DNA quality poll 1 of 3

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Holdontoyourhat, Aug 6, 2010.

?

Is the DNA quality too low to claim three matches?

  1. DNA quality is too low. Match claims are unreliable.

    66.7%
  2. DNA quality is adequate. Match claims are reliable.

    33.3%
  1. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was the subject DNA quality so low among the samples that claims of a match are not reliable,

    OR

    was the subject DNA quality sufficient and so claims of a touch DNA match are reliable?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. KoldKase

    KoldKase New Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your questoins are confusing.

    The DNA markers were pretty much just DNA markers. Either they were matched as markers in specific loci or they weren't.

    I think the question you mean to ask is were 3 enough to say the donor was the same person when those three loci matched the full profile found elsewhere on the clothes.

    No, I don't think those alone would hold up in court as proving the two profiles likely belonged to the same person with a significant degree of mathematical certainty.

    I think it's a matter of statistics in this case, as all DNA profiles are; three markers alone from a degraded profile can't exclude enough people in the general population to call it a "match" to whoever donated the full profile, as I understand the science--and I'm the first to admit this is not my strength because it's really a complicated science I can only fathom in the most rudimentary terms.

    FYI: Smit said one of the fingernail DNA profiles only had one marker...no way that's a "match" which identifies anyone.
     
  4. KoldKase

    KoldKase New Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, now looking at your questoin again, maybe you do mean "quality" vs quantity.

    If you're asking about the issue of false markers from the samples, I can't say. I know there were questions about the "half" marker when they finally teased it out so they could run the DNA 9.5 markers through the FBI database. (That's how unreliable even 9 markers are for identification to a certainty.)

    If this is your question, sorry I can't speak to this intelligently. I do remember reading some about the problems of "interpretation" of markers, and maybe that's what you're asking. I just don't know enough about it to make that determination.

    I will say that I am skeptical about any scientific test and result that started with an end point in mind. That is troubling with the "touch" DNA, because the tech who did the testing said she discarded some DNA from the samples she got from the longjohns. She never said why nor who those belonged to, not that I saw, anyway. Maybe she had good reason, but it wasn't obvious to me.

    So sorry, I still can't vote. :blushing:
     
  5. KoldKase

    KoldKase New Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oops. I do know how to spell "question." I seem to have had a dyslexic moment last night. :eek:
     
  6. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The discarded DNA was most likely replicated from the original sample as that is how it is done. You don't need huge amounts of the same strand just one good one.
    Here is a simple explanation of touch DNA and the JBR case.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-touch-dna-jonbenet-ramsey

    I think matching 10 of the 13 they use is pretty close. They say they only got ten markers from the panties. There are more but, (no way only those ten showed up),they are concerned only with the ten they are allowed to use for "legal identification purposes". That doesn't mean they didn't get other markers as well. Markers that lead them to believe the sample from the waistband and sample for the long johns match. While they can't use those markers in a CODIS system, they submit only the ones they can. Some of the 13 markers that don't match may be known as familiar or "family" markers. That may be why the Ramsey's were ruled out. The DNA alone may give them a clue but certainly other things may fall into place once the BPD knows who to look at. I pray there is a match in some data base somewhere.
    After reading a lot of material her and other places I am now pretty certain based on the DNA findings that the family is ruled out.
     
  7. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You do need 30 or more nucleated cells for processing in a lab using standard procedures.
    It’s an explanation of touch DNA; however, the reference to 7 cells, refers to a situation that would require special processing using what is commonly referred to as LCN processing (Low Copy Number.) Bode Technology Group which tested the long johns indicated that standard processing was used which would require 30 or more cells.
    The initial analysis of one of the samples from JBR’s panties only yielded 9 ½ markers, they eventually “worked” it to 10 markers and thus met the minimum CODIS standard. There were no more markers than that found.
    There is no question that based on what has been revealed to the public, the “best” DNA profile in this case is a partial profile that meets the minimum standard for CODIS.

    Use of "partial profiles" is a newly emerging and fairly disturbing trend. A partial profile is one in which not all of the loci targeted show up in the sample. For example, if 13 loci were targeted, and only 9 could be reported, that would be termed, a partial profile. Failure of all targeted loci to show up demonstrates a serious deficiency in the sample. Normally, all human cells (except red blood cells and cells called "platelets") have all 13 loci. Therefore, a partial profile represents the equivalent of less than a single human cell. This presents some important problems:

    1. A partial profile essentially proves that one is operating outside of well-characterized and recommended limits.

    2. Contaminating DNA usually presents as a partial profile, although not always. For this reason, the risk that the result is a contaminant is greater than for samples that present as full profiles.

