A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[UKGuy]

UK Guy - thank you for your post.

I am not sure I follow all the points above. I agree that until/unless ANY of the the DNA is identified in CODIS and an individual can be linked to the scene it is not relevant. If it is not sperm or blood it can too easily be due to secondary transfer. I think some earlier posts by Anti-K and others asserted that the location of the tDNA on the leggings/underwear was significant, and I disagree for the reasons posted above.

The idea that the leggings were clean and put on after JonBenet was killed is new to me. I have heard such theories about the underwear, and can accept that she might have been dressed in them postmortem. I believe I read that size 12 underwear were available in a gift package in the basement. This notion is not in conflict with the idea of DNA on the crotch of the underwear mingled with her blood. If she had secondary transfer from her hands to her genitals (from wiping or scratching) that would account for the transfer via blood when she was redressed. It would not be the case for the leggings, obviously. That would be an argument against the killer chasing down clean leggings. That and the fact that they were urine stained.

You said: "so as a point of future contention with any IDI, they are sure to say JonBenet wore the size-12's to the White's party." I may be slow, but I simply don't see why that is a problem. But that is perhaps because I don't think the size 12s are important?

Fides,

The idea that the leggings were clean and put on after JonBenet was killed is new to me.

Here is what I'm assuming: JonBenet returned from the White's wearing size-6 underwear and a pair of black velvet pants, if she dressed for bed then she wore the bloodstained Pink Barbie Nightgown which was left in the wine-cellar, containing BR's touch dna?

After she was assaulted and subject to blunt force trauma she was cleaned up and redressed, hence the size-12's and the white longjohns, the latter masking any visible signs of internal injury, once she was asphyxiated her bladder evacuated leading to the urine stains on the longjohns.

So I reckon the dna arrived via secondary transfer and not by JonBenet herself, IDI suggest the source is that of an intruder?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Let's not forget that JBs groin was wiped down. Whatever was used to do this could also have contained the skin cells found on her body. Imagine how much DNA would be on a hand towel in the guest bathroom of that home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
I agree, but IDI proponents also cite matching touch-dna on the sides of the longjohns, so its more likely it was transferred manually, whether by glove to longjohns, or say the size-12 packaging to the redressers hand and from there to the longjohns.

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

So the touch-dna discovered on JonBenet's size-12 underwear mingled with blood, may simply have dropped from either from the longjohns or the cleaners hand as they wiped JonBenet down?

i.e. Not via JonBenet in some unknown toilet!


.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
I agree, but IDI proponents also cite matching touch-dna on the sides of the longjohns, so its more likely it was transferred manually, whether by glove to longjohns, or say the size-12 packaging to the redressers hand and from there to the longjohns.



So the touch-dna discovered on JonBenet's size-12 underwear mingled with blood, may simply have dropped from either from the longjohns or the cleaners hand as they wiped JonBenet down?

i.e. Not via JonBenet in some unknown toilet!


.

I don't think that without a match we will ever be able to say conclusively where that DNA came from. I lean towards the cloth theory for a couple of reasons.

1) Because if a person thoroughly dries their hands and or face in a towel, it would be impossible not to infect it with DNA

2) And, because the only place in that entire house where this unidentified DNA appears coincideds with the only area that would have been wiped with that towel.

3) Its beed said that the areas on the waistband were the areas where someone would have grasped the garment to pull them up. Try, and it is possible that DNA went from towel to glove to waistband. But remember, that waistband is elastic, so it would drag and wipe against the skin as they were pulled up. As I recall, Lacy only tested two areas on the waistband (where she thought hands would have been used to pull them up) but that doesn't mean that the band does not have more DNA on it. If they tested the entire front portion of the waistband and found matching DNA on the whole length of it, it would prove that the DNA probably came from the wiping process and not just from the hands of an intruder. Of course Lacy didn't seem to have any interest in finding DNA from any other locations.

 

[Anti-K]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how do police distinguish traces of DNA that must be all over most people from significant DNA, unless it is really obvious (a pool of blood, semen, etc.)?

