tezi]

Please provide links to some of these discussions where talking heads and pundits are claiming the Ramsey's were falsely accused? If there are that many of them that you can claim the "whole world" is turning toward their innocence, then they should be easy for you to find.

We are going to be waiting for a long time, because with the exception of Don Abrams, well....

JMO

 

[FrayedKnot]

Most of the legal talking heads have started to talk about the R's as innocents and not guilty of anything.. The only place I really see them talked about as guilty is forums and books that people write.

Which ones? :waitasec:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Let's say for now that when I have seen this case talked about on tv the attitude is more of the police got it wrong and the r's are not guilty.

I saw it yesterday and in other interviews on cnn , abc, nbc.

 

[tezi]

Let's say for now that when I have seen this case talked about on tv the attitude is more of the police got it wrong and the r's are not guilty.

I saw it yesterday and in other interviews on cnn , abc, nbc.

Links please? Talking Heads names? Anything?

If not, I'll just discount this as another rumor. Or just your opinion? Because we all seem to be reminding you that this is your opinion and not the opinion of everyone.

JMO

 

[redheadedgal]

yes-- where are those links?

Please provide links to some of these discussions where talking heads and pundits are claiming the Ramsey's were falsely accused? If there are that many of them that you can claim the "whole world" is turning toward their innocence, then they should be easy for you to find.

We are going to be waiting for a long time, because with the exception of Don Abrams, well....

JMO

Which ones? :waitasec:

Links please? Talking Heads names? Anything?

yep, just as i figured... no evidence... just "i saw it on tv" to back up the asserted claim.

(continually stating one wants only "facts and evidence", this "backpedalling" when asked for the same facts and evidence in return, is just pathetic imo)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have seen it over and over.. <modsnip> I can not even find a link to Dan Abrams saying it yesterday yet he did. .( I have it on my DVR ). I will have to improve my google fu but I know it is out there. It will take a little more searching..

 

[Chelly]

yep, just as i figured... no evidence... just "i saw it on tv" to back up the asserted claim.

(continually stating one wants only "facts and evidence", this "backpedalling" when asked for the same facts and evidence in return, is just pathetic imo)

Everything on tv is real.
You see something on tv.
What you see is real.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Pretty sure the news is real.. Dan Abrams is a respected lawyer and legal expert.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Flaming.

Or, as we say down in Australia, flamin' drongos, fair dinkum.



Let's bring back the "sleuthing" which is, if you say something is fact, you link it.

:stormingmad:

Question of the Day: Does it make you even bigger of a fool if you argue with a fool?

Nah, it just proves I'm bored and had nothing better to do

 

[Venom]

About the dna:

The DNA was not found inside her body, he noted. It could have come from any number of sources or it could have been the result of cross contamination in the laboratory, he said.

from this article, which has some other good points http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2012/06/28/boulder-jonbenet-ramsey-boulder-beaten/4464/

 

[tezi]

About the dna:

The DNA was not found inside her body, he noted. It could have come from any number of sources or it could have been the result of cross contamination in the laboratory, he said.

from this article, which has some other good points http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2012/06/28/boulder-jonbenet-ramsey-boulder-beaten/4464/

Thank you! Another good explanation is Tricia's radio show where the DNA expert (he's a doctor) explains DNA. Fascinating show.

JMO

 

[DeDee]

Once again, the word "match" is only as relevant as the number of matching markers which the DA’s investigator, Andy Horita, by my reckoning, was too ashamed to reveal.

Here is an analogy that I’ve used before.
The following is a break out of what it takes to win in the Mega Millions Lottery
5 matches and the Mega ball = Jackpot
5 matches, not including the Mega ball = $250,000
4 matches and the Mega ball = $10,000
4 matches, not including the Mega ball = $150
3 matches and the Mega ball = $150
3 matches, not including the Mega ball = $7
2 matches and the Mega ball = $10
1 matched number and the Mega ball = $3
Match just the Mega ball = $2

You can say you are a winner in the Mega Millions lottery by not revealing the amount of numbers that you matched and consequently the amount of money won.
Let’s say you matched the Mega ball only. Now that technically makes you a winner in the lottery, but obviously the $2 dollar prize is not going to make your dreams come true.
Because Andy Horita was too ashamed to reveal the amount of markers in the touch DNA match, was he simply a $2 “winner” in the “Mega DNA” lottery?
The Ramsey were her friends, the evidence speaks for itself.