    3. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading. The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed. There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.

    Most forensic laboratories will try to obtain full profiles. Unfortunately, in an important case, it may be tempting to use a partial profile, especially if that is all that one has. However, such profiles should be viewed skeptically. Over-interpretation of partial profiles can probably lead to serious mistakes. Such mistakes could include false inclusions and false exclusions, alike.
    http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

    The source of DNA is also important as it reveals whether it could be deposited only by primary transfer or whether other possibilities such as secondary or tertiary transfer is possible along with the possibilities of innocent primary transfer and contamination. In a rape case, for example, where semen has been deposited, and a sample obtained from a vaginal swab, there can be no doubt that it was left by primary transfer.
    That is not the situation in the Ramsey case. The DNA here is not from semen or blood, but rather sources that leave open the possibility of adventitious transfer and contamination.

    The DNA vs. Fingerprints Debate
    …
    This raises the question, which of the two types is the stronger evidence? Answer: Fingerprints - and I say this as a DNA expert.
    …
    We also consider the nature of the transfer of evidence. If I were to touch a smooth surface such as a wall, I would deposit DNA and leave some fingerprints behind on the wall. This is called ‘direct’ or ‘primary’ transfer. However, if someone was to come along and wipe that wall with a cloth, it would remove my DNA onto the cloth and wipe the fingerprint off. If that person then uses that cloth to wipe the door handle, my DNA can then be transferred on to that door handle. Therefore, my DNA could be recovered from that handle without me ever coming into contact with it. This is referred to as ‘indirect’ or ‘secondary’ transfer.In this example, my DNA is transferred, but my fingerprint is not. This means that if my fingerprint is found on a surface, then I must have touched that surface; whereas, if my DNA is found on a surface, then I may have come into contact with that surface or it got there by secondary transfer.
    -Graham Williams
    http://www2.hud.ac.uk/sas/comment/gw260609.php

    PROCEEDINGS of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
    Annual Scientific Meeting, Denver, CO
    February 16-21, 2009
    “Touch and Transfer” DNA Samples: Practical and Ethical Issues
    Valerie K. Fahrnow, BSN*, Clinical Reference Laboratory, 8433 Quivira
    Road, Lenexa, KS 66215

    After attending this presentation, the attendees will understand the practical and ethical issues of “touch and transfer” DNA in the judicial system.
    …
    Previously undetectable evidence is being presented to facilitate the administration of equal justice. However, forensic DNA is not a panacea. Limitations of touch DNA need to be recognized and respected. Selected practical and ethical issues of touch DNA will be addressed.
    Touch and transfer DNA samples are minuscule amounts of DNA (< 50 pg) from any cellular or biological material which comes into contact with another object or body. Transference may occur from person to person, person to object, object to person, and object to object.
    …
    The novelty and potential use of this rapidly emerging technology must be tempered through addressing practical considerations. These recognized scientific and analytical limitations include, but are not limited to: discretion in the selection of a typing kit, recognition of potential stochastic effects, the infallibility of low-level mixtures,
    adherence to established detection thresholds and compliance with analytical standards. Data analysis and impartial statistical significance of the results cannot be neglected. Presentation by the proponent, of these material factors must be competently and completely presented, in good faith, as an integral part of the judicial process.
    In addition, ethical standards regarding the weight of the evidence must also be elucidated. Critical considerations for determining the reason for sample collection, issues of primary, secondary, and tertiary transfer, and sample contamination must all be considered. These issues foster speculation regarding evidential viability. Presence of a DNA profile, does not answer the question of when or how it get there nor its ensuing implications. The perseverance of introducing phantom suspects due to speculative testimony must be substantively examined. The potential of wrongfully convicting an innocent bystander or exoneration of a guilty person are of primary concern. The totality of the evidence is integral to the case. The mere existence of a DNA profile is not indicative of innocence or guilt.
    The recognition and impact of touch and transfer DNA evidence in the judicial system is commonly neglected and misunderstood by the courts. In scrutinizing evidentiary standards for minuscule amounts of DNA in criminal cases, the court in State v. Freeman, 2008 WL 142299, (Mo.App.S.D. Jan. 16, 2008 - No.28150) determined, “DNA is robust and easily transferred ... Its mere presence is not adequate for inferences of guilt.” Accordingly, prosecutors must be aware of limitations and challenges regarding touch DNA to minimize its misuse as evidence. The analytical process, misconceptions and powerfully persuasive evidential impact of touch DNA in criminal prosecutions must be understood and properly utilized. Limitations of low level DNA need to be recognized and respected. The importance of ethical and good faith application of this invisible evidence is paramount.
    http://www.aafs.org/pdf/2009ProceedingsDenver.pdf

    Some more reading if you’re interested:

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=108432&page=3
    Posts 64 and 65
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=108432&page=7
    Post 158
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91605&page=4

    Post 99
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999&page=15
    Posts 367 - 370
    See also:
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108432&page=8
    Post 177
     
  8. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the article I was quoting the lab person used PCR which duplicates the DNA and duplicates again. When she says she discarded some DNA I meant she discarded duplicates that she did not need as she had replicated enough to run the test.

