Day 7 The DNA/ 12 Days of JonBenet

[Tricia]

Where do we start...how about this. Let's make this as simple as possible.

The DNA is a red herring. It is "touch" DNA meaning it's not bits of flesh or big blood stains.

What is "Touch DNA"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA

Touch DNA is a forensic method for analysing DNA left at the scene of a crime. It is called "touch DNA" because it only requires very small samples, for example from the skin cells left on an object after it has been touched or casually handled.[SUP][1][/SUP] Touch DNA analysis only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of human skin.[SUP][2][/SUP] The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination — for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Because of the risk of false positives, it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.[SUP][5][/SUP]

Remember how excited people became because the DNA in JonBenet's panties (touch DNA) had to belong to the Intruder because the panties were brand new so where else could the DNA have come from?

From James Kolar's book Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet : Page 272

" Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigation 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 manufacture/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 fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.

Under those sircumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the uderwear and that its presence may have nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenet"

Even former Boulder DA Mary ( I never met a Ramsey intruder I didn't love ) Lacy had to admit that the DNA could be an artifact.
She thought John Mark Karr was the killer and was just thrilled to parade him around. Of course, his DNA didn't match. So what does Mary Lacy say? She says, "The DNA might be an artifact". Even Mary Lacy is forced to admit there is a chance the DNA doesn't mean anything.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Press-Conference-About-John-Mark-Karr-8-29-06

Simply put I don't think it takes an expert to realize we all have touch DNA on use. All over us. It means nothing. It means we have come in contact with dust, air, and other people in our day to day routines.

What about the DNA in the underwear matching the DNA on the long johns? Ok, easy explanation. When putting the underpants on JonBenet the underwear brushed up against the long johns. Transferred touch DNA.

This is very easy to understand.

There are so many members who are oodles smarter than I am. Please weigh in on the DNA.

Let's put the DNA to rest once and for all.

To pretend that the touch DNA is the key to solving this case you have to IGNORE the ransom note, IGNORE the pineapple and the bowl, IGNORE the Ramsey lies, IGNORE all the strange things that went on with Burke, IGNORE the beaver hair on the tape, IGNORE so many other things that they slip my mind.

DNA, it can mean nothing in a criminal case.

 

[Lamima]

So ALL of the DNA they found was touch DNA...no blood, semen or saliva? I find it interesting that they never make that clear on all these shows. Like the ID show last night didn't even mention touch DNA at all. Just said unidentified DNA in her underwear (not sure if Part 1 or Part 2 I watched on demand).

When the crime scene was not secured and dozens of people walked all through the house and JR and FW went to basement and moved the body...the touch DNA and the boot print just can't be used as any kind of evidence IMO.

 

[cynic]

I would recommend the following threads over at Forums for Justice.
The first link details DNA information from James Kolar’s book.
The second link provides an overview of the issues surrounding DNA in this case and DNA in general
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10137-DNA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9966-Problems-with-DNA-results-amp-DNA-tutorials

 

[Kittybunny]

Hi all, although I have never posted before in this forum, I have followed this case for quite some time. I read PMPT awhile back and I admit to never fully committing to either RDI or IDI and remaining open to what I think is evidence strong enough to push me off that fence. DNA Evidence is one of those and I have always taken at face value the claims by Boulder PD and others in the know that the DNA was an artifact, and came from either the manufacturing process or contamination from the lab. I know many scoffed or dismissed the A&E Special, which admittedly was heavily pro-Ramsey, however there were a few points made or at least discussed that gave me pause and made me not be so quick to discount the DNA stuff anyway.

1. The DNA came from several different places, not just one, making it highly unlikely that it was a manufacturing artifact. I also thought they said it was on different articles of clothing? I know for sure one was on either side of the waistband of her leggings which definitely seems like an odd place for random DNA as opposed to it resulting from the action of pulling those on/off.
2. All lab workers, technicians, etc. were eliminated as a source of the DNA.
3. That the person could likely be of Hispanic origin.

Thoughts? It seems like everyone here is very strongly committed one way or another (mostly RDI) so I'm not trying to push one theory or another. I'm truly on the fence or maybe a flip-flopper is more accurate.

Also, I know there has been a lot of discussion regarding Burke as a possible perp, but I saw the snapshot in which he was excluded as a source of DNA, and I just don't believe that a 9-year old wouldn't get DNA on the crime scene, not having the sophistication to understand or even know what that was. Also, I find myself skeptical that all DNA is that easy to clean - after all there are a number of cases in which the perp tries to use water, bleach, etc. to clean - unsuccessfully I might add.

On the other hand...so so many bizarre things that are difficult to explain with an IDI theory...I mean really really illogical and difficult to IGNORE as was said above...so I don't know. This case drives me crazy!!!