I pointed out that Ramsey attorneys had effectively withheld medical records from the prosecution during the investigation, and I specifically referred to John Ramsey’s interview of June 1998.51 I felt, that given the above information, we should be revisiting and intensifying our investigation of the involvement of the family. Among other things, we should be seeking the psychiatric records of Burke to determine if he had had any knowledge of the death of his sister, either through a grand jury or by asking the Ramseys for the information. I believed wholeheartedly that this was a viable investigative lead that deserved pursuit. If nothing came of it, then at least we could say that we had covered all of our bases. Mary Lacy’s response is something that I will have difficulty ever forgetting. She told me that she was unwilling to pursue that lead because she ‘didn’t want to harm her relationship with the Ramsey family.’
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 280 – 281
I prefer to refer to it as a careful evaluation of the evidence.
Not really, it would be nice, but as I suggested in an earlier post which one of the six profiles is going to satisfy die hard IDI’s.
Would it be one of the three fingernail profiles, perhaps the “garotte profile?”
5 out of 6 maybe?
Or, would it have to be a perfect 6 out of 6?
You have made sourcing the DNA an ultimatum, a condition of belief in anything further to do with RDI. It doesn't have to be, plenty of cases have been prosecuted with unidentified forensic evidence. It is simply discounted as unrelated to the case.
It comes down to how you evaluate the rest of the circumstantial and forensic evidence in the case.
I hate the fact that it will never be prosecuted barring something spectacular such as a confession from John or Burke.
I’m barely breaking a sweat beating up the DNA, it has self destructed. I’m just kicking the pieces around a bit.
<snip>
Lin Wood, however, may be many things, but he’s not a fool. Any lawsuit would be a very carefully measured decision and might not happen.

From Kolar, July 2012:

She cited the “unknown” male DNA found in JonBenet’s underwear, consistent with that found on the waistband of her leggings. “The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items,” she wrote. “Based on the DNA results and our serious consideration of all the other evidence, we are comfortable that the profile now in CODIS (the Combined DNA Index System) is the profile of the perpetrator of this murder.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html

The "unknown" male DNA found on two separate items of JBRs clothing. One of those male DNAs was mixed with JonBenet's blood in the size 12 Wednesday panties.
Significantly, Kolar was careful not to reveal GJ testimony. Could that be why it is included in his book? SPB raised its fugly head in BRs chapter. LHP stated, based upon the questions posed, that the GJ was zeroed in on PR.

On January 28, 2013, an unidentified source leaked to the news media that the 1999 grand jury believed there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for the death of their daughter, JonBenet.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

"We have a kidnapping."
"We have a DNA match."

 

[bettybaby00]

Love the analogy

Once again, the word "match" is only as relevant as the number of matching markers which the DA’s investigator, Andy Horita, by my reckoning, was too ashamed to reveal.

Here is an analogy that I’ve used before.
The following is a break out of what it takes to win in the Mega Millions Lottery
5 matches and the Mega ball = Jackpot
5 matches, not including the Mega ball = $250,000
4 matches and the Mega ball = $10,000
4 matches, not including the Mega ball = $150
3 matches and the Mega ball = $150
3 matches, not including the Mega ball = $7
2 matches and the Mega ball = $10
1 matched number and the Mega ball = $3
Match just the Mega ball = $2

I have a question for those who understand more than I...

If a match was made with someone in CODIS, the samples could only match for 10 markers, right ?

 

[questfortrue]

Love the analogy



I have a question for those who understand more than I...

If a match was made with someone in CODIS, the samples could only match for 10 markers, right ?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html

Dan Krane, a molecular biologist at Wright State University and a leading critic of the government’s stance on DNA evidence, agrees. "There is a public perception that DNA profiles are black and white," he told me. "The reality is that easily in half of all cases—namely, those where the samples are mixed or degraded—there is the potential for subjectivity."

“Studies of DNA databases elsewhere have revealed similar findings. In 2006, for instance, Illinois officials searched the state's offender database, which at the time contained 233,000 profiles. They found 903 pairs with nine or more matching DNA markers. Among geneticists and statisticians, these findings have eroded faith in the FBI’s DNA rarity statistics, which were based on data from just 200 or 300 people and are used by crime labs across the country.”

Here’s my understanding and others may feel compelled to jump in. (No dna expert, just reading about it :dunno. The fewer the markers, the more matches can be potentially found in these huge dna databases. It was a warning echoed by developer of dna profiling - Sir Alec Jeffreys. So if a match were found, and this was a sex offender who hated JR, and he could be traced to Denver/Boulder, well then a likely case could be built. Without the other evidence however, it may just be a “chance match” to someone who may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime.

