Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[SunnieRN]

Instead of a thread asking, "Were the Ramseys involved?", I would like to see a thread asking, 'Which Ramseys were involved, and what is the reason for your theory?'

I know this wouldn't make an IDI theorist happy, but I wonder if the theories would help us concentrate in one area, vs another, or tend to lead us to new questions?

 

[Chrishope]

Instead of a thread asking, "Were the Ramseys involved?", I would like to see a thread asking, 'Which Ramseys were involved, and what is the reason for your theory?'

I know this wouldn't make an IDI theorist happy, but I wonder if the theories would help us concentrate in one area, vs another, or tend to lead us to new questions?

I suspect it would make IDI happy, as RDI would be forced to pick a horse and then explain the rationale.

I'll go first. I suspect JR and PR. I see no evidence of BR being involved. One can speculate, but there is nothing beyond speculation.

With PR we have the RN and the practice note, both (IMO) in PR's handwriting. We have fiber evidence on both of them. IMO the DNA doesn't clear anyone, it just suggests possibilities; touch-transfer from a male child at the Christmas party. An intruder killer. An intruder guest. We don't know who's DNA it is, or how it got there.

I suspect for most juries the existence of the unknown DNA would serve as reasonable doubt. No chance of ever getting an RDI indictment in this case, much less a conviction.

Aside from the DNA little to nothing about IDI theory is convincing, to me.

By process of elimination, the probability is, IMO, PR/JR. Intruder is possible but much less probable. BR involvement is possible but strictly speculative.

Of course, at trial, the standard would be "Beyond a reasonable doubt". Not Preponderance of the evidence.

 

[SunnieRN]

Have you seen this bit of information from Cynic, concerning DNA?

8. The Mixture Theory:

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Despite having seen this bit of information before relating to the panty bloodstain, which ultimately was also found to contain a 9 ½ marker “intruder” DNA profile, its full significance never occurred to me.


Part of my reasoning for not believing an IDI. Thanks Cynic.

 

[Chrishope]

Have you seen this bit of information from Cynic, concerning DNA?

8. The Mixture Theory:

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Despite having seen this bit of information before relating to the panty bloodstain, which ultimately was also found to contain a 9 ½ marker “intruder” DNA profile, its full significance never occurred to me.


Part of my reasoning for not believing an IDI. Thanks Cynic.

Thank you. That's interesting.

 

[SunnieRN]

When I first read that it seemed to make some pieces of the puzzle fit together for me. Also helped other things start to make sense.

I also thank you Agatha for your post about the housekeepers interview. She made it sound as if JonBenet was fearful of playing in the basement train room, whereas Patsy talked as if they both spent a lot of time playing there.

All clues usually lead to one conclusion!!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Is it true that JonBenet didn't have any scratch marks on her neck?

 

[cynic]

Is it true that JonBenet didn't have any scratch marks on her neck?

Absolutely true, there was no blood or tissue under JonBenet’s fingernails; IOW she didn’t scratch herself or any fictional intruder. She was not conscious when the ligature was applied.
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle.
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Then how can IDI's believe that JonBenet was strangled first? I've seen a lot of them discredit Steve Thomas because this was his first murder investigation, whereas Lou Smit had solved dozens of murders.

Whenever I read some IDI discussions, I've noticed that whenever they come to a point of evidence that can't be explained to fit their theory, they just contribute it to how complex/mysterious the case is.

 

[cynic]

If the DNA found on her underwear and clothes points to an unknown man (not matching the three people still living in the house) Catch me up here, why would anyone still think they are involved. That DNA is run through the system every 2 weeks now.

(considering the number of places they found it, underwear, under her fingernails) I don't buy casual contact.. And everyone at the party was checked/DNA.. and eliminated

I still say intruder, but I think Intruder who knew them

Sorry I didn’t get to this sooner. I have posted extensively on the subject, so rather than repeat the information, have a look at the links below. Feel free to PM me as well if you wish, although, unfortunately, I’m not certain when I’ll be able to respond.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132173&page=4

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187565&postcount=22"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187598&postcount=34"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]

 

[tfrohning]

I never post on this case. I got to say I am surprise of the poll. I don't think the Ramsey had anything to do with murder of their little girl.