I know that we pick up countless traces of other people all the time, but DNA would be useless if we were regularly getting false positives due to a victim having sat on a bus, for example, where he or she would seemingly pick up a lot of tDNA from others. In a highly populated area there is a fair chance that one of those traces would be from someone in a DNA database due to a prior arrest. I know the sample or at least one of the samples in this case was unusually small and incomplete, but if our methods are so sensitive to contamination, it seems like we'd have a lot more issues with DNA reliability than we currently do. I'm not disputing that we have other people's DNA all over us because I know we do, but it seems like the tests aren't regularly revealing hundreds of profiles. Clearly the tests distinguish between these traces and more relevant DNA in most cases - is it base on size? While police definitely don't always tell the truth, when they have an unknown DNA sample and claim it belongs to the perpetrator, the typical response is not "well it is junk because they didn't clear every person the victim may have easily come into contact with the skin cells of." Usually, when a match comes through, it is to someone with an actual connection. If police pick up on it, it seems like the majority of the time it is significant, belonging to someone they had an interaction with even if that person turns out not to be the actual perpetrator.

Investigators target specific areas, areas believed to have been of most recent contact and that an assailant (but, no one else) would have recently touched. If something is found, investigators try to eliminate possible innocent sources (contamination, etc).

It is impossible to tell much from a sample size, because even bad guys can leave very small samples – just like anyone else.

DNA might be everywhere but it isn’t everywhere in usable or meaningful amounts, and if you have someone else’s DNA on you it’s probably the DNA of someone you know and have been in recent contact with and it is probably not inside your underwear.

If DNA was as many here seem to believe, then it would be useless as evidence.

Getting this DNA onto the exterior, side hip areas of the victim’s leggings and inside the crotch of her panties through innocent means would be quite the feet, especially since one sample is probably saliva (wet) and the other two are probably skin cells (dry); and, concerted effort into sourcing these samples (previous autopsies, persons associated with handling the body, the investigation, family, friends, etc) all failed. Getting this DNA onto the exterior, side hip areas of the victim’s leggings and inside the crotch of her panties by her killer would be so easy we could predict it would be there (which is what did happen with the tDNA on the leggings!).

This is all about location – 3 separate locations, two articles of clothing and 3 matching samples.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Wow. Five times they ran this test, the "perp" DNA wasn't even on the knife but the secondary person's DNA was on it. This is really important to consider! And of course that secondary DNA showed itself 85% of the time.

I think DNA is a really useful tool for crime, but only when taken into consideration with everything else on the scene and also its own drawbacks. I don't have access to that article other than the abstract. I wonder if anyone does have access, did they find other DNA besides the willing participants in the study? Did they find lots of random DNA that could have been picked up from before the test? Or maybe they thoroughly washed their hands or something in preparation for the testing.

I think you must have read something wrong.

The first thing to note is that this article you reference is in regards to studies conducted using LCN, which does NOT apply to the jbr case. The DNA in the jbr case was processed through the usual means. Also, it is important to note (this should not even have to be said anymore) that only the DNA found on the leggings was tDNA!

Anyway, they did not run a test five times. The article does not state how many times tests were run. It states that “n five samples, the secondary contributor was either the only contributor or the major contributor” found. The article doesn’t say how many samples were tested. It does say that secondary DNA transfer was detected in 85% of the samples.” 85% of the samples using LCN!

Did you read the preview? Two pages are available. Here is a quote BBM:
“…laboratory personnel were instructed to shake hands for varying amounts of time and then handle precleaned objects for five seconds. The participants’ hands and the objects were swabbed. Additionally, participants handled coffee mugs for two hours in accordance with regular usage. Afterward, the coffee mugs were handled by a second individual for 10 seconds. The mug and the palm of the second individual were subsequently swabbed. Under these experimental conditions, Ladd et al. did not observe secondary DNA transfer and concluded their data did not support the notion that DNA profiles from case samples could be compromised by secondary transfer (4). Despite stating that secondary DNA transfer was not observed, they did acknowledge the occasional presence of alle-les from the secondary individual below their analysis threshold. However, a complete secondary profile was never detected in their samples. The presence of alleles, albeit below the analysis threshold, that were concordant with the profiles of the sec-ondary individuals suggests that secondary DNA transfer may have occurred”

I think we can assume that the samples tested in the quoted passage were tested with the usual means, while the samples referred to in the Abstract were tested with LCN. The jbr samples were tested with the usual means. Only the leggings DNA is tDNA.
…

AK

 

[lawstudent]

Investigators target specific areas, areas believed to have been of most recent contact and that an assailant (but, no one else) would have recently touched. If something is found, investigators try to eliminate possible innocent sources (contamination, etc).

It is impossible to tell much from a sample size, because even bad guys can leave very small samples – just like anyone else.

