A Glass of Tea and DNA.

[PagingDrDetect]

Originally Posted by SleuthingSleuth
I do agree it's a big sign of bungling when neither the spoon nor the tea glass were tested for DNA....especially when the mother of the victim swears she knows nothing about the bowl, while other family members recognize it. And also when she's puzzled about a used glass being on her table.

Why in the world would the glass or the bowl be tested for DNA??? The only reason to test for DNA is to discover evidence that has a DIRECT correlation to the crime. Finding a glass and a bowl on the kitchen table in an entirely separate room on an entirely separate floor from where the body was found, when there is no way of knowing how long those items were there and who may have had contact with them, when there is zero evidence that they have anything whatsoever to do with the crime is not only completely pointless but grossly expensive.

DNA sampling would be done on a body, the clothing a body had on, an instrument that may be determined to have been the murder weapon, fingernail scrapings... anything with a reasonable certainty that would not have been contaminated by the DNA of innocent parties who may have come into contact with sampled items. DNA sampling would also be done by cheek swab or blood sample in order to rule out innocents. Contamination is key as well as the significance of the thing to be sampled.

The kitchen is not the crime scene. There is nothing significant about the bowl or the glass as neither would have in any way been interpreted to have anything to do with the crime. The only significance of the glass and the bowl is that someone at some time recently (which may have been that night or that day) probably drank tea and ate pineapple there... big deal. This has NOTHING to do with the crime. The bowl and the glass are ONLY significant because at some time MUCH later, Patsy denied even owning the bowl.

There is a very good reason why only a very small number of crime experts are allowed to get even CLOSE to a body... risk of contamination of the crime scene. The most major bungling that the BPD did was allow JR to search the house as he came upon the body and contaminated the crime scene. Det. Arndt further contaminated the body by picking it up again and moving it by the tree, allowing Patsy to touch it, and then moving it again to the sofa. DNA of THOUSANDS of people could have been deposited on the body by placing it on the floor in two separate locations and then again on the sofa as just days before there were thousands of people who had been in the house during the Ramsey's Open House depositing their DNA everywhere.

Even if for some odd reason they tested the glass and the bowl for DNA, there is no possible way that whoever's DNA may be discovered on those items could ever point to a suspect. If DNA was discovered on those items that was not a member of the family, what does that prove? Not a damn thing that in any way can be linked to JBR's murder. If DNA was discovered on those items that DID belong to any family member, what does that prove? Nothing whatsoever that can be linked to JBR's murder. So, what would be the purpose of testing either of these items for DNA?

DNA testing is VERY expensive and serves no purpose when whatever items being sampled could reasonably be assumed to be contaminated by the DNA of innocents. There is a very good reason why if I wanted your DNA sample I'd take it by a cheek swab or blood sample as there's no way the saliva in your mouth or the blood in your body would be contaminated by anyone else's DNA. I would NOT get it by testing a pencil on your desk because there is no way to be reasonably certain that the DNA of innocents that may have touched, coughed or sneezed on that pencil would not be discovered and falsely assumed to be yours.

This is also why chain of custody in collecting DNA samples for testing is vital... to preserve the integrity of the sample so whatever is discovered from that sample can't be shot down in court.

Fingerprints are different because they can't be contaminated. They are also comparatively cheaper to collect and test. This is why investigators can test nearly anything for fingerprints and tend to dust nearly anything for prints. It would be reasonable to test the glass and bowl for prints as that would determine who touched that glass or that bowl. But even if foreign prints were found on either the glass or the bowl, that wouldn't be very significant either as they could be the prints of a houseguest... a houseguest could have touched the glass or the bowl at some point long before and left their prints on it. Also, fingerprints don't always wash away with soap and water, particularly on a glass and one that was cleaned by a dishwasher.

Fingerprints are more significant because of where or on what they were found. Patsy's fingerprints on that glass or bowl aren't significant in and of themselves... her lying about owning or ever seeing that bowl, however, DOES make the fingerprints on the bowl significant.

I get the feeling that a lot of people here just don't understand DNA forensics at all. Although that isn't surprising because most people anywhere don't. However, I think the basics are important for anyone crime sleuthing to understand in order to be able to construct any kind of decent argument or theory involving a criminal case such as this.

 

[Bev]

when you make a cup of tea, you let the bag steep for a few minutes and then take it out. Since most people who make a mug or cup of tea at home aren't going to go to the trouble of getting a saucer out (one reason being that the tea bag placed on the saucer makes the cup drip) for a cup of tea, they're going to put the tea bag in a glass, plate, bowl or whatever is on the table when you sit down to drink it. Anyone who drinks tea knows this, so Patsy's answer is disengenuous at best. She knows you don't make tea in a glass - you make it in a mug or cup and when you take the tea bag out you put it in whatever is handy.

 

[UKGuy]

when you make a cup of tea, you let the bag steep for a few minutes and then take it out. Since most people who make a mug or cup of tea at home aren't going to go to the trouble of getting a saucer out (one reason being that the tea bag placed on the saucer makes the cup drip) for a cup of tea, they're going to put the tea bag in a glass, plate, bowl or whatever is on the table when you sit down to drink it. Anyone who drinks tea knows this, so Patsy's answer is disengenuous at best. She knows you don't make tea in a glass - you make it in a mug or cup and when you take the tea bag out you put it in whatever is handy.

Bev,

Anyone who drinks tea knows this, so Patsy's answer is disengenuous at best. She knows you don't make tea in a glass - you make it in a mug or cup and when you take the tea bag out you put it in whatever is handy.

You make an important point thank you. Although I had already considered this, I assumed there may be some american tea making procedure I am unaware of? Now I thought just who is going to drink hot tea from a water-glass, it would be too hot for a child to hold, never mind drink?

And also:

Sweet tea is just sweetened iced tea. You'd drink it in a glass, but it's tend to made in bulk (like a jug's worth.) There wouldn't be a tea bag.

I remember this as a kid (yup, I'm a southern boy.)

It'd make more sense if someone heated up water and then put the tea bag in - i.e. hot tea. Especially since it was winter in Colorado and chilly.

So I Bev I reckon I would go along with what you suggest, i.e. The water-glass was merely a receptacle for the used teabag.

Also who knows who placed it there or when?

This firms up my suspicion that JonBenet consumed the pineapple elsewhere in the house.


.

 

[angelwngs]

Did any of you read the email communication posted here or at JF, (can't remember which forum I found it), from JMK to a 'friend' which mentioned leaving the country which he was in at the time and 'taking a case of pineapples' and skipping out....??? It was an ironic choice of fruits for him to choose to pack as part of an 'escape fantasy'...IMO.

 

[Backwoods]

Do people really let 10-year-old boys drink tea after 10pm at night? Isn't the caffeine a problem? (Just wondering. Tea isn't something I'd give a child that age.)

Sweet tea comes right after mother's milk to a lot of us in the South--start drinking it early in life!