My theory has always been that the perts man and woman were someone that work with
John.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I never post on this case. I got to say I am surprise of the poll. I don't think the Ramsey had anything to do with murder of their little girl.

My theory has always been that the perts man and woman were someone that work with
John.

BBM

What do you base this on and what evidence do you have to support your theory?

 

[TheyDontSee]

I voted that they are involved. I don't think they are only "somewhat" involved but completely. Each Ramsey is involved to a degree. I don't think there was an intruder. My possible scenarios are as follow (in no particular order):

1. Burke killed JB and his parents covered it up.
2. JB was being abused by Jon and he killed her by strangulation, got Patsy to cover-up for him and told Burke to keep his mouth shut.
3. Patsy got mad and accidentally killers JB and made it look like an intruder molested and killed her.
4. Both Patsy and Job were sexually abusing her and they either accidentally killed her by strangulation OR they decided that this couldn't go on, and killed her so JB could not tell anyone.
5. JB was involved in some sort of pedophile ring, with the parents knowledge. This isn't an original idea... I think I read it on this forum while I was still a lurker.

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that the Ramsey's are 100% innocent. Most of the evidence seems to point at them.

 

[BBB167893]

Then how can IDI's believe that JonBenet was strangled first? I've seen a lot of them discredit Steve Thomas because this was his first murder investigation, whereas Lou Smit had solved dozens of murders.

Whenever I read some IDI discussions, I've noticed that whenever they come to a point of evidence that can't be explained to fit their theory, they just contribute it to how complex/mysterious the case is.

Boy, you have nailed it down perfectly, eileen.

 

[Roy23]

I suspect it would make IDI happy, as RDI would be forced to pick a horse and then explain the rationale.

I'll go first. I suspect JR and PR. I see no evidence of BR being involved. One can speculate, but there is nothing beyond speculation.

With PR we have the RN and the practice note, both (IMO) in PR's handwriting. We have fiber evidence on both of them. IMO the DNA doesn't clear anyone, it just suggests possibilities; touch-transfer from a male child at the Christmas party. An intruder killer. An intruder guest. We don't know who's DNA it is, or how it got there.

I suspect for most juries the existence of the unknown DNA would serve as reasonable doubt. No chance of ever getting an RDI indictment in this case, much less a conviction.

Aside from the DNA little to nothing about IDI theory is convincing, to me.

By process of elimination, the probability is, IMO, PR/JR. Intruder is possible but much less probable. BR involvement is possible but strictly speculative.

Of course, at trial, the standard would be "Beyond a reasonable doubt". Not Preponderance of the evidence.

I have to say that although I have a differing opinion than you, your posts impress me as from the heart and well thought. Everytime I read, I wish it be someone like you involved in the investigation of this case. I actually believe it to be true as well at least for now.

I wish I could give you more besides DNA to push a good respectful debate. That is kind of hard though. Contradicting information exists for both sides. I could throw out Lou Smit and you could throw out a ton of other stuff. That is our problem. The facts are private now. And that is because the treasure trove of conflicting information will ultimately only hurt this case if it were to ever come to trial. And that includes IDI or RDI.

Your point of the DNA standing in the way of a circumstancial case is so very true. Not because I say so. Let me get that out of the way before Dave attacks me. But because it is a reality. I honestly believe that they have refined the DNA, found more, that gives them certainty someone unknown was involved in the death of that child. I believe the TDNA was only and experiment based on how they thought the crime went down. Certainly Patsy and John had TDNA somewhere on JBR. But this test was isolated on the leggings.

