DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

[Anti-K]

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

No. Partial sample means fewer that the targeted number of markers were identified. Different kits target different numbers of markers. Back in the OJ days, iirc, the standard was 6, but they wanted to be sure with OJ so they looked for 8 markers. IIRC. The jbr fingernail DNA and the first blood spot DNA was probably 6 or 8 (i forget).

Back in the OJ days, if they used 6 markers and 6 markers were found than that would be a full profile. If they look for 10 markers and they find 10 than that would be a full profile. If they looked for 15 markers and they find 15 than that would be a full profile. And, if they looked for 15 and only found 13, than that would be a partial profile.

Now, the standard is 13. The CODIS sample is 10. It is a partial profile. If CODIS matches that profile the match will be 10 out of 10 markers. It will not be a partial match. A partial match would be any number less than 10 and any number less than 10 means that the profiles do not match. All 10 markers must be the same or the profiles do not match.
...

AK

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

We have kidnapping! - Patsy Ramsey
We have a DNA match!. - Mary Lacy

 

[redheadedgal]

bump!

 

[questfortrue]

Another wealth of information via Cynic in this thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?90999-DNA-Revisited
Page 4 very informative
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?90999-DNA-Revisited/page4

 

[Cottonstar]

<modsnip>
You can not discount DNA that has a second source and is a match. It is completely irresponsible and no real investigator would ignore it. However if it is in a book that makes someone a name or money, That would be a bias.

There is a reason that the rest of the world has turned the corner and no longer sees the R's as suspects. There is a reason why Beth Holloway dated this man..

Yes, because John Ramsey is a master manipulator.

 

[Louis Sun]

There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles &#8211; five male profiles and one female profile.
DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet&#8217;s genetic profile on both sides.
In addition to JonBenet&#8217;s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)
The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified male #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers)

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Touch DNA (TDNA) testing, all presumably done at the Bode facility revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings &#8211; male #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the &#8220;garrote&#8221; &#8211; male #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)

(Also, TDNA on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét was identified as belonging to BR and PR.)

A full CODIS profile has 13 markers; any profile with fewer markers is a partial profile. All DNA profiles in this case are partial profiles
The highest quality DNA, and the only profile in this case that has been entered in the CODIS database, at 10 markers, is Distal Stain 007-2
All other DNA is weaker, in other words, less markers.

Kolar&#8217;s book confirmed the speculation that the profile from one of the blood spots that eventually ended up in CODIS originally had only 9 markers.
The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers, and like the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét&#8217;s fingernails, was of insufficient strength to be entered into the state and national databases. Moreover, the sample was so small that technicians were not able to identify the biological origin of the exemplar.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

Eventually a 10th marker was identified which then met the minimum standard for entry into CODIS:

DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department&#8217;s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in JonBenét&#8217;s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases. This laboratory success didn&#8217;t take place until 2002, nearly 6 years after the murder of JonBenét
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 &#8211; 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 303 - 304

The profiles found from the fingernail clippings of JonBenet were presumably not from the non-sterile nail clippers that the coroner was in the habit of using.
(However, to the best of my knowledge, clippers are not used in medical autopsies, only in autopsies performed for legal reasons. I don&#8217;t know the reasons for those eight prior autopsies. Therefore, as an example, if the last time the clippers were actually used was 10 autopsies ago it would have missed by this screening process.)
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&#8217;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.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138

Amylase or something else?
Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI&#8217;s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, and it had been theorized by other investigators in the case that someone involved in the production phase of this clothing article could have been the source of this unknown DNA sample. It was thought that this could have been deposited there by coughing, sneezing, or spitting or through a simple transfer of saliva on the hands of a garment handler.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138

The only test that &#8220;flashes blue,&#8221; in the presence of amylase is the Phadebas test. Take note of some of the things which can produce a false positive:
What is the Phadebas Press Test? How specific is it and what can cause a false positive result?
The Phadebas Press Test uses a filterpaper &#8220;test sheet&#8221; impregnated with an insoluble starch-dye complex. The test sheets are moistened with sterile water and then laid on an article of evidence. Saliva present on the item being examined will contain &#945;-amylase that will hydrolyze the starch in the overlying area of the test sheet. This process releases a blue dye to form a blue stain that co-localizes with the position of the saliva stain. Areas of the evidence that do not contain &#945;-amylase should not show the presence of a blue stain. Phadebas Press Test provides only a presumptive indication of saliva and is not human specific. This test is known to yield false positive results with fecal samples and some investigators have reported positive results with vaginal swabs, human milk, some plant materials and the saliva of animals including dogs and cats. Positive results have also been reported as very likely resulting from secondary transfer of saliva (e.g., from the hands to an article of clothing).
http://forsci-associates.com/serologysaliva.html

Pro and con for the &#8220;sweatshop&#8221; theory
Pro:
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.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 304
Con:
Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in &#8216;off-the-shelf&#8217; children&#8217;s underwear
[SNIP]
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&#8217;s underwear.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 - 305

Conclusions (from the book.)

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.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 305

The same theoretical principles of transfer thought to be involved in the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét&#8217;s nails could be applied to the transfer of genetic material from her underwear to the leggings. &#8220;Cloth to cloth&#8221; transfer could be responsible for this new evidence.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 427

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. The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 305

 

[Louis Sun]

Hi, Cynic
were the other panties size 12 tested for dna? Wouldn't testing the other panties in the package be reasonable to compare if any trace DNA came from them?

 

[cynic]

Hi, Cynic
were the other panties size 12 tested for dna? Wouldn't testing the other panties in the package be reasonable to compare if any trace DNA came from them?

To the best of my knowledge, testing of the other underwear was not performed.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t but we may never find out any details.
Testing would be of value, but as with much of the findings thus far with other tested items, the results would be open to the usual debate.