P.S. I just saw the links above by Cynic, I will be checking those out ASAP, thank you!!!

 

[BBB167893]

So ALL of the DNA they found was touch DNA...no blood, semen or saliva?

I don't know if ALL of it was tDNA, but there was definitely no blood or semen.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I'll just politely bow out of this thread.

 

[IndianPaintbrush]

1. The DNA came from several different places, not just one, making it highly unlikely that it was a manufacturing artifact. I also thought they said it was on different articles of clothing? I know for sure one was on either side of the waistband of her leggings which definitely seems like an odd place for random DNA as opposed to it resulting from the action of pulling those on/off.
2. All lab workers, technicians, etc. were eliminated as a source of the DNA.
3. That the person could likely be of Hispanic origin.

Kolar says there are at least 6 different touch DNA profiles on her clothing, five male and one female. None of them came from the family. He makes a convincing case against the theory that six different intruders were trampling through the home all night without waking anyone up or leaving other evidence.

I have never heard that the touch DNA led back to a Hispanic person, only that the DNA is extremely degraded. I think the DNA came from the manufacturer and is worthless anyway.

I'm pretty sure the police think JBR's body was wiped down as part of the staging. As far as I know they didn't find anyone's DNA on the body itself, only her clothing.

 

[cynic]

Dr. Dan Krane is slated to appear in the Investigation Discovery series to discuss DNA,..

 

[Roy23]

Hi all, although I have never posted before in this forum, I have followed this case for quite some time. I read PMPT awhile back and I admit to never fully committing to either RDI or IDI and remaining open to what I think is evidence strong enough to push me off that fence. DNA Evidence is one of those and I have always taken at face value the claims by Boulder PD and others in the know that the DNA was an artifact, and came from either the manufacturing process or contamination from the lab. I know many scoffed or dismissed the A&E Special, which admittedly was heavily pro-Ramsey, however there were a few points made or at least discussed that gave me pause and made me not be so quick to discount the DNA stuff anyway.

1. The DNA came from several different places, not just one, making it highly unlikely that it was a manufacturing artifact. I also thought they said it was on different articles of clothing? I know for sure one was on either side of the waistband of her leggings which definitely seems like an odd place for random DNA as opposed to it resulting from the action of pulling those on/off.
2. All lab workers, technicians, etc. were eliminated as a source of the DNA.
3. That the person could likely be of Hispanic origin.

Thoughts? It seems like everyone here is very strongly committed one way or another (mostly RDI) so I'm not trying to push one theory or another. I'm truly on the fence or maybe a flip-flopper is more accurate.

Also, I know there has been a lot of discussion regarding Burke as a possible perp, but I saw the snapshot in which he was excluded as a source of DNA, and I just don't believe that a 9-year old wouldn't get DNA on the crime scene, not having the sophistication to understand or even know what that was. Also, I find myself skeptical that all DNA is that easy to clean - after all there are a number of cases in which the perp tries to use water, bleach, etc. to clean - unsuccessfully I might add.

On the other hand...so so many bizarre things that are difficult to explain with an IDI theory...I mean really really illogical and difficult to IGNORE as was said above...so I don't know. This case drives me crazy!!!

P.S. I just saw the links above by Cynic, I will be checking those out ASAP, thank you!!!

It is a very frustrating case to say the least. From the DNA perspective, A theory was created as to how the crime happened if IDI and the touch DNA tests was based on such theory and they hit the homerun so to speak with matching DNA on different articles of clothing. But I have changed my stance as whole and agree to some extent that Mary Lacy went way too far by exonerating the Ramseys. Truth be told, no one knows just how relevant it is and only a biased person could say with certainty whether it is or isn't. Only if it is matched to someone will it ever be relevant at this point. It is just too bad that the Boulder PD was so incompetent to not control the crime scene.

For me, the pineapple and slight discrepancies from the Ramsey's do not point me towards their guilt either. I can understand it somewhat. The FBI guy I saw the other day also got to me a bit. That note is a powerful piece of evidence even though the writer can't be sourced with certainty. It would point me much more in an RDI direction if LE would have done a decent job on day 1. It is just a baffling set of scenarios that we are at this point. I mean we have Ramsey friends cleaning up after investigators and LE not doing a complete search of the house. I just don't believe we would be in this situation without those 2 things.

 

[Niner]

Didn't know "where" to post this, but since is Day 7 - I guess this is as any place....

CBS Scales Back JonBenet Ramsey Miniseries Plans

"CBS has cut its planned true-crime special about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey from six hours to four. The move comes as a glut of projects investigating the 1996 murder of the six-year-old beauty-pageant contestant make their way to television.

