The Denver Press Club Discussion About Finding The Truth Behind The DNA Reports
KUSA-TV's Kevin Vaughan was there tonight. The Daily Camera's Charlie Brennan was stuck in Boulder with the Front Range's first snowstorm of the year. Boulder is North of Denver and was getting hit with blizzard conditions. I was a little uneasy that no one would turn-out because of the weather. It was a nice group with a few journalism students and other people from the media. I was unsure if anyone who really follows the case was there. If they were, they were quiet.
Kevin told the story about how he and Charlie had to pitch the story, do the investigative work and eventually managed to get copies of the DNA reports. From there, they sought-out DNA experts to explain them. An interesting side story was that all three of the experts said that one DNA report was missing from the batch. They had to go back to their source.. This last report was the most damning for Mary Lacy. It was the evidence that Mary Lacy should have not used this DNA evidence to exonerate the Ramseys. It doesn't prove RDI or IDI. Worst of all, anyone who was excluded as a suspect based on the DNA evidence should not be excluded. The police should go back again and have another look at the suspect list.
The information Kevin had about tDNA and secondary transference wasn't surprising. I've seen it argued here on WS many times and I've argued it myself. It is, however, nice to see someone from the media saying it.
The most interesting fact I took from this discussion was that washing clothing does not remove DNA. It actually mixes the DNA on the clothing throughout the wash. That makes sense. I've seen it argued here on WS many times that laundering clothing removes DNA. It might wash away many cells, but it doesn't remove them all.
RBBM
BB:
I've seen it argued here on WS many times that laundering clothing removes DNA. It might wash away many cells, but it doesn't remove them all
Thanks, BoldBear, this is an interesting side-note. Thank you for going to that presentation.
Since I don’t know the context of Vaughan’s comment, I believe it’s important to look at this DNA and the laundry subject a little more closely.
After the interviewers reviewed Patsy’s explanation about the blanket and the manner in which JonBenét’s bed was made, it was decided that most likely the blanket came from the dryer. For IDI then, the aspect of the ‘undoing’ is diminished as the nightgown must have been washed and dried with the blanket and arrived by statically clinging to the blanket. No Intruder will know that it was JB’s favorite nightgown. And the very forensically savvy Intruder wore gloves when he removed these items from the dryer.
Kolar states, the presence of tDNA on the nightgown is not relevant to the crime since the family all lived together.
So the argument reverts to whether an Intruder inadvertently removed the nightgown, and it so happened that BR’s and Patsy’s tDNA survived the washing and drying.
With semen, it is absolutely true that multiple washing may not destroy DNA. A study once demonstrated that complete DNA profiles can be obtained from laundered clothing, and DNA from semen stains have been found even with a lag time of months between semen deposition and laundering.
My understanding is that it’s similarly true with blood DNA, unless the laundress uses bleach which would tend to destroy the DNA.
So returning to the discussion on the tDNA. From a study published in 2015 research shows that DNA from blood and semen, on both donor and acceptor material, can be detected regardless of washing method – hand or machine washing. The DNA tests are becoming more and more sensitive. It’s different for skin cell DNA or touch DNA. After washing by hand, only little residual tDNA was found. After machine washing,
no reliable tDNA could be verified.
“No reliable tDNA” are the key words here.
So much of the case for an Intruder is on a continuum of probabilities. Is it possible for tDNA to be retained in the wash? Guess so. Is it probable or likely a full allele profile of tDNA can be obtained? That is clearly negated in the studies of this. For me, the unambiguous identification of Patsy’s and BR’s tDNA on the nightie seems to argue against reliable tDNA being retained from the laundry, and this nightgown arriving in the wc by coincidence. Does it mean PR and BR were at the crime scene? Not necessarily.
I found JR’s response to the nightgown very interesting. From his ’98 interview:
JOHN RAMSEY: I had never seen
11 that. I didn't see it when he was down this.
12 Sounds very bizarre. I don't know why that
13 would be there. I mean that room was usually
14 full of Christmas stuff. It's a nasty room.
15 Just you didn't go in there.
16 MIKE KANE: Could have been brought
17 down in a blanket?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: I suppose, I don't
19 know. I didn't see it at all. As part of the
20 blanket or anything.
21 MIKE KANE: You don't remember it
22 being there or anywhere?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: Not at all.
“JOHN RAMSEY: I had never seen
11 that. I didn't see it when he was down this.” – Must be a transcription error, unless the 'he' JR is referencing is the Intruder or BR.
