DNA Revisited

[BBB167893]

There's one BIG parallel with the two cases: in both instances, those accused went on the attack, playing on popular public fears (Colombian drug cartel assassins and pedophile/terrorist killers respectively) and both waged a propaganda war by playing on presumed popular distrust of law enforcement, employing clumsy 1960s conspiracy theories to do it.

Or hadn't anyone noticed?

 

[cynic]

There's one BIG parallel with the two cases: in both instances, those accused went on the attack, playing on popular public fears (Colombian drug cartel assassins and pedophile/terrorist killers respectively) and both waged a propaganda war by playing on presumed popular distrust of law enforcement, employing clumsy 1960s conspiracy theories to do it.

Or hadn't anyone noticed?

They were also equally intent on finding the "real killer(s)". (All available golf courses were searched thoroughly - very, very thoroughly.)

 

[BBB167893]

They were also equally intent on finding the "real killers". (All available golf courses were searched thoroughly - very, very thoroughly.)

I knew I forgot something.

 

[madeleine]

You forgot the "not guilty" parties both writing books about their "innocence".

 

[madeleine]

Isn't it funny how usually the guilty ones feel that NEED to convince others that they're innocent?
The innocent ones usually are busy doing something else.....like catching the real killer,grieving,being angry that evil touched their lives,cooperate with LE...you know,stuff like this?

 

[madeleine]

Sure.

Just come up with some blood in the bedroom, a mess on the inside of a car, and a freeway chase and then there's a 'similar parallel'.

These two cases are apples and oranges, I'm afraid. :laugh:

The parallel si defence lawyers blaming it on LE.

 

[Roy23]

I really don't see a parallel at all between the two cases. And that is not my IDI feelings talking either. The OJ case was about a public trial that lasted forever on television. The Ramsey's never even got indicted.

In the OJ trial, they had his blood at the crime scene but made an error on the calculations. It was still like a needle in a haystack. The police were accused of framing OJ and in this case they are just accused of being incompetent. Should I go on.

OJ case was more about racism and this one not even close to that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The parallel si defence lawyers blaming it on LE.

Maybe you're confusing 'case similarities' with 'standard defense method' of challenging LE. Even RDI has accused LE of contaminating the crime scene. Its not like that was IDI's idea to search the house again. When JR then found JBR and brought her up, it was now JR contaminating the crime scene on purpose. Thats just pure spin. RDI blamed crime scene contamination on JR for something LE asked him to do. "Oh he was so happy when somebody asked him to search the house so he could contaminate the crime scene". Thats just rich. Its one of the worst, most baseless RDI fabrications of all time.

JR could've fatherly searched the house as many times as he wanted. Could've claimed he needed a suitcase or a bottle of wine or something.:waitasec:

 

[BBB167893]

Isn't it funny how usually the guilty ones feel that NEED to convince others that they're innocent?
The innocent ones usually are busy doing something else.....like catching the real killer,grieving,being angry that evil touched their lives,cooperate with LE...you know,stuff like this?

A hit dog barks, I believe the old saying goes.

 

[BBB167893]

This is becoming quite a riveting discussion!

I really don't see a parallel at all between the two cases. And that is not my IDI feelings talking either. The OJ case was about a public trial that lasted forever on television. The Ramsey's never even got indicted.

Humor me here, Roy. Forget the parallels for a moment. Try this on: as far as I go, you just summed it up. You had a DA's office in Los Angeles which was no stranger to high-profile cases or trying murders and a case where the only thing missing was the proverbial busload of nuns as eyewitnesses, and they STILL couldn't nail OJ. Now, and I URGE you to think about this carefully before you answer, what kind of message do you think that sent to an outfit like the Boulder DA's office that was not just a stranger to major publicity but hadn't taken a murder case to trial in ten years?

In the OJ trial, they had his blood at the crime scene but made an error on the calculations. It was still like a needle in a haystack. The police were accused of framing OJ and in this case they are just accused of being incompetent. Should I go on.