    The article also explains about how only the 13 are used because of other privacy issues, health markers like having Lou Gerigs or MD, MS, sickle cell anemia etc. That does not mean they don't have the results in those tests only that they can't release them or use them in CODIS. That is the point I'm making just because they can't use it in a CODIS system doesn't mean they didn't run the tests and find out something about the DNA they can't release to the public.
    I understand the touch DNA as opposed to direct bodily fluid DNA. If one of the parents or Burke transfered this DNA to the long johns and panties then that to me is a near impossibility.

    Let me explain--- I shake your hand and I'm a good shedder I leave lots of my DNA on your hand. We part and you leave, on the way out you touch the doorknob, you put your hand on your own doorknob at home. You commit a murder using something besides your hands. I point to the skull fracture and the garrote.
    To me there is too much other touching going on for transfer of my DNA to your crime scene victim. 2 doorknobs, an unknown bashing object, a garrote, a paintbrush, etc. Even if I am a good shedder you touched too many items by the time it came to touch the panties and the long johns. BTW both hands would have been used to pull up the long johns as DNA was retrieved from both the right and left sides of the long johns. So at some point you had to touch your other hand with my DNA on it to transfer it to your other hand.
    The touch DNA is very promising to helping solve this case as transfer from the parents or Burke would be unlikely considering all the other touching that had to have been done before she actually died. No one washes hands or changes clothes, no one touches the sheets or blankets to go to bed. No one touches anything before they transfer that DNA to her panties and long johns. Patsy spoke about putting on her make up before coming downstairs to find the RN. She must have removed the old before putting on new and that was most likely done before she went to bed. This would require her to wash her hands. Her fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl so we know she touched that if it was transfer wouldn't that fingerprint contain the same DNA as "unknown male" as she transferred it too.
    Test the fingerprints and for goodness sake test the rope too.
     
  9. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You don&#8217;t discard DNA, in terms of replication, either you use 28 cycles for standard processing, or generally 34 cycles with LCN processing that involves samples with few cells.
    Forensic testing involves targeting only CODIS markers, they didn&#8217;t get a full profile because of either degradation or sample size issues or both.
    I understand, you are not alone in your opinion, neither am I in mine.
    Realize that there are also other avenues by which the DNA could have been deposited in this case including innocent primary transfer or contamination. To rule out innocent transfer with this type of DNA is not possible.
    Also, keep in mind that there are other cases where there has been no explanation for DNA, including multiple locations, I outlined those in my links at the bottom of my previous post.
    I have gone through these scenarios before and the problem is that we have to rely on &#8220;facts&#8221; from people that may well be responsible for the crime, and as such, may well contain many untruths. As an example, I don&#8217;t believe PR did anything with her makeup, or go to sleep that night, for that matter.
    I agree.
     
  10. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the unknown male fed her the pineapple, why isn't HIS matching DNA found there? ohh- the latex gloves were ON then, right. Man, how many times did those gloves go on and off. Gloved hands to feed the pineapple and open the WC door, UNgloved to take down her panties and longjohns (a BIG no-no if you plan to molest that child). I guess gloves were worn for everything BUT that, as that male DNA doesn't appear anywhere else. And before mentioning the obvious (that not every single surface was tested) there were plenty of items tested pertinent to the crime that the male DNA would have been there if the same person handled those things (i.e. was actually there at the time the crime was committed) because skin cells ONLY on her clothes don't tie the donor to her death.
    Yes- let's test that cord- the handle of the paint tote and all the items in it, every door handle in the home, the suitcase, even the Dr. Seuss book.
    Sadly- that can never happen. The house has been sold an repainted a few times, the WC walled up, the metaphysical imprint of a tiny girl's terror forever sealed away. Does LE even still HAVE the paint tote and suitcase?
    While the Boulder DA seems to want to at least pretend to reopen this case, how about taking a look at that warehouse of untested evidence that they already have. Instead of trying to get cooperation from witnesses that do not have to, and probably will never, be deposed, the answer could be right under their noses, locked away in that evidence locker. And speaking of the evidence locker, I'd want to know who had had access to that over the years. Does the BPD have a system in place to be sure no unauthorized people get in there and have a "look"? Are there cameras in place to see of anything is removed or tampered with?
    Enquiring minds want to know...
     
