Are you trying to say that cynic doesn't understand that technology can recognize and separate DNA from separate donors?
IDI: Whats your problem?
- Thread starter Holdontoyourhat
- Start date
Are you trying to say that cynic doesn't understand that technology can recognize and separate DNA from separate donors?
What is your explanation of the DNA in the following case (from my previous post)
Example of secondary transfer; the case of Janelle Patton:
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesnt fit within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1
You are comparing a sexually active grown adult who is outside to a young little girl who had changed clothes (esp a closed package underwear) and was in the confine of her own home. And I agree that DNA evidence is not always the perfect answer in every case. But in this one it is significant since no one involved is able to put all the pieces together to make a case. They certainly had their reasons to suspect the Ramsey's at the time and did so.
What you don't get is that all the questions with DNA they got some answers to many years later. They have tested numerous parties that played with and associated with this young girl. And so far it comes back to some dude that they don't have in the system. What they were not sure was significant after the murder, they realize is significant now.
The police made numerous accusations concerning fibers and sexual abuse in interviews but they never put their cards on the table. They couldn't make a case even when the DNA was put under the microscope of unsurety. It is time to bring a new theory guys and gals.
I don't agree. We don't know what all the police knew/knows. We also know the DA's office did not seem amendable to indicting the Ramseys, which is a different issue than the police not having a case. Other DA offices have indicted on far less case data.
Based on what is known to the public, there seemed to be enough evidence to indict one or both Ramseys but this puts us back to the cross finger-pointing defense.
Unless and until the DNA can be connected to a person who was on the scene, I find it on the low end of evidentiary value.
She was a heterosexual female with no reason whatsoever to have female DNA under her fingernail and on her panties, other than through secondary transfer from her own hands. (The time of death was around noon, BTW)
The innocent possibilities of DNA transfer are a very real possibility in the JBR case, and the Patton case underscores that.
If you wish to believe that all possible males that JBR and, or PR could have contacted innocently have been accounted for, that’s up to you. I don’t think it’s likely. (Buccal swabs for DNA testing were taken from all known contacts of Patton as well.)
The DNA in this case is weak, any case where there is no full profile in sight ( 9 ½ to 10 markers is a partial profile) and is based on skin cells would be subject to a vigorous challenge in court.
And this does not even begin to get into the possibilities of contamination from people that were involved in handling the evidence during times when the proper precautions to guard against the sensitivity of future DNA tests were not in place.
Chiquita71
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,835
- Reaction score
- 2
Hello WS 
I am RDI because the IDI does not make "sense" to me. Because my intuition is way too strong that John and Pasty had something to do with their daughter's death. Those are just feelings, I know and feelings can be wrong or jaded. No doubt. ITA. ( I also believe in statement analysis, my own and others and in my experience John and Pasty show massive deception). MOO.
I trust my intuition but I always confirm with information/facts if they are available, of course. Wanting information is why I am here looking into this case. I naively believed that reading about this case would eventually show me who did this beyond a shadow of a doubt: but it doesn't. Even though I might stand strongly in my opinion that RDI, I have to admit I'm not totally convinced. :waitasec:
I'm trying to say, RDI does not come even close to satisfying my mind about this but it does more so than IDI.
Here's what I would like: a thread for RDI and IDI for them to post and discuss what they agree upon. I have been sleuthing by trying to see both sides but I find my bias does have to come in to fill the empty spaces.
I am looking for a totally satisfying theory for this case: either IDI or RDI. There are other cases where people still debate guilt or innocence but by my own needs I feel I know the truth. That is not so in this case.
:cow:
I am RDI because the IDI does not make "sense" to me. Because my intuition is way too strong that John and Pasty had something to do with their daughter's death. Those are just feelings, I know and feelings can be wrong or jaded. No doubt. ITA. ( I also believe in statement analysis, my own and others and in my experience John and Pasty show massive deception). MOO.