You're doing fine, in my opinion.

OJ case was more about racism and this one not even close to that.

Precisely. Which, in my opinion, just makes it WORSE.

 

[BBB167893]

When JR then found JBR and brought her up, it was now JR contaminating the crime scene on purpose. "Oh he was so happy when somebody asked him to search the house so he could contaminate the crime scene".

Works for me.

Its one of the worst, most baseless RDI fabrications of all time.

There are any number of bitter retorts to that I could give. So I'll leave it up to the reader's imagination.

JR could've fatherly searched the house as many times as he wanted. Could've claimed he needed a suitcase or a bottle of wine or something.:waitasec:

Oh, sure!

 

[Roy23]

This is becoming quite a riveting discussion!



Humor me here, Roy. Forget the parallels for a moment. Try this on: as far as I go, you just summed it up. You had a DA's office in Los Angeles which was no stranger to high-profile cases or trying murders and a case where the only thing missing was the proverbial busload of nuns as eyewitnesses, and they STILL couldn't nail OJ. Now, and I URGE you to think about this carefully before you answer, what kind of message do you think that sent to an outfit like the Boulder DA's office that was not just a stranger to major publicity but hadn't taken a murder case to trial in ten years?



You're doing fine, in my opinion.



Precisely. Which, in my opinion, just makes it WORSE.

I am not sure that I am following you but yeah it was awful. I guess you are saying the OJ case changed the way the Boulder DA's office made their decisions. I sure hope you are not saying that the Ramsey case was as strong as the OJ case. Heck, I know you don't think that.

Anyhow, there are tons of cases out there that are in limbo and have been in limbo for years. They have evidence but not enough to take a chance. Double Jeopardy should be considered and was in the Ramsey case. Remember that they took the case in front of a GJ. It was not enough to hold up.

The OJ case is not a good example for you to use here in my opinion. Why you ask? Because it was not lack of evidence that he was set free. They had plenty. Read Chris Dardens book on the case. He knew they were toast from the day the Jury was set. Comparing the city of Boulder to Los Angeles is like comparing a gold nuggett to a piece of dung.

But you have made your point about the city taking this to trial. Had a GJ, Henry Lee, and Barry Schek agreed, your point would be even better.

 

[BBB167893]

I am not sure that I am following you but yeah it was awful. I guess you are saying the OJ case changed the way the Boulder DA's office made their decisions. I sure hope you are not saying that the Ramsey case was as strong as the OJ case. Heck, I know you don't think that.

You're doing fine, Roy. I guess the best thing to do is go one step at a time.

1) "I guess you are saying the OJ case changed the way the Boulder DA's office made their decisions."

I don't know if changed is the right word, but I feel it definitely made them even more timid than usual. So essentially, yes.

2) "I sure hope you are not saying that the Ramsey case was as strong as the OJ case. Heck, I know you don't think that."

Quite right. Indeed, that was sort of my point. Here, you had an admittedly weaker case which, in my opinion, could have been largely overcome through boldness, but the OJ case caused them to be overcautious and miss those opportunities. Whether they would have performed this way regardless is an open question, but it just seems like the ripple effect of OJ caused a vicious circle. That's my take on it.

Anyhow, there are tons of cases out there that are in limbo and have been in limbo for years.

Granted. Boulder has its share.

They have evidence but not enough to take a chance.

Generally speaking, Roy, even doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing.

Double Jeopardy should be considered and was in the Ramsey case.

I realize that, and AH was only too keen to remind everyone. Trouble here as I see it is that not enough emphasis was put on the "jeopardy" part. By that I mean that if the Rs had ever felt like they truly WERE in jeopardy, they might have cracked. But at this point, that's moot.

Remember that they took the case in front of a GJ. It was not enough to hold up.

As I've explained to you many times, I have my doubts about that whole affair. But as of now, those doubts are a personal matter.

The OJ case is not a good example for you to use here in my opinion. Why you ask? Because it was not lack of evidence that he was set free.