  11. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    We know that deals were being made to see evidence What was viewed and where, and what precautions were being taken?
    Patrick Burke presented Hofstrom with a list of conditions to be met before the CBI could test the note for the police.
    He wanted access to the ransom note for the Ramseys’ own handwriting experts. In addition he wanted a first-generation copy of the note and 4 x 5 inch negatives of each page. Later the Ramseys’ attorneys set further conditions: they wanted to see the ligature and the “garrote” used to murder JonBenet.
    Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 294-295
     
  12. KoldKase

    KoldKase New Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting arguments all around. Thanks for laying it out for us.

    A poster at FFJ, fr brown, put some links up to articles on DNA issues that may already be here. Just in case, with fr brown's permission, I'll add them as the quotes fr brown used are interesting regarding DNA processing techniques, contamination, interpretation, reliability, etc.

    [Good stuff, fr brown. Thanks!]

    This one really scares me:

    One more that has thought provoking implications:

     
  13. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok let us say the DNA is a contaminant. Whose? I'm sure all officers, coroners, ambulance drivers etc have a DNA profile on file. Others who were at the scene like the White's were also tested. Why can the DNA not be matched to them? The people at the scene are known, the people who handled JBR's body are known, the responding officers are known but the test results are "male unknown donor". Don't point to a factory worker as the panty DNA and the long john DNA are a match. The panties are new and the long johns are not. Who could have handled the long johns innocently. You stated it was impossible to rule out innocent transfer, I beg to differ.
    Housekeeper-female, ruled out as well as any male children who might have gone to work with her via shedding their DNA on her.
    Ramsey family- ruled out
    Whites- ruled out
    Other 200 people tested- ruled out.
    I am assuming investigators, coroners etc are in that 200 tested.

    Since the long johns were not new had been used and laundered the only way for innocent DNA to show up on them is by handling them. Since our kids don't get dressed by random strangers on the street innocent deposition of DNA is very unlikely.

    If a perp "gets off" doing what was done to JBR then I can see them removing their gloves as they want to feel the victim. How many men hate condoms because they interfere with the "feeling" let alone gloves.

    I am surmising that additional DNA testing was done even though it can't be used to identify someone in court or submitted to CODIS mainly as an investigative tool to rule people out. If it was known that the P. side of Family ( Patsy ) has a genetic marker such as MS they could look for that gene. Knowing that Patsy also carries that gene. The gene is not found and we would not hear about it as the testing results are not submittable by a prosecutor in court. Let us say Patsy was a close match to "incomplete strands" and is being prosecuted. Her defense team could waive the right to protect her medical info in her genes and request additional testing. The tests are done and the marker for MS is not present where it should be located on the DNA strand. This would "prove" she is not the DNA donor. That could be submitted in court as Patsy waived her medical privacy rights. We don't know what the new investigation is doing or what information they won't release. I wouldn't be shocked to learn they did some "additional" testing at the request of the family.

    About the make up it is obvious when someone is freshly made up or wore the stuff all night. If she never went to bed she did shower and remove make up and then put it back on.
    Her story would have been easy to blow a hole through if no wet towels, wet shower, or smeared mascara etc was present. Many point to her vanity and no vain woman is going to be caught dead wearing day old make up. In fact proper skincare experts all agree remove it at night, don't sleep with it on and remove it in morning. It causes clogged pores and zits. It also better fits into a clean up scenario to have her shower and remove any evidence from her body.
    It has been pointed out that "unknown male DNA" doesn't rule the family out. It would only point to a 3rd party being involved.
     
  14. KoldKase

    KoldKase New Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting, Cathy.

    I don't know about the makeup arguments. I'm from the generation of rabid makeup wearers and I know makeup can be reapplied over old makeup--refreshed--and no one is going to be able to tell. Also, if Patsy and John were in this together, she could have taken a bath in his shower and used his towel and since they said he'd showered, no one would know. Also, Patsy wore wigs even as a young woman, plus through her cancer treatments, though in thinking about it, I have no idea if she had one on that morning. So I don't know that Patsy's makeup and hair can be proven one way or another at this point.

    You asked how could innocent transfer have occurred, and there are many scenarios I've seen speculated, but here's one that Ollie Gray actually made me think about when on TV he brought it up himself, oddly enough: the paintbrush.