Production on “The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey” wrapped earlier this month. Producers and network executives subsequently came to the decision that, given the material gathered, the project would make more sense as a tighter, two-part, four-hour miniseries than as a more languid six hours spread out over three parts. The move frees up valuable real estate in the fall schedule as CBS looks to launch its new primetime season.

Part one of “The Case Of” will premiere, as originally planned, Sunday, Sept. 18 at 8:30 p.m. ET and 8 p.m. PT, with part two following Monday, Sept. 19 at 9 p.m. CBS will no longer air a third installment, as previously scheduled, on Sunday, Sept. 25. Filling that schedule space, CBS will expand the season premiere of “NCIS: Los Angeles” — making its debut on a new night — from one hour to two, with back-to-back episodes beginning at 8:30 p.m. ET and 8 p.m. PT. The network will close out the night with an hour of reruns..."


http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/cbs-...ey-1201858136/

 

[Airasae]

DNA, it can mean nothing in a criminal case.

This.
There is way too much faith in DNA.
DNA is not the be all and end all.
Contamination and mistakes can be made in collection and in testing.

 

[Airasae]

I'll just politely bow out of this thread.

Thats no fun

 

[Kittybunny]

Kolar says there are at least 6 different touch DNA profiles on her clothing, five male and one female. None of them came from the family. He makes a convincing case against the theory that six different intruders were trampling through the home all night without waking anyone up or leaving other evidence.

I have never heard that the touch DNA led back to a Hispanic person, only that the DNA is extremely degraded. I think the DNA came from the manufacturer and is worthless anyway.

I'm pretty sure the police think JBR's body was wiped down as part of the staging. As far as I know they didn't find anyone's DNA on the body itself, only her clothing.

So I was trying to find a link or something about the DNA being of a male of hispanic origin, but on the A&E Special they definitely said that it was the first time that that information was revealed because my ears perked up everytime they said that and also that those findings were as a result of their DNA experts' analysis. The two experts that spoke about the DNA were Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, who I remembered quite well from his appearances on Nancy Grace, and this guy - Richard Eikelenbloom, who I have definitely heard of on another cases (that I can't remember anything about at this moment) and after Googling him I found this and wow, really calls his credibility into question, if not pretty much destroys it:

http://kdvr.com/2016/09/01/dna-expert-in-jonbenet-ramsey-other-famous-cases-debunked-in-denver/

So...I'll just leave that there and head off to read more of the links...I'll fully admit to being conditioned to overrate DNA as such an important piece of evidence, but in this case, it seems that it might be a red herring.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi all, although I have never posted before in this forum, I have followed this case for quite some time. I read PMPT awhile back and I admit to never fully committing to either RDI or IDI and remaining open to what I think is evidence strong enough to push me off that fence. DNA Evidence is one of those and I have always taken at face value the claims by Boulder PD and others in the know that the DNA was an artifact, and came from either the manufacturing process or contamination from the lab. I know many scoffed or dismissed the A&E Special, which admittedly was heavily pro-Ramsey, however there were a few points made or at least discussed that gave me pause and made me not be so quick to discount the DNA stuff anyway.

1. The DNA came from several different places, not just one, making it highly unlikely that it was a manufacturing artifact. I also thought they said it was on different articles of clothing? I know for sure one was on either side of the waistband of her leggings which definitely seems like an odd place for random DNA as opposed to it resulting from the action of pulling those on/off.
2. All lab workers, technicians, etc. were eliminated as a source of the DNA.
3. That the person could likely be of Hispanic origin.

Thoughts? It seems like everyone here is very strongly committed one way or another (mostly RDI) so I'm not trying to push one theory or another. I'm truly on the fence or maybe a flip-flopper is more accurate.

1) Like Kolar says, there were six different profiles from the scene. The waistband of the panties had the same DNA as the waistband of the long johns. There's a thing called cloth-to-cloth transfer.

2) The technicians themselves were eliminated, but what about the DNA from other people they could have brought with them?

3) That "expert" is a known fraud.

 

[BBB167893]

It is a very frustrating case to say the least. From the DNA perspective, A theory was created as to how the crime happened if IDI and the touch DNA tests was based on such theory and they hit the homerun so to speak with matching DNA on different articles of clothing. But I have changed my stance as whole and agree to some extent that Mary Lacy went way too far by exonerating the Ramseys.

I'd say that home-run has been ruled a foul.

Truth be told, no one knows just how relevant it is and only a biased person could say with certainty whether it is or isn't. Only if it is matched to someone will it ever be relevant at this point. It is just too bad that the Boulder PD was so incompetent to not control the crime scene.

For me, the pineapple and slight discrepancies from the Ramsey's do not point me towards their guilt either. I can understand it somewhat. The FBI guy I saw the other day also got to me a bit. That note is a powerful piece of evidence even though the writer can't be sourced with certainty. It would point me much more in an RDI direction if LE would have done a decent job on day 1. It is just a baffling set of scenarios that we are at this point. I mean we have Ramsey friends cleaning up after investigators and LE not doing a complete search of the house. I just don't believe we would be in this situation without those 2 things.

I think so, too.

 

[Kittybunny]

1) Like Kolar says, there were six different profiles from the scene. The waistband of the panties had the same DNA as the waistband of the long johns. There's a thing called cloth-to-cloth transfer.

2) The technicians themselves were eliminated, but what about the DNA from other people they could have brought with them?

3) That "expert" is a known fraud.

Thank you so much for addressing my post. Very helpful. I really am trying to approach this with a completely open mind. I wasn't aware of cloth-to-cloth transfer being a possibility. And I guess there were so many people in and out that anyone really could be responsible for the DNA transfer.

And yes, agree on the "expert"!

BUT but but...in the infinitesimal possibility it is real/related just so I can put my mind at ease, were there any males of Hispanic origin on any suspect list, I wonder...

BUT NO! The ransom note to me, just cannot be reconciled with an IDI theory, it just can't.

 

[Kittybunny]

It is a very frustrating case to say the least. From the DNA perspective, A theory was created as to how the crime happened if IDI and the touch DNA tests was based on such theory and they hit the homerun so to speak with matching DNA on different articles of clothing. But I have changed my stance as whole and agree to some extent that Mary Lacy went way too far by exonerating the Ramseys. Truth be told, no one knows just how relevant it is and only a biased person could say with certainty whether it is or isn't. Only if it is matched to someone will it ever be relevant at this point. It is just too bad that the Boulder PD was so incompetent to not control the crime scene.

For me, the pineapple and slight discrepancies from the Ramsey's do not point me towards their guilt either. I can understand it somewhat. The FBI guy I saw the other day also got to me a bit. That note is a powerful piece of evidence even though the writer can't be sourced with certainty. It would point me much more in an RDI direction if LE would have done a decent job on day 1. It is just a baffling set of scenarios that we are at this point. I mean we have Ramsey friends cleaning up after investigators and LE not doing a complete search of the house. I just don't believe we would be in this situation without those 2 things.

I agree on those things...no matter who did it, nothing will ever completely make sense! And that apology and exoneration of the Ramseys' by Mary Lacy was pure *advertiser censored*-kissing nonsense. Wrongly accused innocent people have spent YEARS of their lives in jails and they're lucky to get a bus ticket home, let alone an apology from a state official. Absolutely embarrassing.

 

[passionflower]

no DNA on RNote
PR & BR DNA pineapple bowl
JBR DNA (blood) and unknown DNA on undies.

Touch DNA? I don't now what to think
JBR washed wiped down by intruder...........I don't think so. To much time...........Keep It Simple..........JMOO

 

[Roy23]

Thank you so much for addressing my post. Very helpful. I really am trying to approach this with a completely open mind. I wasn't aware of cloth-to-cloth transfer being a possibility. And I guess there were so many people in and out that anyone really could be responsible for the DNA transfer.

And yes, agree on the "expert"!

BUT but but...in the infinitesimal possibility it is real/related just so I can put my mind at ease, were there any males of Hispanic origin on any suspect list, I wonder...

BUT NO! The ransom note to me, just cannot be reconciled with an IDI theory, it just can't.

I think it could be, but it doesn't look like it. I mean everyone wants justice but I can't help suggest to everyone that in no way should anyone be convicted for this crime as it stands. It seems like after the first few days of the investigation Law Enforcement did a pretty good job looking in all avenues. But since we are here at this point 20 years later, maybe it was just too late. I can't blame the Ramsey's for Lou Smit and John Douglas believing a sexual sadist was in the house and I can't blame many who believe the Ransom note is too far fetched. We all have this need to point fingers but there is just not enough in my opinion.

 

[BOESP]

Thank you so much for addressing my post. Very helpful. I really am trying to approach this with a completely open mind. I wasn't aware of cloth-to-cloth transfer being a possibility. And I guess there were so many people in and out that anyone really could be responsible for the DNA transfer.

And yes, agree on the "expert"!

BUT but but...in the infinitesimal possibility it is real/related just so I can put my mind at ease, were there any males of Hispanic origin on any suspect list, I wonder...

BUT NO! The ransom note to me, just cannot be reconciled with an IDI theory, it just can't.

Excellent DNA posts Kittybunny. Something else to consider concerning DNA is the claim that the Intruder(s) wore gloves. So why would an Intruder take those gloves off and risk leaving prints or DNA on the victim and her clothing.

Latent fingerprint testing and DNA testing was being used in 1996 albeit there were backlogs at the DNA testing labs. Still, wearing gloves at a crime scene then taking them off makes no sense to me.