DNA might be everywhere but it isn’t everywhere in usable or meaningful amounts, and if you have someone else’s DNA on you it’s probably the DNA of someone you know and have been in recent contact with and it is probably not inside your underwear.

If DNA was as many here seem to believe, then it would be useless as evidence.

Getting this DNA onto the exterior, side hip areas of the victim’s leggings and inside the crotch of her panties through innocent means would be quite the feet, especially since one sample is probably saliva (wet) and the other two are probably skin cells (dry); and, concerted effort into sourcing these samples (previous autopsies, persons associated with handling the body, the investigation, family, friends, etc) all failed. Getting this DNA onto the exterior, side hip areas of the victim’s leggings and inside the crotch of her panties by her killer would be so easy we could predict it would be there (which is what did happen with the tDNA on the leggings!).

This is all about location – 3 separate locations, two articles of clothing and 3 matching samples.
…

AK

Yeah, those are the thoughts that keep me conflicted on this case. I don't find an intruder very likely based on everything else, but I don't believe the DNA is quite so easy to dismiss. Otherwise, knowing where it came from would be pretty much impossible even if there was a match. You'd know the source, but not whether the person was involved in the crime or if there was transfer from another place - it wouldn't be clear where it was picked up. Anyone who was close enough to have been involved, unless this person was really just roaming through the town, could have left traces of DNA in a place the family or friends frequented or had contact with them, that could have been deposited innocently.

 

[Anti-K]

Yeah, those are the thoughts that keep me conflicted on this case. I don't find an intruder very likely based on everything else, but I don't believe the DNA is quite so easy to dismiss. Otherwise, knowing where it came from would be pretty much impossible even if there was a match. You'd know the source, but not whether the person was involved in the crime or if there was transfer from another place - it wouldn't be clear where it was picked up. Anyone who was close enough to have been involved, unless this person was really just roaming through the town, could have left traces of DNA in a place the family or friends frequented or had contact with them, that could have been deposited innocently.

I’m curious about the “everything else” you refer to.

You don’t think that unidentified handwriting, matching but unsourced fibers found in the genital area, the ligatures, and the tape; unsourced hair on the tape and in the victim’s hands; the extreme nature of the acts committed (head blow – not an accident! asphyxiation, sexual assault at or near point of death); items used not sourced to the house, items removed from the house BUT items used that could be traced to the house were not removed; failure of the investigation to determine any motive for the parents or to show that either of them would even be able to commit these acts upon their child, and (yes, there’s more; I pause) you don’t see anything other than DNA?

Okay.
…

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

Yeah, those are the thoughts that keep me conflicted on this case. I don't find an intruder very likely based on everything else, but I don't believe the DNA is quite so easy to dismiss. Otherwise, knowing where it came from would be pretty much impossible even if there was a match. You'd know the source, but not whether the person was involved in the crime or if there was transfer from another place - it wouldn't be clear where it was picked up. Anyone who was close enough to have been involved, unless this person was really just roaming through the town, could have left traces of DNA in a place the family or friends frequented or had contact with them, that could have been deposited innocently.

Even if there was a DNA match to the Ramseys, it wouldn't convict them since the Ramseys DNA should be found. It's their daughter. If the DNA doesn't automatically convict them it shouldn't automatic exonerate them.

Neither does the DNA prove against the Ramseys having an accomplice. The DNA could be the source of whoever John Ramsey called on his cell phone that night. That person that matches the DNA could easily be a witness for the prosecution.

Until someone can match the DNA to someone, the case against the Ramseys are still suspects #1-3.

 

[lawstudent]

Even if there was a DNA match to the Ramseys, it wouldn't convict them since the Ramseys DNA should be found. It's their daughter. If the DNA doesn't automatically convict them it shouldn't automatic exonerate them.

Exactly. But my point is that if DNA is this easily transferred, detected and dismissed, that would be true of anyone it matched to given this wasn't totally random. Assuming the perpetrator had some connection to the family and familiarity with the house or area, there could be many explanations for the presence of the DNA. I do not believe that DNA testing is that worthless, but I acknowledge that it its efficacy can definitely be overstated and that the conclusions drawn can be flat out wrong. It's also interesting that more sensitive, i.e. better, testing would seem to exacerbate the issue, although I think other improvements may help negate that.