    If the paintbrush was inserted into the child, and I think it's logical to conclude that it was used for that purpose, it could have had DNA on it belonging to someone else. I think Ollie was pointing out it could have had the "intruder's" DNA on it and that's how it got in the blood spot in the panties, inserted and the flow of blood from the injuries picked it up in the vagina and deposited it on the panty.

    But if that's true, then there was "other" DNA on the paintbrush, which the person who inflicted the sexual assault clearly handled. That means the DNA would have gotten on the hands or gloves, either one, and then was transferred on the longjohns when they were pulled back on the child, at the waistband.

    Here's why I find that very possible: if you've ever used a paintbrush, you know it's like a writing pen and you unconsciously put it into your mouth, are handling it with hands that have been rubbed across your face, scratched your body, etc. the usual things we do unconsciously all the time.

    Now I know it was Patsy's paintbrush. So how did someone else's DNA get on it? She took painting classes and that was the purpose of the tote tray, if memory serves. So what if she was in a paint class and someone near her sneezed? No one who has ever seen that documentary they played on PBS where someone sneezes against a back-light will have trouble imagining droplets of mucous and saliva spraying the surrounding area. A cough can do the same. Or perhaps she dropped the brush and someone picked it up and handed it to her. Or maybe she loaned it to a paint partner. Or maybe her teacher took it out of her hand to show her a technique--had that happen before.

    How about she dropped her paint tote at a random spot, like walking to her car, and someone stopped and helped her pick up its contents--that's very common, believe it or not, and I'm speaking from experience, as people are helpful in that way.

    What if the paint tote was knocked over by someone working in the home, a catering employee or delivery person, who then picked up its contents?

    Since the paintbrush was a large part of the crime scene and weapon used to strangle JonBenet, we know it was in the hands of whomever committed this crime. Breaking that paintbrush is also something that required a lot of pressure on it, in someone's hands, unless they stepped on it, which brings up other possibilities. If those hands also pulled the underwear and longjohns down and then back up, then this could very well be where the transference occurred, IMO.

    Is this stretching? Ollie Gray must not have thought so. I don't think so, either. We don't live in a vacuum. If anyone interacted with more people than Patsy Ramsey while running her busy life, they must be exhausted.

    Did LE get samples and test the people in her paint classes? I doubt it. But it didn't have to be one of those people, either. Did they test all the children who'd ever been in the Ramsey home? Maybe one of them picked up the brush and pretended to be painting--stuck it in the mouth, scratched an itch with it, wielded it like a weapon. The Ramseys said the kids from the neighborhood were in and out all the time and not only played in the basement, but she complained they didn't flush the toilet, didn't she? Kids are very spontaneous and curious about things like that.

    So that's just one "scenario" of how the DNA could have gotten there, not being deposited by the donor while committing the crime. Is it "the" explanation? No way to know, is there?

    But it does bring me back to the question of that Bloomies package the Ramseys finally turned over in 2002 and if it and its contents were tested. There are so many unanswered questions we have about those Bloomies. Where were they when they got missed by LE collecting JB's underwear out of her drawer? Patsy said she put them in the drawer, but LE did not find them. Then the package was turned over to Lacy in 2002--where was it all those years? Jams said in a box packed at the Boulder home and never unpacked; an employee found it, allegedly, and if that's true, he knew what he had. Meaning they held onto it--destroying evidence is a crime--but didn't turn it over until they got Ramsey supporter Lacy in charge of the case. (Lin Wood himself has stated several times, even once in the past couple of weeks, that the Ramseys were instrumental in getting the case into Lacy's hands. Think about the implications of that for our justice system.)

    So what were the results of testing that package? Where's that press conference? Were there fingerprints on it? Whose? Was there "touch" DNA on it? Whose? Did the other panties in it have "foreign" DNA on them? If DNA was found that matched the "foreign" DNA, then how'd that happen, when Patsy said she put the Bloomies in JB's drawer? Where was that package located in the home when it was packed by someone? (The Ramseys never returned, so it wasn't them.)

    You see, this is why I cant' just say, oh, unknown skin cell DNA=intruder. Okay then! There are always too many unanswered questions, and usually the confusion comes straight from the Ramseys not telling LE the truth so many times, it's amazing LE never pinned them down. But no--LE was too busy tiptoeing around the Ramseys and their lawyers, who threatened to leave if an uncomfortable question was asked or who interrupted the answers and made arguments cuing their clients what to say in this dangerous territory.