And another dimension about transfer of dna: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a Scientists do not yet know with certainty how much secondary or even tertiary transfer can or should be considered. Chances exist of putting an innocent person’s dna somewhere it shouldn’t be.

 

[bettybaby00]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html

Dan Krane, a molecular biologist at Wright State University and a leading critic of the government’s stance on DNA evidence, agrees. "There is a public perception that DNA profiles are black and white," he told me. "The reality is that easily in half of all cases—namely, those where the samples are mixed or degraded—there is the potential for subjectivity."

“Studies of DNA databases elsewhere have revealed similar findings. In 2006, for instance, Illinois officials searched the state's offender database, which at the time contained 233,000 profiles. They found 903 pairs with nine or more matching DNA markers. Among geneticists and statisticians, these findings have eroded faith in the FBI’s DNA rarity statistics, which were based on data from just 200 or 300 people and are used by crime labs across the country.”

Here’s my understanding and others may feel compelled to jump in. (No dna expert, just reading about it :dunno. The fewer the markers, the more matches can be potentially found in these huge dna databases. It was a warning echoed by developer of dna profiling - Sir Alec Jeffreys. So if a match were found, and this was a sex offender who hated JR, and he could be traced to Denver/Boulder, well then a likely case could be built. Without the other evidence however, it may just be a “chance match” to someone who may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime.

And another dimension about transfer of dna: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a Scientists do not yet know with certainty how much secondary or even tertiary transfer can or should be considered. Chances exist of putting an innocent person’s dna somewhere it shouldn’t be.

Or put another way, partial sample = partial match!!

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO without it being sourced or reliably linked to the death of JonBenet, it's crap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Love the analogy



I have a question for those who understand more than I...

If a match was made with someone in CODIS, the samples could only match for 10 markers, right ?

Yes, it would match the ten markers.

If we use the FBI’s frequency rate of 13.66, then we could say that about one in every fourteen people “share” any one particular marker. In 1996 Boulder had a population of about 300,000 people, so that means the group of people who could “share” a single marker is around 21,428.

If we use the FBI’s frequency rate of 13.66 and FIVE markers: one in 475,612.75. Boulder had a population of about 300,00 back then, so that’s maybe six people who could share those same five markers.

Nine markers: one in 16,559,846,015.57

Ten: one in 226,207,496,572.73
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html

Dan Krane, a molecular biologist at Wright State University and a leading critic of the government’s stance on DNA evidence, agrees. "There is a public perception that DNA profiles are black and white," he told me. "The reality is that easily in half of all cases—namely, those where the samples are mixed or degraded—there is the potential for subjectivity."

“Studies of DNA databases elsewhere have revealed similar findings. In 2006, for instance, Illinois officials searched the state's offender database, which at the time contained 233,000 profiles. They found 903 pairs with nine or more matching DNA markers. Among geneticists and statisticians, these findings have eroded faith in the FBI’s DNA rarity statistics, which were based on data from just 200 or 300 people and are used by crime labs across the country.”

Here’s my understanding and others may feel compelled to jump in. (No dna expert, just reading about it :dunno. The fewer the markers, the more matches can be potentially found in these huge dna databases. It was a warning echoed by developer of dna profiling - Sir Alec Jeffreys. So if a match were found, and this was a sex offender who hated JR, and he could be traced to Denver/Boulder, well then a likely case could be built. Without the other evidence however, it may just be a “chance match” to someone who may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime.

And another dimension about transfer of dna: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a Scientists do not yet know with certainty how much secondary or even tertiary transfer can or should be considered. Chances exist of putting an innocent person’s dna somewhere it shouldn’t be.

The quote from Krane in your first paragraph and the quote in your second paragraph don’t seem to belong together. Do these quotes follow each other in the original source?
.

The Illinois database search shows the results of matching pairs and not matching individuals. This is an important distinction. The Illinois database had 233,000 profiles. 233,000 profiles gives us 27,144,383,500 pairs. Each pair gives us a potential match.

The number of matches doesn’t necessarily represent the number of individuals involved. Profiles are 13 markers each. There are 715 ways to match 9 out of 13 markers. This means that one individual could account for several matches.

There’s a good criticism/analysis of these sorts of studies here: http://dna-view.com/ArizonaMatch.htm

And, of course, although a partial match can indicate that the profiles came from blood-relatives, it is otherwise useless. A partial match is not a match, it is an exclusion.

None of this is relevant (yet) to the DNA profile obtained from Jonbenet’s clothing. It MIGHT (but should not) become relevant to DNA-Man’s defense (should such a person ever be identified, investigated and charged).
...

AK