I trust my intuition but I always confirm with information/facts if they are available, of course. Wanting information is why I am here looking into this case. I naively believed that reading about this case would eventually show me who did this beyond a shadow of a doubt: but it doesn't. Even though I might stand strongly in my opinion that RDI, I have to admit I'm not totally convinced. :waitasec:
I'm trying to say, RDI does not come even close to satisfying my mind about this but it does more so than IDI.
Here's what I would like: a thread for RDI and IDI for them to post and discuss what they agree upon. I have been sleuthing by trying to see both sides but I find my bias does have to come in to fill the empty spaces.
I am looking for a totally satisfying theory for this case: either IDI or RDI. There are other cases where people still debate guilt or innocence but by my own needs I feel I know the truth. That is not so in this case.
:cow:
A Grand Jury didn't indict. It really doesn't have to do with the DA's office. The DA was advised by a whole lot of professionals to leave this case alone for the time being.
I agree with you on the police. They made statements concerning fibers in interviews with the Ramsey's. Lin Wood said his clients could comment on it when he got to see the reports on just what this evidence was. The police refused and many speculate just what was actually in those reports. I would like to know too. I don't doubt that evidence was pointed in many different directions, but you are in the minority on the DNA. It is of the highest evidentiary value and is the main focus on this case. If you were a detective on the case and knew the case, I bet you would feel different.
What BOESP is suggesting is supported; the probative value of DNA can vary greatly depending on a number of factors.
Dont take my word for it: (From my earlier post)
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
And I agree with you on this to an extent. But it works both ways. In the JBR case, a fingerprint could be a stronger sort of evidence if say the person's fingerprint was known to have never had access to that house. But lets take the previous case you mentioned earlier. What evidence is stronger---a fingerprint near the body in the park or DNA on the body? It always depends on the case.
I have already agreed with you that certain times "touch DNA" can be dangerous to innocent people. You have posted numerous times about it and I get it. But believe me, the people handling this case also get it. And they used it in conjunction with DNA that they already had. You were right at first it was only partial. But with advances they were able to make a complete profile with all 13 markers and it is my personal opinion that they were also able to complete this profile with the fingernail DNA. I won't argue that the fingernail DNA evidence may not ever be presented in a court room though.
What I am getting at is that we can all sit here and argue the values of DNA until we are blue in the face. But I am pretty sure that the people looking into this case know a whole new set of facts instead of us having conversations that we were having in 1996 through 2005. I am asking you to think out of the box and to also recognize that your articles are old news. I believe the investigators now have proven to themselves that the DNA was not innocently transferred and are starting over.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
It seems RDI acknowledges nonrandom DNA deposited that night. That is, DNA found in three places on two articles of clothing JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered requires a nonrandom explanation that deposits the DNA the same night.
The question then becomes who deposited it? Was it deposited by its owner or by an unwitting host to transcient DNA?
I am sure Bode would argue that it was deposited by its owner. They explain on their website how the DNA is processed and the quantities of skin cells that need to be present. The only way they could produce a DNA profile using touch DNA methods is by an actual touch from the DNA owner. Thats why they call it 'touch DNA' in the first place. This is what I gather because secondary transfer isn't even discussed.
The question then becomes who deposited it? Was it deposited by its owner or by an unwitting host to transcient DNA?
I am sure Bode would argue that it was deposited by its owner. They explain on their website how the DNA is processed and the quantities of skin cells that need to be present. The only way they could produce a DNA profile using touch DNA methods is by an actual touch from the DNA owner. Thats why they call it 'touch DNA' in the first place. This is what I gather because secondary transfer isn't even discussed.
Just because Bode doesnt mention it on their website obviously doesnt make it untrue.
They hosted a workshop where secondary transfer was discussed:
BODE EAST COAST ADVANCED DNA TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP
Sponsored by:
The Bode Technology Group, Inc.
May 30 June 2, 2006
The Recovery of DNA Deposited on Weapons through Secondary Transfer
http://www.bodetech.com/documents/South_Seas_Brochure.pdf
Secondary transfer is a fact, proven in the lab and seen in the field.
That is completely false.
In my previous post, this DNA expert explains it nicely:
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
Just to give you a real world example, consider one of the means by which we can contract a cold.