It only confirmed what they suspect. IMO

 

[Chrishope]

I have to say that although I have a differing opinion than you, your posts impress me as from the heart and well thought. Everytime I read, I wish it be someone like you involved in the investigation of this case. I actually believe it to be true as well at least for now.

I wish I could give you more besides DNA to push a good respectful debate. That is kind of hard though. Contradicting information exists for both sides. I could throw out Lou Smit and you could throw out a ton of other stuff. That is our problem. The facts are private now. And that is because the treasure trove of conflicting information will ultimately only hurt this case if it were to ever come to trial. And that includes IDI or RDI.

Your point of the DNA standing in the way of a circumstancial case is so very true. Not because I say so. Let me get that out of the way before Dave attacks me. But because it is a reality. I honestly believe that they have refined the DNA, found more, that gives them certainty someone unknown was involved in the death of that child. I believe the TDNA was only and experiment based on how they thought the crime went down. Certainly Patsy and John had TDNA somewhere on JBR. But this test was isolated on the leggings.

It only confirmed what they suspect. IMO

Thank you for the kind words. I don't know how well thought out my posts are - I'm just kind of stumbling through the darkness trying to make sense of things -something, anything, just one thing.

I don't think there is much chance that this case will ever be solved. As you say, there is conflicting evidence and no real way to discard any of it. One can form an opinion that something is likely or unlikely, but that's as far as we can get, and we won't always agree.

Have you seen cynic's recent posts on DNA. Actually I think they are old posts but have been reposted or linked recently. As far as I'm able to understand his reasoning, the DNA "profile" they think they found on the leggings could be partials, mixed together, which falsely suggest an intruder. But my understanding is crude, so see his posts for a better understanding.

Possibly there will be a CODIS match some day, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think a confession is likely either.

The existence of unexplained DNA would serve as reasonable doubt in the minds of most jurors. There could never be a conviction of a Ramsey at this point.

I'm always willing to have a respectful debate with you, but I think we are on opposite sides of the fence, and I think we've both been through all the pros/cons of both sides. IOWs I think we've been over it time and time again with others.

Right now I'm finding it more useful to re-consider what I've always thought about RDI theory. The only thing certain is we won't solve the case by alternating between offense and defense of our pet theories.

 

[BBB167893]

Your point of the DNA standing in the way of a circumstancial case is so very true. Not because I say so. Let me get that out of the way before Dave attacks me. But because it is a reality.

Number one, since you dragged me into this, I'll put in my 2 cents.

Number two, you have me wrong. I understand full well that the DNA would stand in the way of making a circumstantial case, just for different reasons than you do. I believe it would because most jurors have the wrong idea about these things. They think DNA is the end-all, be-all of forensics, but it's just another tool in the box. The added problem here is that you had a prosecutorial team that was equally ignorant.

Like I said, pilgrim: no amount of technology will ever replace legwork and prosecutorial skill.

 

[cynic]

Your point of the DNA standing in the way of a circumstantial case is so very true. Not because I say so. Let me get that out of the way before Dave attacks me. But because it is a reality. I honestly believe that they have refined the DNA, found more, that gives them certainty someone unknown was involved in the death of that child. I believe the TDNA was only and experiment based on how they thought the crime went down. Certainly Patsy and John had TDNA somewhere on JBR. But this test was isolated on the leggings.

It only confirmed what they suspect. IMO

Your speculation in this area is just that, speculation, and is completely unsupported in light of the fact that Mark Beckner has refused to echo the views of Mary Lacy and Stan Garnett has publically un-exonerated the Ramseys.
Lacy’s reign of misinformation and outrageous bias has thankfully ended.

The circumstantial evidence in a given case has superseded seemingly contrarian DNA evidence in a number of trials and its mere existence in a crime scene can mean several things.
I will agree that the Anthony jury would most certainly be swayed by it or any “shiny object” that the defense would dangle in front of it.

Two mistakes made with respect to DNA by proponents of the intruder theory are the following:
1. The elevation of the probative value of DNA evidence to such a position of dominance that it dictates the relevance of all other evidence in the case, regardless of the direction and implication of that evidence.