I've been known to make the same argument about this case. That's one of the big themes of the book, actually. More on that later.

They had plenty. Read Chris Darden's book on the case. He knew they were toast from the day the Jury was set.

Comparing the city of Boulder to Los Angeles is like comparing a gold nuggett to a piece of dung.

EXACTLY the point I've been trying to make! Although, I get the feeling that I'm coming at it from a much different direction than you are.

But you have made your point about the city taking this to trial.

Very good. That's all that matters.

Had a GJ, Henry Lee, and Barry Scheck agreed, your point would be even better.

Admittedly. But we don't always get what we want, and sometimes you have to go on alone. (Think Gary Cooper in High Noon, and you'll pretty much understand my mindset regarding this case.)

Always good talking to you, Roy.

 

[Roy23]

You're doing fine, Roy. I guess the best thing to do is go one step at a time.

1) "I guess you are saying the OJ case changed the way the Boulder DA's office made their decisions."

I don't know if changed is the right word, but I feel it definitely made them even more timid than usual. So essentially, yes.

2) "I sure hope you are not saying that the Ramsey case was as strong as the OJ case. Heck, I know you don't think that."

Quite right. Indeed, that was sort of my point. Here, you had an admittedly weaker case which, in my opinion, could have been largely overcome through boldness, but the OJ case caused them to be overcautious and miss those opportunities. Whether they would have performed this way regardless is an open question, but it just seems like the ripple effect of OJ caused a vicious circle. That's my take on it.



Granted. Boulder has its share.



Generally speaking, Roy, even doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing.



I realize that, and AH was only too keen to remind everyone. Trouble here as I see it is that not enough emphasis was put on the "jeopardy" part. By that I mean that if the Rs had ever felt like they truly WERE in jeopardy, they might have cracked. But at this point, that's moot.



As I've explained to you many times, I have my doubts about that whole affair. But as of now, those doubts are a personal matter.



I've been known to make the same argument about this case. That's one of the big themes of the book, actually. More on that later.





EXACTLY the point I've been trying to make! Although, I get the feeling that I'm coming at it from a much different direction than you are.



Very good. That's all that matters.



Admittedly. But we don't always get what we want, and sometimes you have to go on alone. (Think Gary Cooper in High Noon, and you'll pretty much understand my mindset regarding this case.)

Always good talking to you, Roy.

Same here, Dave.

I see what you are saying but I think it is hard to criticize AH in this scenario. Now, I understand that in the 10 years prior in which they pleaded out their other cases you may be exactly right. Had AH gone ahead despite not making the ham sandwich, most likely their feeling that justice for JBR was over. He could have been disbarred and probably violated every standard that a DA has. It is like the movie "A few good Men". Tom Cruise got the confession but had he not, then big trouble was coming.

AH could not know for sure that something might arise later that he had better odds. He thought they were guilty at the time.

 

[cynic]

“While John Ramsey, cool and collected, explained the sequence of events to him, Patsy Ramsey sat in an overstuffed chair in the sunroom, sobbing. Something seemed odd to French, and later he would recall how the grieving mother's eyes stayed riveted on him. He remembered her gaze, and her awkward attempt to conceal it- peering at him through splayed fingers held over her eyes.”

“What was interesting was when Ramsey brought the body upstairs he never cried," related a source present at the time. "But when he laid her down, he started to moan, while peering around to see who was looking at him.”

“The Ramsey's appearance on CNN in Atlanta on jan.1 had also raised questions. Why would a grieving couple go on national television while refusing to speak to the police? What did John Ramsey mean by saying, "I don't know if it was an attack on me, on my company..."?”

“On August 3, the Ramseys ran another full page intruder-profile as in Boulder's Daily Camera, but in the same edition was a full-page open letter to the Ramseys from Peter Boyles. The popular talk-radio host listed all the reasons Americans found the Ramsey's behavior suspicious, mocked their profile as "laughable," condemned them for not cooperating with the police, and accused them of taking "Colorado and the nation on a seven month, low-speed, white Bronco chase." Real grieving parents, he said, behave like Fred Goldman, not like the Ramseys.”

“Comparisons are inevitably made to O.J. Simpson, but John Ramsey is far wealthier.”

Vanity Fair Article,
Who Killed JonBenet?
September 16, 1997
by Ann Louise Bardach

We sometimes overlook the role that a suspect’s behavior after a crime can have on a jury.
In the Scott Peterson case, his actions subsequent to the crime were a cornerstone of the successful prosecution case. I believe it will also play a key role in the Casey Anthony trial. Partying for a month while your daughter is missing? Good luck with that at trial.

In the Ramsey case, could it have been a decisive factor?

 

[BBB167893]

Same here, Dave.

I see what you are saying but I think it is hard to criticize AH in this scenario. Now, I understand that in the 10 years prior in which they pleaded out their other cases you may be exactly right. Had AH gone ahead despite not making the ham sandwich, most likely their feeling that justice for JBR was over. He could have been disbarred and probably violated every standard that a DA has. It is like the movie "A few good Men". Tom Cruise got the confession but had he not, then big trouble was coming.

AH could not know for sure that something might arise later that he had better odds. He thought they were guilty at the time.

I don't know for sure what AH thought or didn't think at the time, but it sure doesn't seem like he thought they were guilty. The Rs praised him; that tells me a lot.

And he certainly doesn't share all of the blame. His subordinates were even worse.

Also, I think we've got a miscommunication here. I'm not talking about what he might have done or not done after he didn't make the ham sandwich as you put it. I'm talking about standard procedures he could have done from Day One before it got to that point.

As for disbarrment, don't get me started.

So all in all, it's not that hard to criticize him. He gets a pretty good going over in chapter seven. But then, so does mostly everyone else.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits. (By way of explanation: #7 refers to bloodstains from panties. #14L,#14M are right and left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.) (From a lab report held up by Erin Moriarty on "48 Hours Mystery&#8221
http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578

I always looked at this as saying that there was a mix of JonBenet’s blood and an unknown male DNA minor profile, in other words the mystery “intruder” profile.
While true, I overlooked the other possibility which is clearly spelt out:
If it is not a single contributor then a DNA mix involving two of the following people: John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, and Jeff Ramsey may be what produced the minor profile and not an intruder after all. (At least one of the two people would have to be a male, as there is a Y marker present) This means that the DNA found in the panty blood stain could simply be a mixture of JonBenet’s blood cells and skin cells from JR and PR as one example.
To illustrate, consider the following very simplified 5 marker profile:
JonBenet (5,12), (8,9), (3,3), (6,4), (9,12)
Patsy (5,8), (7,9), (4,3), (6,11), (9,5)
John (3,12), (8,10), (3,6), (8,4), (7,12)

(Note that because I am using JBR’s parents in the example, JBR is receiving one allele from JR and PR at every marker)

The mixed profile from this example found in the bloodstain would be:
(3,5,8,12), (7,8,9,10), (3,4,6), (4,6,8,11), (5,7,9,12)

You then remove the victim profile and are left with the following alleles to explain:
(3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)

The lab is saying that there are two possibilities:
There is an unidentified male with the following profile responsible for DNA found in the blood stain: (3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)
Or, it was from a mixture involving family members.
Clearly it appears that the DA chose to believe that it was an intruder rather than a Ramsey family member.
The following is one possible explanation of how the mixture happened:
John Ramsey breaks a paint brush previously used by Patsy and containing her DNA. The portion of handle now containing both his and Patsy’s DNA (skin cells) is inserted into JBR’s vagina causing a small amount of bleeding. The size 12 panties are put on, and JBR’s blood mixed with JR’s and PR’s DNA is deposited. JR pulls up the long johns which PR admittedly handled earlier and once again a mixture of their DNA is left behind.
The Bode lab simply found and declared a match to the same mixed profile found in the panty underwear sample.

Just to be clear, some may be under the impression that touch DNA from the long johns is the crucial DNA in this case. That is not true. The partial profile in CODIS from the DNA in the panties is the foundation. All other DNA will continue to be compared against that partial profile.
If that profile is wrong because it is merely a blend of alleles from Ramsey family members (probably just PR and JR), then it completely invalidates the “intruder” theory, at least insofar as support from DNA tested to date is concerned.

9. Conclusions:

· This is not a DNA case.

· Secondary transfer or a DNA mixture may have led to an imaginary “intruder” profile.

· Efforts should be made to clarify the DNA mixture in the panties as that may have caused a false entry to have been uploaded into the CODIS database.

· Technology is now available to isolate male DNA from a mixture involving both male and female DNA. Y-STR testing should be done on the available DNA samples from the long johns and panties and those results compared to a buccal swab from John Ramsey.

· Other items of evidence that would be difficult to explain by an intruder theory should also be tested using Touch DNA analysis. These items should include at least the ligature and paint brush handle.

· At the very least, the current DA should repeal the Ramsey exoneration and apologize to the public that someone as utterly incompetent as Mary Lacy was ever allowed to hold a position of authority whereby she was able misdirect an important investigation for so long.

· The science of DNA profiling is sound.
But, not all of DNA profiling is science.

10. Closing Argument:

“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.” - Wendy Murphy

There is no 'mixture' where the DNA profile obtained from Bode is a hybrid of two or more people. This is because the DNA was present in the form of intact cells, and no doubt they did not find a 'single' cell because we know they report skin cells on both sides of the longjohns.

And this DNA matches the profile of the DNA in the underwear, so these conclusions are not necessarily valid in this case.

This case became a DNA case the instant they uploaded a profile to CODIS.

 

[cynic]

There is no 'mixture' where the DNA profile obtained from Bode is a hybrid of two or more people. This is because the DNA was present in the form of intact cells, and no doubt they did not find a 'single' cell because we know they report skin cells on both sides of the longjohns.

And this DNA matches the profile of the DNA in the underwear, so these conclusions are not necessarily valid in this case.

This case became a DNA case the instant they uploaded a profile to CODIS.

JBR’s skin cells would be present on the long johns. There is simply no way that they would not be.
Additionally, unless PR and JR never touched the waistband it is also not possible that their skin cells would not be present in the area.
This means that a mixture was present.
The only lab report on DNA that anyone in the general public has ever seen states that a mixture involving JR and PR may have accounted for the CODIS “intruder” profile
Bode saw the JR / PR mix on the long johns and declared that they found a match to the profile in CODIS.
The DNA in this case so far would be subject to a devastating attack in court – this is not a DNA case.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JBR’s skin cells would be present on the long johns. There is simply no way that they would not be.
Additionally, unless PR and JR never touched the waistband it is also not possible that their skin cells would not be present in the area.
This means that a mixture was present.
The only lab report on DNA that anyone in the general public has ever seen states that a mixture involving JR and PR may have accounted for the CODIS “intruder” profile
Bode saw the JR / PR mix on the long johns and declared that they found a match to the profile in CODIS.
The DNA in this case so far would be subject to a devastating attack in court – this is not a DNA case.

Just between us, let me just say your statement is impossible.

Intact skin cells recovered from the waistband can't produce hybrid DNA. It represents a unique profile that belongs to one and only one human. That profile then matched the DNA already in CODIS.

This isn't gene splicing.

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[cynic]

Just between us, let me just say your statement is impossible.

Intact skin cells recovered from the waistband can't produce hybrid DNA. It represents a unique profile that belongs to one and only one human. That profile then matched the DNA already in CODIS.

This isn't gene splicing.

Where do you get this stuff?

Let’s review:

DNA found on JBR’s long johns.

Finally, there is the DNA found by using a blade to scrape two areas along the waistband of the long johns that JBR was found to be wearing when her body was “discovered”.