ETA: I agree that finding the Ramseys DNA means nothing, but that is because they were touching stuff all the time in that house right up until the murder. I can't dismiss foreign DNA that easily. It may be meaningless transferred DNA, but if DNA tests are in any way reliable, it stands to reason that they don't typically flag all the hundreds of tiny profiles that must be located around someone's house from all the transfers. They typically flag (for lack of a better word) samples of the type and size that indicate someone who actually had contact with the object recently, or no DNA at all even if it was recently touched, depending on the type of surface.

 

[Anti-K]

Even if there was a DNA match to the Ramseys, it wouldn't convict them since the Ramseys DNA should be found. It's their daughter. If the DNA doesn't automatically convict them it shouldn't automatic exonerate them.

Neither does the DNA prove against the Ramseys having an accomplice. The DNA could be the source of whoever John Ramsey called on his cell phone that night. That person that matches the DNA could easily be a witness for the prosecution.

Until someone can match the DNA to someone, the case against the Ramseys are still suspects #1-3.

The DNA does not exonerate them. Not even Lacey said this. She said that the Ramseys were no longer considered suspects because of the “new scientific evidence” (the tDNA) that added “significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence.” (presumably, the CODIS sample, and the handwriting and hair/fiber evidence).
The DNA is exculpatory evidence. That is a fact. How you weigh that exculpatory evidence is a different story. I find it compelling, but some find it meaningless.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Exactly. But my point is that if DNA is this easily transferred, detected and dismissed, that would be true of anyone it matched to given this wasn't totally random. Assuming the perpetrator had some connection to the family and familiarity with the house or area, there could be many explanations for the presence of the DNA. I do not believe that DNA testing is that worthless, but I acknowledge that it its efficacy can definitely be overstated and that the conclusions drawn can be flat out wrong. It's also interesting that more sensitive, i.e. better, testing would seem to exacerbate the issue, although I think other improvements may help negate that.

ETA: I agree that finding the Ramseys DNA means nothing, but that is because they were touching stuff all the time in that house right up until the murder. I can't dismiss foreign DNA that easily. It may be meaningless transferred DNA, but if DNA tests are in any way reliable, it stands to reason that they don't typically flag all the hundreds of tiny profiles that must be located around someone's house from all the transfers. They typically flag (for lack of a better word) samples of the type and size that indicate someone who actually had contact with the object recently, or no DNA at all even if it was recently touched, depending on the type of surface.

This idea of innocent transfer is more complicated than it seems at first glance.

Consider: jbr transfers this DNA. She touches an object and transfers a stranger’s DNA to her hands. Now, she touches her leggings and transfers that DNA (but, not her own) to them. But, she wasn’t wearing the leggings until after she was put to bed (or, at least, until after she went upstairs upon arriving home from the White’s). If she touches anything between the time of picking up this stranger’s DNA and touching her leggings, then the stranger’s DNA is going to transfer to that something instead.

This is true if the DNA is transferred by Mrs Ramsey. She would have to transfer the stranger’s DNA to herself, and then to the leggings. If she touches something in between – for example, the pants she removed from jbr – the stranger’s DNA should have transferred to that.

Every innocent theory of transfer is NECESSARILY more complex than a theory of primary transfer by her killer (because primary transfer is always the likeliest mechanism of transfer). And, all this only concerns the tDNA (skin cells; dry) found on the leggings. Now, factor in the non-tDNA DNA (saliva: wet) inside the panties and you’re already complex theory of innocent transfer becomes even more complex.
…

AK

 

[andreww]

The DNA does not exonerate them. Not even Lacey said this. She said that the Ramseys were no longer considered suspects because of the “new scientific evidence” (the tDNA) that added “significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence.” (presumably, the CODIS sample, and the handwriting and hair/fiber evidence).
The DNA is exculpatory evidence. That is a fact. How you weigh that exculpatory evidence is a different story. I find it compelling, but some find it meaningless.
…

AK

Even you have to admit that the exoneration was unfounded. The grand jury indicted the Ramsey's for aiding the person that killed their daughter. That person could be anyone on the planet. So how does unmatched DNA exonerate the Ramsey's?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Even you have to admit that the exoneration was unfounded. The grand jury indicted the Ramsey's for aiding the person that killed their daughter. That person could be anyone on the planet. So how does unmatched DNA exonerate the Ramsey's?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Lacey Press Release doesn’t use that word: exonerate. It just says that the Ramseys are no longer considered suspects by the DA’s office.

It is also a misrepresentation to say that this was done based on the tDNA. It was done based on the tDNA PLUS the “previous scientific evidence” and WITH “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.”