    How can anyone trust the "touch" DNA results if Lacy didn't ask the Ramseys questions about the Bloomies package, when Patsy obviously lied to LE about it already? If Lacy didn't test that package and the cord and duct tape and paintbrush for "touch" DNA, if she didn't subpoena the Ramsey's old phone records at long last, then she wasn't investigating this case in good faith any more than the Ramseys were looking for an intruder all those years, with their WORLD-CLASS DETECTIVES, as John Ramsey so often announced, then said under oath those same detectives were actually only working on the Ramseys' defense and that's why they never found that intruder. When the Ramseys were constantly changing their stories, how can anyone trust them? Much less a district attorney?

    Well, just my opinion.
     
  15. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't know, CathyR; even Bill Wise said it was highly unlikely that every single person who could have handled the clothing during the investigation's first days was tested. From what I understand, it was like herding cats.
     
  16. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh Lord no wonder this case is so difficult and the new DA has started at square one. I hope someday somehow we will have an answer. It may not be what we expected but I know a few people who do know who did it.
    God cause he knows everything
    JBR cause she was there
    Patsy because if innocent she now knows.


    Let us join in group prayer that investigators find enough clues, get a confession or someone who doesn't know they hold that key piece of evidence comes forward with it.
    Amen.
     
  17. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Speaking for myself, starting at square one is about the only thing that can be done at this point. This case cannot be fixed. It is time to start over.

    I'm with you, CathyR.
     
  18. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,193
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Holdontoyourhat,

    There have been no matches so no claims of sufficiency regarding quality can be determined.

    This is a sexually motivated homicide and there is no intruder in sight! Just the three residents left in the Ramsey household.

    .
     
  19. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If only that were true.
    It took 12 years for them to test people involved with the autopsy, and even then it took an outside consultant to recommend it!!
    "We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year (2008.)"
    What if they never spoke to that consultant? I&#8217;m sure Mary Lacy would have still made her confident proclamation that everyone was tested and her famous, &#8220;there can be no innocent explanation.&#8221;
    As I said earlier, it&#8217;s extremely difficult to argue scenarios when we are dependent on the honesty of statements from primary suspects. Given the inconstancies and issues in their statements once they finally graced LE with interviews, I am even more skeptical.
    One of several possibilities is that contamination may have occurred from handling after the fact, perhaps by Ramsey forensic consultants, or private investigators. The DA&#8217;s office seemed to have an open door policy with the Ramsey team. I'd be willing to bet that these people were not tested.
    Additionally, a number of possibilities present themselves with respect to the autopsy because of the highly questionable practices of the coroner.
    If he used the same nail clippers between decedants, what else was going on?
    Along these lines, another poster recently suggested an interesting possibility:
    Why not put the gloves back on immediately after &#8220;finishing?&#8221;
    For that matter, why even bother pulling the panties and long johns back up, and wrapping her body in a blanket? Very motherly and considerate for a homicidal, pedophile, kidnapper.
    You would think that there would be more pressing concerns &#8211; leaving perhaps?
    Heaps of laundry strewn on floors was the norm at the Ramsey household, nothing would be deduced from that.
    As KoldKase mentioned, she could have touched up her makeup just prior to facing the police.
    I firmly stand by my statement because it is supported by DNA experts.
    This type of DNA is susceptible to adventitious transfer and contamination and consequently open to innocent explanations.
    There is not a single DNA expert that would disagree with that statement.
    I find it interesting that when it comes to the fiber evidence in the case that the IDI camp has no problems coming up with a host of explanations including secondary transfer and even the possibility of an intruder dressed in Patsy Ramsey&#8217;s clothes.
    These same people are then at a loss to see any explanation for the DNA evidence other than primary transfer from an intruder.
    I&#8217;m willing to bet that many of the people who seem confident that there can be no innocent explanation for the DNA in this case would all of a sudden be believers in adventitious transfer or contamination if, for example, someone came forward and confessed, and that person could be tied to the crime with some other corroborating evidence.
    As a matter of fact this very thing happened in another case.
    There was skin cell based DNA matching in 3 places (sound familiar?) that pointed in one direction, but when the perpetrator of the crime was tracked down by a fingerprint match and then confessed, guess what happened to the DNA evidence that pointed elsewhere, it was dismissed as irrelevant.
    That&#8217;s why the overall context of a case determines the place of any one element of evidence.