2. Assigning all DNA evidence the same probative value regardless of the source of the cells sampled. DNA evidence can be extremely incriminating if it is derived from body fluid sources, especially blood and semen, otherwise a high degree of caution must be exercised.

• What is the source of the unknown DNA in this case?

DNA testing of one of two blood spots found on JBR’s panties revealed a mixed profile, the minor component of which suggested an unknown male donor. The major donor of the profile and the exclusive donor of the blood was JonBenet.
The unknown component was not from blood or semen.

The DNA found contained only 10 of 13 markers used for identification and was not from blood or semen.
Profiling JonBenét Ramsey's Murder, Gregg McCrary
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...ofiled/16.html

"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.”
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...amsey-inquiry/

There are several good reasons why the most probable source for the unknown DNA profile from the sample taken from JBR’s panties is skin cells.
1. If it was saliva, why would they suggest that the profile might be attributable to “human handling?”
2. If the source was from a bodily fluid then it should have also been found on JBR’s body or from vaginal swabs that were taken at the autopsy.
3. Moreover, there are very sensitive and effective presumptive tests that identify bodily fluids, for example, the RSID-Saliva kit is very effective at determining whether saliva is present.
RSID-Saliva gave positive results when saliva was diluted 1/128.
Saliva could be detected with RSID-Saliva on swabs from the skin of a normal active individual 72 hours post saliva deposition
A positive result was still obtained from swabs of the skin that had been deposited with saliva even after the skin had been wet prior to swabbing
http://www.seidden.com/Saliva%20-%20archivo%205.pdf

There are other issues with this DNA:
The profile from JonBenet’s panties has been correctly described as a mixed, partial profile.
The profile was initially too weak to be uploaded to CODIS, although it was
close.

In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...11/lkl.00.html

Because it was close, there was some pressure to take another look, and lo and behold, the 9 marker profile was, shall we say, “tweaked” into a 10 marker profile that met the minimum standard for entry into CODIS. It would be very interesting to know all the machinations that resulted in that transformation.

DNA from JonBenet's clothes submitted to FBI
Seven years after the 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey's body was found strangled and beaten in the basement of her parents' home in Boulder, Colorado, DNA found in a blood stain on the beauty queen's underwear has been given to the FBI in a possible step toward identifying her killer, the family lawyer told CNN Friday.
…
One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.
"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.
CNN, December 27, 2003
To keep things in perspective, the requirement for a full profile in CODIS is 13 markers.
The question that you have to ask is why is it a partial profile?
There are two explanations: Extremely low sample quantity and/or degradation.
(As few as 30 cells will produce a profile using conventional DNA testing techniques.)

The other item of clothing from which a DNA profile was obtained was from the waistband area of the long johns that JonBenet was clothed in when discovered in the wine cellar.
The area, which contained no visible stains, was scraped with a razor and, as such, is likely to have skin cells a source for the profile.
Angela Williamson from the lab that performed the testing indicated this in an interview with Nancy Grace in 2008

WILLIAMSON: The area that we sampled from, there was no visible staining. We believe it to be touch DNA, most likely skin cells from maybe someone’s hand.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../09/ng.01.html

Despite the publicity that surrounded the revelation that seemingly corroborating DNA evidence was found on the long johns, no technical information was revealed.
The news conference by Mary Lacy indicated only that the DNA “matched” the profile previously entered into CODIS.
Unfortunately this is a meaningless statement unless we are told how many markers are in the DNA profile that was derived from the long johns.
Given the previous debacle with the so called “matching” fingernail DNA evidence, can we trust that this is a legitimate match?
Here is a statement from Ramsey PI’s:
“Agustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...l?tag=untagged
Sounds convincing doesn’t it, until you are made aware that two markers “matching” 9 – 10 markers is preposterous.
Why not reveal the number of matching markers between the touch DNA from the long johns and the CODIS profile based on the DNA from JonBenet’s underwear?