But, no, I don’t think the tDNA exonerates anyone. I do know that it has exculpatory value. And, I know that it represents a person who need to be identified and investigated before he can be cleared or charged.
.

As an aside, my link to the Lacey Press Release now directs me to an ad for wrinkle free cream.
…

AK

 

[andreww]

The Lacey Press Release doesn’t use that word: exonerate. It just says that the Ramseys are no longer considered suspects by the DA’s office.

It is also a misrepresentation to say that this was done based on the tDNA. It was done based on the tDNA PLUS the “previous scientific evidence” and WITH “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.”

But, no, I don’t think the tDNA exonerates anyone. I do know that it has exculpatory value. And, I know that it represents a person who need to be identified and investigated before he can be cleared or charged.
.

As an aside, my link to the Lacey Press Release now directs me to an ad for wrinkle free cream.
…

AK

Though Lacey may never have said exonerate, the word has certainly been bandied about in the press quite a bit. You are pretty good at word games, but to me "no longer suspects" is every bit as good as "exonerated". And you are right, this was brought about by the TDNA plus the previous DNA evidence, but you and I know that all that evidence does not prove a damned thing except that a stranger may or may not have been in the vicinity of JB that day. Lacey did not take in to account innocent transfer, either before or after the crime, or the fact that the Ramseys may have had an accomplice there that night, The GJ pointed to them as being part of the coverup, but not the actual crime.

 

[UKGuy]

Why are the size-12's relevant: Patsy suggested JonBenet dressed herself in the size-12's, Patsy also stated she did not know what size of underwear JonBenet wore to the White's.

With the longjohns containing the size-12's there should be no Ramsey dna on the size-12's except that of JonBenet, was there, we are only told about the foreign dna?

.

 

[Annapurna]

The size 12's are absurdly out sized on JB. I find it extremely improbable that she put them on herself.Since PR admitted they were hers, that excludes an intruder bringing them. Have you seen the FFJ thread where Jayelles made a plaster cast of her own daughter? She was the exact same height and like one pound difference in weight. The panties hang to the knees. They would provide no coverage whatsoever, and would be extremely uncomfortable to wear. There is a huge difference in size, its not as little as PR tries to state.

 

[CherCher]

Though Lacey may never have said exonerate, the word has certainly been bandied about in the press quite a bit. You are pretty good at word games, but to me "no longer suspects" is every bit as good as "exonerated". And you are right, this was brought about by the TDNA plus the previous DNA evidence, but you and I know that all that evidence does not prove a damned thing except that a stranger may or may not have been in the vicinity of JB that day. Lacey did not take in to account innocent transfer, either before or after the crime, or the fact that the Ramseys may have had an accomplice there that night, The GJ pointed to them as being part of the coverup, but not the actual crime.

And don't forget that she sent a letter of apology to JR, telling him that henceforth his family would only be seen as victims, not perpetrators of the crime, by her office.

 

[andreww]

And don't forget that she sent a letter of apology to JR, telling him that henceforth his family would only be seen as victims, not perpetrators of the crime, by her office.

I get the feeling that Alex Hunter intentionally buried the case because he felt that he was legally outmatched and would never stand a chance of winning without a confession. Every other DA that came after him had to deal with the fallout, so Lacey tried to put an end to it. The people of Boulder should should petition to have that case reopened and investigate to it fullest extent, not just the crime itself but the actions of the people that purposely sabotaged the case.

 

[lawstudent]

I get the feeling that Alex Hunter intentionally buried the case because he felt that he was legally outmatched and would never stand a chance of winning without a confession. Every other DA that came after him had to deal with the fallout, so Lacey tried to put an end to it. The people of Boulder should should petition to have that case reopened and investigate to it fullest extent, not just the crime itself but the actions of the people that purposely sabotaged the case.

I think this makes a ton of sense. I think Hunter was right about not standing a chance without a confession, however, so I think efforts to reopen are pointless absent new evidence.

 

[observation]

I think this makes a ton of sense. I think Hunter was right about not standing a chance without a confession, however, so I think efforts to reopen are pointless absent new evidence.

You may be right but may be wrong too. All of the documents were not released from the GJ. And there are key bits of information that can be learned from both JBR and BR medical records. JR and PR wanted them held "for an island of privacy." They may contain key information. On 12/17 PR called JBR's pediatrician 3 times- nothing is known about why. If those medical docs can be obtained and sealed- it could reveal some interesting nuggets of information.
Not to mention BR's medical records and f/u with his psychiatrist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk