DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

[cynic]

why wont beckner and/or Garnett set the record straight that the DNA is a red herring?

In the last press conference called by Beckner (and Garnett,) he made it clear that he was not going to be answering any questions, or commenting on anything to do with specific evidence in the JonBenet case because it is an open case. It may be a cold case but it is open, nevertheless.
Garnett has made it clear that the case is in the hands of the BPD.
Garnett in a radio interview responded to the exoneration aspect because it was something that his predecessor did, and did not deal with the evidence in a direct fashion.

 

[qtc]

Kolar mentions that the Bloomies where probably manufactured in Taiwan. Can they not test the samples to see if the dna is from a Taiwanese person?

 

[dodie20]

Cynic said: JonBenet suffered blunt force trauma that fractured her skull but her skin was not lacerated.

That is one of several elements that point to a low velocity-high pressure type trauma. That type wound fits with Steve Thomas's version of events. I'm at a loss why no one seems to accept Thomas's scenario.

I'm curious about what you mean by, 'low velocity-high pressure'. Compared to a reared back, full swing with a baseball bat, what would it be? Standing over her, at close range, and bashing her hard? Sorry for my ignorance.

 

[cynic]

Kolar mentions that the Bloomies where probably manufactured in Taiwan. Can they not test the samples to see if the dna is from a Taiwanese person?

The technology, while not fully matured, is available but quality samples of DNA are required, not the weak and in some instances mixed DNA that we have here.

Researchers are identifying genes that give rise to a person's physical traits, such as facial structure, skin color or even whether they are right- or left-handed. That could allow police to build a picture of what a criminal looks like not just from sometimes-fuzzy eyewitness accounts, but by analyzing DNA found at a crime scene.
Forensic experts are increasingly relying on DNA as "a genetic eyewitness," says Jack Ballantyne, associate director for research at the National Center for Forensic Science at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, who is studying whether a DNA sample can reveal a person's age. "We'd like to say if the DNA found on a bomb fragment comes from the young man who carried the bomb or from the wizened old mastermind who built it."
The push to predict physical features from genetic material is known as DNA forensic phenotyping, and it's already helped crack some difficult investigations. In 2004, police caught a Louisiana serial killer who eyewitnesses had suggested was white, but whose crime-scene DNA suggested -- correctly -- that he was black. Britain's forensic service uses a similar "ethnic inference" test to trace murderers and rapists.
In 2007, a DNA test based on 34 genetic biomarkers developed by Christopher Phillips, a forensic geneticist at the University of Santiago de Compostelo in Spain, indicated that one of the suspects associated with the Madrid bombings was of North African origin. His body was mostly destroyed in an explosion. Using other clues, police later confirmed he had been an Algerian, thereby validating the test results.
But the technique is still in early stages of development, and no one has developed a gene-based police sketch yet. There are big challenges. The technology currently has limited accuracy and can send law enforcement officials on the wrong track. It has also prompted ethical concerns.
For example, tests to assess a person's ethnic origin won't always work on people of mixed race. Other times, the conclusion can be ambiguous or unhelpful. "What does it mean to say that the DNA belongs to a 'light-skinned black man'? It's a subjective interpretation," says Pamela Sankar, who is teaches bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and has a National Institutes of Health grant to study societal implications of the new technology.
Worried about the ethical and social challenges, Germany doesn't permit the forensic use of DNA to infer ethnicity or physical traits. Nor do a handful of U.S. states, including Indiana, Wyoming and Rhode Island. The U.K. and the Netherlands allow it.
DNA-based racial profiling "has to be used carefully," especially in a diverse country like America, says Bert-Jaap Koops of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, who has studied the regulatory picture in different countries. "Some people could make connections between race, crime and genetic disposition" and thereby encourage stigmatization.
But scientists are working to overcome the deficiencies and say that more precise DNA tests for ethnicity and several physical traits are on the horizon.
For instance, Murray Brilliant, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, is developing a predictive test for skin, eye and hair color. Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, he and his colleagues recently analyzed DNA material provided by 1,000 university students from different ethnic backgrounds. They found a total of five genes that account for 76% of the variation for hair color, 75% for eye color and 46% for skin color.
Similarly, scientists from Erasmus University published a paper in March in the journal Current Biology based on a DNA analysis of 6,000 people in the Netherlands. For that population group, they found that only six DNA markers are needed to predict brown eye color with 93% accuracy and blue eye color with 91% accuracy.
Such studies bolster the case for devising a reliable DNA-based test for some physical characteristics. A person's hair color or skin tone can be relatively easy to predict because the identified genes have a fairly strong effect on the trait. However, it isn't quite so easy to make a useful prediction about traits such as height or body mass index. That's because many more genes are likely involved, with each making only a small contribution to the overall effect.
Dr. Ballantyne of the University of Central Florida can look at DNA and tell whether it comes from a newborn or a child that's a few months old. That's because some genes show different levels of activity at different stages of human development. But figuring out whether a piece of DNA has been shed at a crime scene by a 20-year-old, 40-year-old or 60-year-old -- a tool the police would clearly love to have -- is a much tougher problem and nowhere near being solved.
Similarly, height is a physical trait that's at least 80% heritable, yet no one has managed to develop a DNA-based test for it. A single gene has been associated with left- or right-handedness. But unlike many genes, examining this one in an adult can't help solve the lefty-righty question.
Mark Shriver, an anthropologist and geneticist at Pennsylvania State University, has also set himself a daunting challenge: Trying to construct a "picture" of a person's face by analyzing DNA. He calls the technique "forensic molecular photo fitting," and it is supported by a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice.
The notion isn't as crazy as it sounds. People look a lot like their parents, so it's clear that facial features are highly heritable. But how do you pinpoint the genes that underlie these facial features?
Prof. Shriver focused on 180 genes that have been previously linked to about 400 craniofacial abnormalities, such as cleft lip. He studied their rate of evolution, figuring that if a gene had led to different physical traits in populations -- such as shorter noses in one group, for example -- it would have evolved faster than other genes. These genes were likely to have been subject to sexual- or natural selection, and the traits associated with them would have been passed down through the generations.
His team collected DNA samples and photographs from 243 people, including many from the Penn State campus, and used computer techniques to correlate the genes with his subjects' facial features. They have found six genes that seem to influence such traits. One gene is associated with the height of the face; another is associated with its width. Yet another gene affects the shape of the lips and the nose. By piecing together these elements, Prof. Shriver hopes to create a modern-day version of the police artist sketch.
Because the world has so many different human populations -- and there is so much variation in their facial features -- a reliable test will require many more biomarkers. So the team has gotten additional samples from more than 3,500 people from around the world, including those in the U.S., Europe, Brazil and the Cape Verde Islands.
Prof. Shriver believes he may need samples from at least 8,000 people, including those from other populations, to develop a practical test for facial structure. He estimates it could cost $10 million and five years to get it done.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123810863649052551.html

We recently introduced DNAWitness™2.5 to the forensics market. Law enforcement officers use this testing service to determine genetic heritage from DNA samples obtained from crime scenes, narrowing the potential suspect pool to a more focused group of likely candidates. The test enables law enforcement agencies to reduce both the cost and time needed to apprehend suspects. Current forensic DNA products in the market act like a fingerprint and can only be used to match DNA specimens. DNAPrint® is the first forensic product that provides predictive capability. DNAWitness™ will provide the percentage of genetic makeup amongst the four possible groups of Sub-Saharan African, Native American, East Asian, and European. When appropriate, DNAWitness™ allows for a breakdown of the European ancestry into four components: Northwestern European, Southeastern European, Middle Eastern and South Asian. The names of the components/groups is meaningful but not exact, since they are cast in modern-day terminology but the assay is an anthropological one that reports affiliation with populations who share common ancestry extending back many thousands of years. The real value of the percentages reported are as population (rather than individual) bar-codes, which are very useful for inferring certain elements of physical appearance.
Initial DNAWitness™ 2.5 customers include medical examiner's offices, special task forces, sheriffs' departments, and district attorney's offices from various cities. These cities include the three largest U.S. metropolitan areas of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Initial response from preliminary application of this forensics version to various high profile criminal cases has been promising.
Derrick Todd Lee, the alleged Louisiana serial killer, was recently apprehended and has been convicted for first-degree murder and aggravated rape. The Louisiana Multi-Agency Homicide Task Force (including the Baton Rouge Police, the FBI and other agencies) had initially relied on faulty eye-witness testimony to develop a “Caucasian” description for the “person of interest”. DNAPrint® was hired to analyze the DNA evidence left at some of the crime scenes and determined that the suspect was 85% Sub-Saharan African and 15% Native American. Based upon these findings, the Task Force materially altered the focus of their investigation and included Derrick Todd Lee as a person of interest. ABC’s Prime Time Thursday recently featured DNAPrint® with a story detailing the role DNAWitness™ had in the resolution of this case. In addition, this case was featured in US News and World Report (June 23, 2003), the New York Times (June 3, 2003), Popular Science (December, 2003), and prior to the case, by CBS Evening News.
We have performed about 13,000 “blind” tests to date. For example, one west coast police department sent 16 samples collected from members of the department. The results were judged by them to be correct (consistent with phenotype and self-held notions of ancestry) for all 16 samples. Similarly, an east coast police department sent 20 blind samples and DNAPrint® accurately predicted the genetic heritage of all 20 people.
We introduced an expansion of DNAWitness™ 2.5 by bringing out EUROWitness™ 1.0 which breaks down the four major groupings of Sub Saharan African, Native American, East Asian and Indo-European provided a DNAWitness™ 2.5 test comes back with 50% or greater Indo-European, it is eligible for EUROWitness 1.0 that further refines the admixture to Northwest European, Southeastern European, Middle Eastern and South Asian.
We also in 2005 released our RETINOME™ assay. RETINOME™ provides a dramatic improvement in our ability to construct a physical portrait of a person of interest for a detective based on a DNA sample from a crime scene or remains of an individual. RETINOME™ allows us to infer eye (iris) color from DNA and this SNP based method for testing eye color is the first of its kind. The method employs proprietary computational methods and combines human pigmentation gene SNP combinations and ancestry informative markers to predict human eye color directly, accurately and sensitively. Validation experiments necessary to define the precise accuracy reveal that the inferences are correct about 92% of the time – performance that is quite respectable given the genetic complexity of iris coloration. We continue to work on hair color, skin pigmentation and other physical characteristics that scientists have or have not yet identified gene markers.
DNAPrint®’s portfolio of services will now include an array of presumptive tests that will help detectives tackle the nearly 1.2 million reported incidents of violent crime in the U.S. Statistics from the National Institutes of Justice and many local and state agencies generally report that only about 50% result in an arrest, and only a small percentage of those result in a criminal conviction. In violent crimes, DNA evidence is left at a crime scene or on a victim’s body in the vast majority of cases. Most investigators highly value physical descriptions of individuals or persons of interest obtained from human eye-witnesses. However, as the Louisiana case illustrates, eye-witnesses can be mistaken, and sometimes they are subjective, inaccurate or sometimes intentionally misleading, generally however most eye witnesses try to accurately report what they have seen. Unfortunately, sometimes several people at a crime scene will report conflicting descriptions. Detectives can corroborate eyewitness reports or perhaps even change the direction of an investigation despite eyewitness reports based on our analysis of the DNA.
DNAWitness™ provides a “molecular” eye-witness that is more scientific because it is a quantitative analysis of inherited genetic markers. Moreover, DNA is more readily available from most crime scenes. As we continue our research, we intend to develop additional assays that address other inherited traits that bear on physical appearance. The idea is to provide a drivers license for each person of interest from a crime scene analysis, with as many of the physical descriptors as possible (minus their name and address of course).
Hundreds of thousands of rape-kits sit on shelves of investigative agencies around the country. For how many of them would accurate physical descriptions be useful in a more timely apprehension? In addition, there is a recent trend in the legal system to retroactively test DNA evidence left at crime scenes to substantiate or invalidate the previous legal defenses of incarcerated individuals. DNAPrint®'s technology could be used to screen the DNA samples and categorize them. For example, if the results of DNAPrint®'s testing shows that the DNA from the crime scene belongs to a an European individual and the incarcerated individual is an African American, that DNA would have priority for the more laborious and time-consuming STR testing because the likelihood of vindication is high. In recent years there have been more than 130 exonerations of previously convicted individuals based on DNA evidence. With the use of DNAPrint®'s DNAWitness™ 2.5, the length of wrongful incarceration for innocent individuals could be shortened.
In absence of and as confirmation to human witness, law enforcement officials and medical examiners using DNAWitness™ 2.5 have the capability to construct a physical description of the person of interest and narrow the field of investigation, saving time and money. By narrowing the list of possible interviews to those fitting a specific physical description, law enforcement officers can substantially reduce the amount of time and cost involved in apprehending crime suspects. To date, DNAWitness™ has been used in over 90 criminal investigations. The validation results are available on CD-ROM by request.
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/productsandservices/forensics/

Boulder LE has used this technology in the Susannah Chase case.
Boulder investigators learned in 2004 that the suspect could be Hispanic or Native American after sending the DNA specimen from Chase's body to DNAPrint Genomics in Florida.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/28/dna-match-made-a-decade-later/

More on the Susannah Chase case in the post below.

 

[cynic]

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

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

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

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

 

[BOESP]

I'm curious about what you mean by, 'low velocity-high pressure'. Compared to a reared back, full swing with a baseball bat, what would it be? Standing over her, at close range, and bashing her hard? Sorry for my ignorance.

Low velocity = slow speed
High pressure = great force

A gunshot is one example of high velocity/low pressure. The bullet's speed is relatively fast (high) but the pressure applied at the point of entry is relatively low.

Pushing a child or throwing them down and their head making contact with, say, a bath tub faucet handle, is an example of low velocity (the act of falling is not relatively swift) and the relative pressure applied from the hand forcing the skull against the faucet is high (or forceful).

These are two really simplified examples. The swinging of a baseball bat against the skull is relatively fast with a low (or dispersed) pressure when it contacts the skull.

You might want to search for the thread(s) from the discussion on this. It was pretty interesting.

 

[BOESP]

Dodie, I searched for forum topics pertaining to the head wound. Here's the link. There is a lot of good discussion in them. Hope some of it helps:

http://websleuths.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5829020

 

[Roy23]

In the last press conference called by Beckner (and Garnett,) he made it clear that he was not going to be answering any questions, or commenting on anything to do with specific evidence in the JonBenet case because it is an open case. It may be a cold case but it is open, nevertheless.
Garnett has made it clear that the case is in the hands of the BPD.
Garnett in a radio interview responded to the exoneration aspect because it was something that his predecessor did, and did not deal with the evidence in a direct fashion.

Yep. And there is a good reason for that. We know if they were convinced RDI there would be no reason to shut up. Kolar wrote a nice book. But he doesn't understand the DNA and the significance of it. They spent a number of years trying to prove the innocence of it. And you will probably find out soon enough from Beckner or Garnett about it. And it may be because of some misinformation that Kolar glosses over in the book. Obviously he used a few teasers like poop on chocolate candies to shock the readers. We will see.

 

[Whaleshark]

You're right; I guess we really shouldn't know about the strangulation and the skull split in half, and the molestation of a 6 year old with a paintbrush in the vagina either, since that would all just be 'teasers for shock value' as well....

We didn't need any details, if they are gruesome, all we need to know is exactly who all the DNA belongs to, and that will solve all our problems.

It's not like any and all circumstantial evidence and the totality of the situation and behavior of the family is significant in anyway.

What was Kolar thinking? Stupid misleading investigator....

 

[Roy23]

You're right; I guess we really shouldn't know about the strangulation and the skull split in half, and the molestation of a 6 year old with a paintbrush in the vagina either, since that would all just be 'teasers for shock value' as well....

We didn't need any details, if they are gruesome, all we need to know is exactly who all the DNA belongs to, and that will solve all our problems.

It's not like any and all circumstantial evidence and the totality of the situation and behavior of the family is significant in anyway.

What was Kolar thinking? Stupid misleading investigator....

Sure, all of it is significant. I got a lot of info from Kolar's book. But when he can't get information from the 1997 DNA that we already know about right, that concerns me. So does the information about feces on chocolate that he glosses over with nothing else about it. You would be surprised on how my view of the case has changed since Kolar's book.

I want resolution to the case. Finding the source of the DNA is the only way possible for resolution. It sucks, but its true.

 

[Whaleshark]

It sucks that you think it's true.. Oh well.

 

[DeeDee249]

Sure, all of it is significant. I got a lot of info from Kolar's book. But when he can't get information from the 1997 DNA that we already know about right, that concerns me. So does the information about feces on chocolate that he glosses over with nothing else about it. You would be surprised on how my view of the case has changed since Kolar's book.

I want resolution to the case. Finding the source of the DNA is the only way possible for resolution. It sucks, but its true.

But don't you see that there may NEVER be any info from that DNA? If the DNA is rogue, artifact, from a factory worker somewhere, from a party guest that day who was never tested for a match, etc. then there will never be an answer from that DNA. Because we already KNOW the coroner contaminated the body (by using unsterile clippers and possibly other unsterile procedures), we cannot make that DNA the hinge pin of the case. DNA solves many cases- this won't be one of them.
And I hate to keep harping on this one thing, but I STILL am suspicious of the guy who worked delivering bodies to the morgue. He was arrested for trying to sell the morgue log book showing the entry info for JB's body. I do not mean to paint all morgue workers with the same brush, but some creepy people often seek those jobs, and some are arrested for disgusting abuses of the corpses. Anyone sleazy enough to try to sell that log with JB's info in it is sleazy enough to pull down her clothing to take a peek.
I want to know whether he has been tested against that DNA.

 

[Roy23]

But don't you see that there may NEVER be any info from that DNA? If the DNA is rogue, artifact, from a factory worker somewhere, from a party guest that day who was never tested for a match, etc. then there will never be an answer from that DNA. Because we already KNOW the coroner contaminated the body (by using unsterile clippers and possibly other unsterile procedures), we cannot make that DNA the hinge pin of the case. DNA solves many cases- this won't be one of them.
And I hate to keep harping on this one thing, but I STILL am suspicious of the guy who worked delivering bodies to the morgue. He was arrested for trying to sell the morgue log book showing the entry info for JB's body. I do not mean to paint all morgue workers with the same brush, but some creepy people often seek those jobs, and some are arrested for disgusting abuses of the corpses. Anyone sleazy enough to try to sell that log with JB's info in it is sleazy enough to pull down her clothing to take a peek.
I want to know whether he has been tested against that DNA.

It is the only way Dee Dee. You obviously haven't read Kolar's book either. As it turns out the DNA from the unsterile clippers did not have all the issues that you claim above. They tested all the autopsies done by the Coroner and none of the samples matched any of them.

You can't get any conviction or make any arrest without answering the DNA. Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker if you paid attention to the book. They tried to provide an innocent reason the DNA is there and failed but they need to keep trying.

 

[otg]

(Can we say the word "grits" on here?)
.

 

[KoldKase]

why wont beckner and/or Garnett set the record straight that the DNA is a red herring?

Why won't Mary "PERV Karr" Lacy set the record straight that Smit was full of it and there was no intruder entry into that window, no suitcase used to exit, and no stun gun used on the child?

Where's Lacy to tell us that was all a Smit-generated hoax, to fool the public into believing a nonsensical intruder confabulation?

Oh. I see. It's fine for Lacy and Smit to manufacture evidence to prove a phantom intruder exists, but Kolar's cold, hard facts don't cut it because Beckner and Garnett aren't waving the RDI flag for him? :waitasec:

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya Roy.

It is the only way Dee Dee. You obviously haven't read Kolar's book either. As it turns out the DNA from the unsterile clippers did not have all the issues that you claim above. They tested all the autopsies done by the Coroner and none of the samples matched any of them.

Yes. Also, the dna of LE and Med staff was also compared to dna found on JBR.
Still, even with this limited pool of dna comparatives, contamination from unknown source can not be eliminated.

You can't get any conviction or make any arrest without answering the DNA. Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker if you paid attention to the book. They tried to provide an innocent reason the DNA is there and failed but they need to keep trying.

Hmmm. How So ... "Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker."
So he sees it as contaminate or result of casual contact?

 

[Tadpole12]

Roy, does Kolar mention the cigarette butts found in the alley?

 

[Roy23]

Heyya Roy.



Yes. Also, the dna of LE and Med staff was also compared to dna found on JBR.
Still, even with this limited pool of dna comparatives, contamination from unknown source can not be eliminated.





Hmmm. How So ... "Kolar's book makes it pretty clear it didn't come from some factory worker."
So he sees it as contaminate or result of casual contact?

Tad,

That is my point really. As long as you have unknown source, it will continually plague any kind of resolution to this case. We know they have tried to test investigators and those known to have been around JBR in recent days. But still, no match. Kolar isn't saying it is contaminate or casual contact. He doesn't know like the rest of us but he is suggesting that other things are more important.

I am not saying what is and what is not. But I feel pretty confident that they have a CODIS level DNA sample in a 6 year olds underwear that was corroborated as match by the TDNA in 2008. You cant get a conviction on a Ramsey or maybe anyone else until you find this source of DNA. If it is there innocently, I think they could find it.

 

[Roy23]

Roy, does Kolar mention the cigarette butts found in the alley?

No sir. I have no information if that is true or if it was ever tested.

 

[Whaleshark]

Wonder what the IDIs would think of Kolar if he did not read the case files or the autopsy report before making his assertions, alluding to any theory, and especially writing his book?

Yet, Lou Smit DID NOT read the case files and autopsy report.

So, how can any theory he created without having all the most pertinent information needed, be counted at all?

At all?

I think this bit of information about Lou Smit needs to be posted as either a Sticky, or a Thread title at the very least.

"LOU SMIT DID NOT READ THE CASE FILES OR AUTOPSY REPORT".

Does this not tell the whole world about any and all 'evidence', 'theories', 'information', 'ideas', 'investigating', and any and ALL assertions stated by Lou Smit as completely unreliable at the 'nicest', and 'fraud' at the boldest, if he is passing his theory off as an investigator as part of his JOB, based on 'all the facts', supposedly?

At this point, I have done more research than Lou Smit ever did, because at the very least, I have read numerous case files, autopsy, interviews and testimony, reviewed photos, discussed all options, etc.

With that in mind, Mary Lacey and the DA's office should put more stock in what I say then, than what Lou Smit had to say.

This is serious information that every IDI needs to know and consider, and for any newbies to this case before learning about who he was to the Ramseys, and then reading his 'theory'.

I guarantee that if an RDI -- or ANYONE -- posited a theory from an 'Investigator' or ANYONE ELSE who had NOT READ THE CASE FILES OR THE AUTOPSY -- would not put any stock in that person's theory, and tell them to go do their homework before putting out a theory based on no (or completely biased) information.

***Dam*it!