Could it be that the DNA profile derived from the long johns is a weak profile, perhaps yet another mixed, partial profile consisting of only a few markers?

• What is the value of the DNA profile that was uploaded to CODIS in 2003?

But others who worked on the case warned that DNA evidence alone will not be enough to
convict Karr.
“It can only exclude or include him as the possible killer. It can never be 100 percent,'' a forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, said Saturday, noting that investigators only have a partial profile to work with.
“There was different DNA and mixture DNA that was hard to develop a profile from,'' said Bob Grant, a former prosecutor from neighboring Adams County who was an adviser in the case.
JonBenet Murder Case Heats Up Boulder, Colo.
Saturday August 19, 2006 9:16 PM
By CHASE SQUIRES
Associated Press Writer

Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder. Her theory stems from the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA were found in JonBenet’s underpants — DNA that renowned forensic expert Henry Lee believes is the result of contamination and totally unrelated to the crime
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."
Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...amsey-inquiry/

"The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."
…
"Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.



http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...23/miss-steps/

• How should we treat DNA evidence obtained from skin cells?

Because of the “mobility” of this DNA, it is not possible that it should carry the same weight as DNA from bodily fluid. It should be of approximately the same value as hair and fiber, and of lesser significance than fingerprint evidence.
Here is an opinion from a seasoned forensic biologist and DNA expert who clearly outlines that not all DNA has the same relevance.

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

I am familiar with "Touch DNA" and limitations to this technique which includes the following:
No body fluid has been identified for the samples tested. If a DNA profile is identified in a "touch" or "contact" area, the result may be from an individual with no relation to the crime.
http://www.uis.edu/innocenceproject/...teResponse.pdf

Factors that must be considered when determining the relevance of DNA evidence in this or any case:
Was the crime scene preserved?
Were the samples properly stored?
Were appropriate precautions taken to prevent contamination at all stages, from collection at the scene to final analysis at the lab?
With respect to DNA derived from skin cells, the following additional factors must also be considered:
Is there a possibility that secondary or tertiary transfer could explain the evidence?
Was a higher standard of protective wear employed, including masks, during all phases of collection and handling of evidence and samples?
Were masks worn by all individuals while near items of evidence to avoid contamination from speaking, sneezing or coughing?

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case should therefore be viewed in light of all the evidence, and a decision made as to its relevance. It should not dictate the relevance of the non-DNA evidence.

The experts agree:
As the sensitivity of multiplex STR PCR DNA profiling sensitivity increases, with less and less DNA required for the development of a DNA profile, the “forensic context” of DNA recovered at scenes of crime must be closely scrutinized.
…
Therefore, only after a thorough examination of the known facts surrounding a case, and a multidisciplinary forensic investigation, should conclusions be drawn."
-William C. Thompson, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California

…if biological evidence from a 20-year old case was handled by ungloved police officers or evidence custodians (prior to knowledge regarding the sensitivity of modern DNA testing,) then the true perpetrator’s DNA might be masked by contamination from the collecting officer or evidence custodian.
…
This scenario emphasizes the importance of considering DNA evidence as an investigative tool within the context of a case father than the sole absolute proof of guilt or innocence.
Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing, John M. Butler, pages 442-443

Any statement on the strength of the DNA evidence must be considered in the context of the case, DNA evidence should not be considered in isolation as it is affected by many factors like the type of biological material, method and time of deposition and the substrate on which it was deposited.
An Introduction to Forensic Genetics, William Goodwin, Adrian Linacre, Sibte Hadi, page 87

“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..
http://www.aafs.org/pdf/2009ProceedingsDenver.pdf

End of Part One
Continued below…

 

[cynic]

Part Two:

• Can we trust the way the DNA evidence was handled?

"When Meyer (the coroner) clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, pages 45-46

It has been proven that simply speaking near evidence that is later tested for DNA can contaminate the evidence. Masks were not commonly worn by those handling evidence, or near articles of evidence, at the time of JBR’s death.
If the evidence was handled without the appropriate precautions and procedures in place, it could be worthless.

“But the sensitivity of the test also means it detects even the slightest contamination.
In January, the Seattle lab's DNA supervisor, George Chan, was chatting with a forensic scientist who was examining evidence in a child rape case. Although Chan had no other exposure to the case, a subsequent test found Chan's DNA, as well as that of the suspect, in the evidence -- a sample taken from a pair of boxer shorts. The likely culprit: saliva spewed during Chan's conversation.”
http://www.bioforensics.com/news/DNA...lems_7-04.html

Aside from the possibility of contamination, there exists the very real possibility that DNA was transferred to the areas where it found through secondary transfer.
The easiest way to understand this is to realize that many people catch a cold or flu as a result of secondary transfer. When you touch someone’s hand that has a cold (or touch some surface that they have touched) and you then touch your face, you will likely contract a cold. In order to catch a cold as a result of primary transfer, the person with a cold would have to touch your face directly.
Secondary transfer of DNA is a proven fact. It has been observed in lab experiments and in the field.

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item.
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tamination.pdf

In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels

http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...on%20Study.pdf

• The following section highlights two cases where DNA was irrelevant or pointed in the wrong direction. These cases were solved despite the DNA evidence.

Janelle Patton

The case of Janelle Patton clearly illustrates that matching DNA in three locations can have an innocent explanation and have no bearing, whatsoever, on the prosecution of the case. The DNA of the man who committed the crime (McNeill) was not found on the body of the victim.
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.
Analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females.
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.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=10395220
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/t...-1111113128516
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 doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.

Alan and Dianne Johnson:

DNA evidence pointed to an unidentified male
Matching DNA was found in three locations, on a pink bathrobe, a latex glove and a leather glove.
The real perpetrator was their daughter, Sarah Marie Johnson
She is in prison for killing her parents in 2003 when she was 16 years old.
On June 26, 2008, a unanimous Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Johnson's convictions, thereby rejecting all issues she had raised on appeal.

They did, however, find a pink bathrobe, a latex glove and a leather glove in the garbage outside the Johnsons' home, which contained blood and other DNA samples from all three Johnson family members and another unknown source.

Forensic scientist Keith Inman testified that, of three possible hypotheses for the shooter -- Alan Johnson, Sarah Johnson or an unknown perpetrator -- the most likely was an unknown shooter.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-03-07/j...ples?_s=PM:LAW

End of Part Two
Continued below…

 

[cynic]

Part Three:

• Lacy’s exoneration of the Ramseys

Aphrodite Jones tells us:
But, new techniques of DNA analysis have produced one significant breakthrough. On July 9, 2008, prosecutors officially cleared the Ramseys of any involvement in the murder of their daughter. Patsy never lived to see the Ramsey name cleared.

Mary Lacy’s longstanding belief in the innocence of the Ramseys clouded her ability to view the DNA in its proper perspective; consequently, the touch DNA finding was all that Mary Lacy needed to make her unprecedented public proclamation of innocence with respect to individuals that were rightly primary suspects for years.
Let’s look at her statement regarding the touch DNA finding:
"The match of the male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us than an unknown male handled these items," Lacy wrote to Ramsey. "Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder."

To suggest that there can be “no innocent explanation” for the DNA in this case indicates either a profound ignorance of DNA, or a profound bias, or perhaps both.

Can there truly be “no innocent explanation” for this type of DNA evidence, as Mary Lacy claims?

The DNA in this case allows for at least the following “innocent,” non-intruder explanations:

· Human error involving data interpretation.
· Contamination.
· Innocent primary transfer.
· Innocent secondary or tertiary transfer.

• Many were openly skeptical about the exoneration of the Ramseys and sought to place the DNA evidence in its proper perspective.