“ANGELA WILLIAMSON, BODE TECHNOLOGY: OK, Nancy. Touch DNA is left behind every time that you touch somebody. It`s essentially shed skin cells. If you touch somebody on the shoulder, you`re leaving behind DNA. However, it`s very hard to find this touch DNA. It`s invisible. We can`t see it. So the way we have to try and sample it is to have a good idea where a person may have been touched and where these shed skin cells may be.
…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/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/09/ng.01.html

“While the amount of DNA they found was much less than would appear in a stain, there was enough to be processed in the routine way DNA is analyzed, Williamson said. (In other cases, so-called "low copy number DNA" has to be processed in a different way).”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/10/earlyshow/main4247767.shtml

This almost certainly would reveal a mixed profile DNA sample. (JBR and PR, JR at least, in addition to the “unknown” donor). The number of markers found in the “intruder” DNA profile has never been released to the public.
We have been told that the profile matched that of the panty DNA, so it is relatively safe to assume that the profile also has at least 9 ½ markers. It is also an equally safe assumption that had they found a full 13 loci profile, that an announcement to that effect would have been made. I believe that the Bode lab was simply given the CODIS “intruder” profile to look for and they found it. They quite probably didn’t attempt any sort of further analysis.



There is no “gene splicing” ??? or fusion or anything bizarre mentioned or implied. Mixed profiles are not uncommon in forensic DNA analysis. One common example would be a gang rape scenario where there would obviously be a semen mixture. DNA mixture from sperm does not involve splicing??? any more than a skin cell DNA mix.
It definitely can be challenging to determine how many contributors were involved and then to try and isolate individual profiles.
As I mentioned to you previously HOTYH, this thread, although lengthy is intended to lay the foundation and context for my arguments. Had you read the following from my post, and especially looked at the two links, you would not have made the statements that you did.



The sample is a mixture of two or more donors and has been misinterpreted

Three or more alleles at a locus indicate the presence of more than one contributor. It is often difficult to tell whether the sample originated from 2, 3 or 4 people. Statistical models can help analysts work out the probabilities of more than two contributors however a number of possible combinations could be consistent with the findings.
Peak heights are often used in interpreting mixtures, but peak height imbalances occasionally occur. Peaks with the same height are presumed to be from the same person, but the reading of peak heights is far from an exact science. Even in a single person sample, peak heights may vary, so assumptions of regularity may be false.
In mixed samples alleles may simply be undetectable or indistinguishable from background ‘noise’. Alternatively, alleles can simply “drop out” and not appear or stutters can be confused with alleles from a minor contributor.

“Because so many different profiles may be consistent with a mixture, the probability that a non-contributor might, by coincidence, be "included" as a possible contributor to the mixture is far higher in a mixture case than a case with a single-source evidentiary sample”
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=57&archive=yes
“In a separate mixture study, sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, forty-five local, state, federal and commercial forensic laboratories were requested to specify all contributors in each sample mixture, provided STR profiles, and estimate the amount of DNA in the samples as well as the amount of recoverable DNA per sample (5). No participant in the study mistyped the single contributor sample. However, many laboratories did not attempt to fully type the contributors profile or they provided incorrect genotype assignments. The inability to correctly assign the proper genotype to a contributor was attributed to multiple shared alleles. Further investigations will clarify these results.”
http://www.dnadiagnosticsinc.com/district-of-columbia-bar-artic/
See also: http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject06/images/pdi_s06_m03_06.swf



Now read this statement again:

JBR’s skin cells would be present on the long johns. There is simply no way that they would not be.
Additionally, unless PR and JR never touched the waistband it is also not possible that their skin cells would not be present in the area.
This means that a mixture was present.
The only lab report on DNA that anyone in the general public has ever seen states that a mixture involving JR and PR may have accounted for the CODIS “intruder” profile
Bode saw the JR / PR mix on the long johns and declared that they found a match to the profile in CODIS.