Someone who has a cold sneezes and covers their mouth with their hand, thereby loading their hand with germs.
They proceed to a nearby public washroom and pull on the door handle to open the door.
You follow a short time later and pull the door handle open.
Some germs from that previous contact are now on your hand. If you touch your face at this time you will most likely come down with a cold in a few days and will have demonstrated the secondary transfer of a virus.
In order for it to be primary transfer, the person with the cold would have to touch your face directly with his hand.
joeskidbeck
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,897
- Reaction score
- 52
This is exactly they way I understood it to be in your earlier post. Touch dna would be easier to transfer innocently than other types. Right?:waitasec:
I will have to strongly disagree with that. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that a full profile was ever achieved from any DNA sample in this case.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share it.
The DNA evidence in this case is weak skin cell based DNA. The touch DNA is new weak evidence corroborating old weak evidence, the sum of which remains weak.
As many have previously mentioned; if the DNA was derived from blood or semen, that evidence would rightly be the centerpiece of the case.
This DNA evidence, however, must be weighed for relevancy
All evidence in an investigation must be considered in the context of the whole of the case and assigned a relative probative value.
The DNA in this case allows for at least the following innocent, non-intruder explanations which I went over in detail, in my previous post:
· Human error.
· Contamination.
· Innocent transfer.
· Secondary and tertiary transfer.
We will have to wait and see what the BPD does with the case now that they have control.
ML began her term as DA with a strong belief in the innocence of the Ramseys. I believe that this clouded her ability to view the DNA in its proper perspective.
The articles that I presented were old news but they describe an unchanging reality in most cases. For example, references to the DNA in the panties as being minute or artifact does not mean that somehow the DNA became a large, high value sample over time. It was then, and remains, a problematic sample that barely produced a 10 marker, partial profile.
As I said, there are essentially two reasons why a sample will not yield a full profile, low sample quantity and/or degradation.
I fully believe that the context of this case allows for an innocent explanation for the DNA findings. While its certainly possible that there may be DNA findings which we have not been made privy to, that are more conclusively exculpatory, we are left to debate only what is known, and what I see simply does not impress me.
Definitely, it shares many of the same issues that hair and fiber evidence suffers from because of the ease of transfer.
There were not enough markers in common to be declared a match with any other DNA evidence in the case.
Bob Grant, a former Adams County DA who helped investigate JonBenets death .
There were also DNA traces found under the childs fingernails, but they were degraded and tests were inconclusive, Grant said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14441778/
Because of the factual misuse of the nail clippers at the autopsy, we really can't consider anything taken from her fingernails. Mayer SAID there was no blood or skin or other evidence of a struggle, and because of his use of non-sterile clippers, anything found under JB's nails could have come from the corpse in the next drawer.
The link has a section entitled, “Possible Match with Fingernail DNA”
John San Augustin, Ollie Gray and Lin Wood are the sources for this information. The core of the RST, I would hardly expect any less from them.
That was from my post on the previous page in response to Roy.
The only people that have ever claimed there was any significance to the fingernail DNA were those on the Ramsey payroll. The first two are private investigators, and Lin Wood, well; I’ll be nice and just say that he was one of the primary Ramsey attorneys.
Lab reports were never officially released to the general public.
BTW, what DeeDee said regarding Meyer is true, and consequently, that evidence could never be presented in court. It also calls into question how other evidence in the case may have been handled.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
None, repeat none of the major networks who covered the touch DNA development characterized the findings in any way like you're describing. Where do you get this stuff? You don't even know the DNA type from the blood stain.
I suppose that the unknown male DNA found in fresh blood means nothing to you, right?
Further, there seems to be some confusion between secondary transfer of skin cells which I can fully understand, and touch DNA which by definition is not transferrable. They're two different animals, really.
From Bode's website:
In addition, in a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the perpetrator to produce a profile.
Secondary transfer isn't mentioned, as this type of contact would not deposit sufficient cells to produce a profile.
The DNA profile that was produced from two separate locations on JBRs waistband each matched the profile for DNA found years before in the blood stain in JBR's underwear. That evidence is only weak to the blind.