Dr. Michael Baden, Former Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFpkBGI-6A"]‪Baden‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Dr. Cyril Wecht, Former Medical Examiner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania , former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:
On July 9, 2008, Cyril Wecht addressed the new findings, “The fact that this other DNA was found at this time matches previous DNA that was thought to be a contaminant does not alter the picture.” Of course not. This did not call for the public exoneration the DA rushed to give; it called for investigation. There was no way to know whether it belonged to the killer
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 131

Also
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgt9yMZCvbI"]‪Wecht‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy District Attorney:
The DNA evidence could be significant, or, it could be contamination, there’s a debate about that. -February 3, 2009
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmMzN4U7m_I"]‪New look at the Ramsey case‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

…whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”
…
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
- Dr. Henry Lee, Chief Emeritus of the Connecticut State Police, Founder and Professor of the Forensic Science Program at the University of New Haven
Daily Camera, Vanessa Miller, July 10, 2008

Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer.
…
To the many questions that have plagued the Ramsey case we can now add another: is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on?
Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado
http://www.reporternews.com/news/200...n-ramsey-case/

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9839651

Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence.
"My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant.
…
Grant said he still sees evidence, and "unanswered questions" that would support either inside or outside involvement in JonBenet's murder - but that Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.
"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-former...,2592897.story

GRACE: To Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author of "And Justice for Some." Wendy, are you convinced that the discovery of this DNA, which matches DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear -- that DNA, a male DNA was found within blood of JonBenet Ramsey`s in her underwear. Does this really clear the Ramseys?
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: No. In my opinion, Mary Lacy has issues in terms of her judgments. She was the one who, after all, charged John Mark Karr, a completely innocent man, with the crime despite the fact that he had never even been in Boulder, Colorado. We all seemed to know that before she did. Let`s just say I`m not having a lot of faith in this woman`s judgment at all. Plus, she`s a lame duck politician. No.
And you know what, Nancy? I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../09/ng.01.html

"I don't think anybody is an idiot for believing in the intruder theory. But I do think those who do probably don't work in law enforcement"
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 108

• A new DA takes office, a task force is convened, a promise of a fresh look at the case. – February 2009

City of Boulder's Chief of Police, Mark Beckner and Boulder’s current District Attorney, Stan Garnett both had the opportunity at a press conference to endorse the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not.
Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared?
Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don’t want to answer that question for a couple of reasons.
One, we are bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective, they are people who have never worked on this case, who are well known in the law enforcement and the district attorney field who can come in and look at this case, lay out the evidence on the table and tell us what they think, challenge us, ask us questions, give us ideas.
I think, to say anything, I would have to get into the evidence, and I don’t want to do that.
And secondly, I don’t want to set any expectations or biases for people coming into this committee.
If the police chief stands here and says, I think this, or, I think that, they may come in with some bias, we don’t want that, we want them to tell us what they think.
Boulder press conference, Feb 2, 2009

• Stan Garnett un-exonerates the Ramseys. - October 11, 2010

On a Denver radio show, KHOW’s Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman interviewed Boulder DA, Stan Garnett. What makes Stan Garnett’s un-exoneration of the Ramsey’s all that much more compelling is that his interview on KHOW was nearly 2 years after the task force convened, in other words, if the DNA evidence was so compelling, (as Lacy would have us believe,) the task force would have reported as much, and the Ramseys would have remained cleared.

Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Stan Garnett: What I’ve always said about Mary Lacy’s exoneration is that it speaks for itself.
I’ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence…
Dan Caplis: Stan, when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it’s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn’t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn’t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate?
That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.
…
Craig Silverman: I’d say the headline out of our show is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of exoneration) isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as far as Stan Garnett is concerned.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5701132&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett[/ame]

 

[Roy23]

Read it many times Cynic. It is my belief that Lacey's exoneration is premature as well. the only reason Beckner and Garnett say such is because the Ramsey's could be an accompliss based on circumstances. I think the DNA has been rendered very reliable by all involved.