    The totality of the evidence is integral to the case. The mere existence of a DNA profile is not indicative of innocence or guilt.
    The recognition and impact of touch and transfer DNA evidence in the judicial system is commonly neglected and misunderstood by the courts. In scrutinizing evidentiary standards for minuscule amounts of DNA in criminal cases, the court in State v. Freeman, 2008 WL 142299, (Mo.App.S.D. Jan. 16, 2008 - No.28150) determined, &#8220;DNA is robust and easily transferred ... Its mere presence is not adequate for inferences of guilt.&#8221; Accordingly, prosecutors must be aware of limitations and challenges regarding touch DNA to minimize its misuse as evidence.
    http://www.aafs.org/pdf/2009ProceedingsDenver.pdf

    I will leave you with this to look over:

    It&#8217;s clear that Diego Olmos Alcalde is guilty with respect to the charges against him in the Susannah Chase case; however, it is interesting to note that, once again, &#8220;unidentified DNA&#8221; was found and proven to be unrelated to the perpetrator of the crime.
    &#8220;Unidentified DNA&#8221; was found in the cervix of Susannah Chase as well as on the murder weapon.
    Alcade&#8217;s DNA was not found on the murder weapon, although his girlfriend&#8217;s DNA was found, secondary transfer perhaps?

    DNA on a baseball bat used to kill a University of Colorado student in 1997 has been linked to the slaying suspect's girlfriend, according to a published report.
    DNA collected from the body of Susannah Chase already linked Diego Olmos Alcalde to her, but the new DNA evidence shows Alcalde had access to the weapon, the Daily Camera reported Thursday.
    Alcalde's former girlfriend consented to provide DNA to investigators, the newspaper reported.
    The former girlfriend, identified in court documents as Sonci Frances, has been ruled out as a suspect in the Chase killing because she was not in Colorado at the time of the slaying.
    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19136297/detail.html

    Defense attorney Steven Jacobson vigorously questioned the testing methods used and choices made by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation on the Susannah Chase case Friday afternoon.
    In particular, he challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt on his decision not to tell police or put in his 2002 report that he had found on the baseball bat handle a sample of male DNA that didn't match his client, Diego Olmos Alcalde.
    Jacoboson chided Arndt for not submitting the profile -- which was a weaker profile to a female DNA profile found on the bat -- to the nationwide DNA criminal database for comparison to crime scene evidence.
    "Nothing happened about anyone analyzing that male on the bat and putting him the database?" Jacobson asked.
    Arndt said his agency didn't go back in later years to put the profile in the database, even as DNA analysis techniques improved.
    "It could have happened in 2005, but it did not," Arndt said.
    Jacobson asked him if it wasn't true that the profile was only submitted to the criminal DNA database earlier this year after he visited CBI to ask about it.
    Arndt said that was true.
    Jacobson also asked Arndt if solid DNA profiles might not have been lifted from the many cigarette butts that were found in the crime scene by police.
    Arndt said 90 percent of the time DNA profiles can be successfully recovered from smoked cigarettes.
    Defense attorney Steven Jacobson challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt during cross-examination Friday afternoon.
    He asked Arndt if DNA breaks down over time, to a point where a good profile can no longer be identified.
    Arndt said that's true.
    Jacobson noted that Arndt was doing tests on the baseball bat handle in 2002 -- five years after Susannah Chase was attacked.
    The lawyer also challenged Arndt on how possible it is to tell when DNA was left.
    "You can't say anything about the time frame when the DNA was deposited based on your lab work," he asked.
    "That is correct," Arndt said.
    Testimony went into detailed discussion about DNA analysis this afternoon, with prosecutor Ryan Brackley putting on display a variety of charts showing regions of DNA strands and what they reveal about genetic material recovered on the baseball bat found at the crime scene.
    Ronald Arndt, a DNA specialist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, testified that he used the new touch DNA extraction method in 2002 in an attempt to recover a DNA profile from the bat handle.
    He said he managed to find a major profile, which belonged to a female, and a minor profile, which belonged to a male. Arndt told the jury he was unable to match the profiles to any known person.
    He also said he developed a DNA profile from a swab taken from Susannah Chase's cervix. He said he found a mix of Chase's DNA and that of an unknown male from that swab.
    Again, he told the jury, he was unable to match the unknown sample to an identifiable person.
    The CBI agent who did DNA analysis on the evidence in the Susannah Chase murder case said he didn't find any semen in Chase's underpants or jeans.
    Ronald Arndt, the agent-in-charge of the agency's biological science unit, said investigators will often find traces of semen in the underwear of a woman who recently had sexual intercourse, due to "drainage" of seminal fluid on to the underpants.
    Prosecutor Ryan Brackley asked Arndt if it's possible there wouldn't be evidence of semen drainage if the woman was lying down or her underwear was not in contact with her crotch.
    Arndt said that was possible.
    The agent then testified that from the sexual assault evidence kit collected from Chase -- which included swabs taken from her vagina and cervix -- he found a heavier concentration of sperm in Chase's vagina than in her cervix.
    When Brackley asked him what that meant in terms of when intercourse might have taken place, Arndt said it indicated that intercourse likely happened more recently because the bulk of the sperm hadn't yet migrated toward the uterus.
    He didn't provide a specific estimate of when intercourse may have taken place.
    The argument over the age of the seminal fluid found inside Chase is critical in the case, with the prosecution claiming that Diego Alcalde raped Chase the night he attacked her while the defense has hinted that its client may have had consensual sex with Chase days before the attack.
    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13125712
    also&#8230;
    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_12962999

    A man accused of beating and raping a University of Colorado student in 1997 was found guilty on all counts Friday afternoon, ending her family's 12-year quest for answers.
    Diego Olmos Alcalde, 39, was found guilty of first-degree murder, sexual assault and kidnapping in the death of 23-year-old Susannah Chase.
    Prosecutors said Olmos Alcalde's DNA was found inside Chase and that DNA on a baseball bat from Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend links the Chilean native to the murder.
    Defense attorneys argued prosecutors failed to pursue other suspects. They also said Olmos Alcalde had consensual sex with Chase, which explains why his DNA was on her body.
    Prosecutors said the claim that the sex was consensual is "preposterous." After the verdict, prosecutor Amy Okubo said it was an argument that the jury flatly rejected. "Their verdict made it clear that that would not be a possibility," she said.
    Olmos Alcalde was linked to the cold case last year through a DNA sample taken from him after he was convicted in Wyoming for kidnapping.
    "The defendant would like you to believe that he was Romeo out there, suave," prosecutor Amy Okubo told jurors before they were given the case. Okubo said it was unlikely that Chase would have met Olmos Alcalde and had sex with him, since she had spent the last three days of her life attending a graduation ceremony, buying Christmas presents and spending the night at a hotel with her boyfriend and his family.
    Okubo said Chase wasn't a reckless woman who would have random sex with someone.
    Prosecutors said the murder weapon, a child-size baseball bat, belonged to Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend. They said the ex-girlfriend's DNA was found on the bat, linking Olmos Alcalde to the beginning and end of the crime.
    Defense attorneys had argued that partial fingerprints and the DNA profile of another male also were found on the bat handle, suggesting that the real killer was still on the loose.
    Okubo said investigators have checked the DNA profile with a national database and came up with no suspects, and that the other set of DNA likely came from a child.
    "The defendant wants you to believe astronomical coincidences are out there," she said. "That the bat directly connected to... the defendant's girlfriend was used by some unknown person to kill Susannah Chase. That's impossible. It's preposterous."
    Defense attorney Mary Claire Mulligan said nurses and doctors who treated Chase indicated at the time that there was no evidence of sexual assault. She also told jurors that Chase's jeans had no blood on them, despite the bloodiness of the crime scene and prosecutors' allegation that the assailant put the woman's jeans on Chase's body after the sexual assault.
    "They assumed that whoever had sex with her must have killed her, so they focused on that and they put on blinders to everything else," Mulligan told jurors.
    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19870284/detail.html


    I&#8217;m not sure if you looked over these posts which I outlined before, but there is plenty there to support &#8220;an innocent explanation&#8221;

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=108432&page=3
    Posts 64 and 65
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=108432&page=7
    Post 158
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91605&page=4

    Post 99
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999&page=15
    Posts 367 - 370
    See also:
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108432&page=8
    Post 177
     
  20. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the Chase case the DNA should be considered relevant with this kind of technology. The girlfriend is a link to the suspect. Who knows if an IDI exists it could be like the Chase case and have a relation to the true killer. Since the case has gone nowhere for years I can only hope the DNA is relevant to the case. I really don't have a personal stake in who did it and don't care who the guilty party is as long as they are caught.
     
  21. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patsy told police she did NOT shower that morning, so there was no need to reapply her makeup from the night before. IMO, she never went to bed that night. She appeared to LE that morning just as she was when she returned from the White's.
    I meant what I said about the morgue creep. Why wasn't HE tested when the male DNA was found. That's what is so frustrating about this case. There is a real possibility that the male DNA belongs to him he WAS alone with her body and he DID try to sell that log- such a simple thing to rule out with one swab on the inside of a cheek. And it wasn't done. I believe police have the right to ask for that info. Obviously he wouldn't be a suspect in her murder, as she was already dead at first encounter, but for God's sake, such an obvious way to find out and we could have that one REALLY BIG question answered for once ad for all.

    Or maybe that's the problem....
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice