Do you think a Stungun was used?

[BBB167893]

So, you're suggesting tertiary transfer of DNA after laying stagnate for days, weeks, months, years, etc. resulting in quantities of DNA large enough to be detected without LCN analyses? ...and a minimum of three of these incidental transfers resulted in matching profiles (belonging to one male) worthy of submission to CODIS?

Me again, kids. Mama, I've been at this a long time, and frankly, you said it yourself but missed the meaning: they only GOT those DNA samples because the technology improved over so many years. The DNA itself didn't suddenly get better.

That's number one. Number two is that I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone can claim "matching" profiles due to the DNA being incomplete.

Which brings me to number three: in order to be worthy of submission into CODIS, a DNA sample has to have 10 available loci. This DNA didn't have THAT many. It came in just under the cut-off point. The FBI took it because they didn't want the bad publicity that would have come from turning it down, due to most people holding (to quote andreww) "the illusion that the DNA is the be all and end all." (Bad publicity that Lin Wood was only too happy to stir up, by his own admission.)

It all comes to this, people: as Henry Lee himself and a lot of other law enforcement personnel have said, DNA found is not always relevant, and as the technology for detecting and analyzing it becomes more and more sensitive, the number of cases where irrelevant DNA is found will only grow.

Think about the implications of that for a minute. For MY part, I don't HAVE to think about them. As far as I'm concerned, this case is a damn good demonstration!

 

[BBB167893]

Add this up:

Unsourced male DNA in the crotch of the victim's panties, under her fingernails, on both sides of her longjohns, on the wrist ligatures, & on the garrote.
+
Unsourced brown fibers on the cord and the victim's clothing.
+
Unsourced blue fibers on the victim's pubic region & panties.
+
Unsourced animal hairs on the victim's hands.
+
Unsourced shoe prints.
+
Unsourced handwriting.
=
???

As far as I'm concerned, Mama, the parts I bolded aren't unsourced at all.

 

[Anti-K]

Id love to see more info on this Mama.

I understand what you are saying about the pre CODIS sample not being able to be matched with the post-CODIS samples, but if that is accurate, how did they match the DNA from the blood stain (pre CODIS) to the DNA found in the waistband (post CODIS). And is it even possible to say that all 5 male samples came from the same person?

The argument here is that if there was one identified DNA specimen found, one might assume that it came from an intruder. But if there is DNA found that comes from 2, 3, 4 or 5 unidentified persons, the value of the evidence comes in to question because the panties were from a brand new package. You must assume, as Henry Lee later proved, that touch DNA can already be present in brand new packaged goods.

The question becomes "how did a matching profile get on both the panties and the long johns?". As I understand the DNA extracted from the blood spot was mixed, meaning it was JBs blood with someone else's DNA mixed (correct me if I am wrong). How does that possibly happen? It was said that the sample may have been sweat or the result of a sneeze. So are we to assume that an intruder sneezed and that one minute sample of DNA happened to land in the one minute speck of blood that happened to be there?

My theory is that when the Ramsey's wiped JB clean, they used a hand towel or rag that had been used by several of the workers that had been in the house in the previous weeks. The DNA was transferred from the towel to her skin, then on to the garments as she was re-dressed.

I always found it a little bit telling that Mary Lacy cleared John Karr because the DNA didn't match. He was cleared because his story didn't match the evidence, and you can bet your a$$ that if he had been in Colorado, and if his story would have matched the evidence, Lacy would have distanced herself from the DNA and passed it off as coming from an outside source. Instead she skirts her incompetence and strengthens the illusion that the DNA is the be all and end all.

The “value of the evidence” is determined by location found.

The value of male DNA found commingled in the blood of a sexual assaulted victim and on the inside crotch of her panties cannot be diminished by foreign DNA found elsewhere, and, matching DNA found on the leggings only adds to the value of the panty DNA.

The panty DNA, which is the profile accepted by CODIS, and the leggings DNA were all tested according to CODIS standards.

The new panties tested had trace amounts of DNA 1/10th the amount found on jbr’s panties. a significant difference.

The CODIS sample (form the panties) is probably sweat or saliva; but the leggings DNA is probably skin cells. This makes it exceedingly unlike that one transferred to the other.

A likely scenario for the commingling of victim’s blood and perpetrator’s saliva or sweat: the perpetrator may have used his saliva as a lubricant for the penetration. This could allow his saliva and her blood to commingle and later drip onto the panties. if he had been wearing but removed gloves for the sexual aspect of the crime, then his hands may have been sweaty, etc
.

Scenarios that try to explain away the DNA as innocent, secondary, etc transfer do not explain this DNA. DNA transferred in such a manner should be Ramsey or Ramsey associated DNA. Who else handled Ramsey towels, etc?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Me again, kids. Mama, I've been at this a long time, and frankly, you said it yourself but missed the meaning: they only GOT those DNA samples because the technology improved over so many years. The DNA itself didn't suddenly get better.

That's number one. Number two is that I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone can claim "matching" profiles due to the DNA being incomplete.

Which brings me to number three: in order to be worthy of submission into CODIS, a DNA sample has to have 10 available loci. This DNA didn't have THAT many. It came in just under the cut-off point. The FBI took it because they didn't want the bad publicity that would have come from turning it down, due to most people holding (to quote andreww) "the illusion that the DNA is the be all and end all." (Bad publicity that Lin Wood was only too happy to stir up, by his own admission.)

It all comes to this, people: as Henry Lee himself and a lot of other law enforcement personnel have said, DNA found is not always relevant, and as the technology for detecting and analyzing it becomes more and more sensitive, the number of cases where irrelevant DNA is found will only grow.

Think about the implications of that for a minute. For MY part, I don't HAVE to think about them. As far as I'm concerned, this case is a damn good demonstration!

The profiles are more correctly identified as being “consistent.” But, that simply means that all the identified markers match and that there are no markers that do not match. So, they match.

In this case, and by all accounts associated with the investigation, the 2 tDNA samples (leggings) and the NOT-tDNA (panties) DNA samples match. The number of markers identified is not known, but we do know that they match.

Your claim that the panty sample is in CODIS only because the FBI “didn't want the bad publicity that would have come from turning it down” is unfounded and essentially irrelevant. The sample is in CODIS and it is regularly run through the system.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

The profiles are more correctly identified as being “consistent.” But, that simply means that all the identified markers match and that there are no markers that do not match. So, they match.

Funny how you guys never apply that to other items!

Your claim that the panty sample is in CODIS only because the FBI “didn't want the bad publicity that would have come from turning it down” is unfounded and essentially irrelevant. The sample is in CODIS and it is regularly run through the system.

It's not unfounded. I remember when it was first entered back in 2003. I've probably forgotten more about this case than most people will ever know. As for regularly being run through the system, that's one thing. Whether it's relevant to the case is something else entirely.

 

[BBB167893]

The “value of the evidence” is determined by location found.

I'll remember you said that!

The new panties tested had trace amounts of DNA 1/10th the amount found on jbr’s panties. a significant difference.

I've never actually seen a named source for that claim. Not even from the Rs.

Scenarios that try to explain away the DNA as innocent, secondary, etc transfer do not explain this DNA.

Tell that to Mark Beckner, Mike Kane and Jim Kolar. (If they'll listen.)

 

[Global Justice Ops]

Kolar concluded that because the fibers found on the duct tape were from Patsy's sweater that she was the one who placed the duct tape over JBR. He forgot that JR threw the duct tape onto the blanket after finding JBR. The blanket is where the red fibers most likely came from.

 

[DeDee]

Funny how you guys never apply that to other items!

It's not unfounded. I remember when it was first entered back in 2003. I've probably forgotten more about this case than most people will ever know. As for regularly being run through the system, that's one thing. Whether it's relevant to the case is something else entirely.

If at all possible, this one statement may actually be an understatement. I am not certain about today, but in the glory days of this case, you were a master of the facts.

I've probably forgotten more about this case than most people will ever know.​

 

[BBB167893]

Kolar concluded that because the fibers found on the duct tape were from Patsy's sweater that she was the one who placed the duct tape over JBR. He forgot that JR threw the duct tape onto the blanket after finding JBR. The blanket is where the red fibers most likely came from.

If you want to get into the problems of trying to explain those fibers innocently, I'm just the man for the job. I happen to agree with Kolar's conclusion, probably for the same reasons that he arrived at it. If you want me to be more specific, there is an easy way.

 

[Global Justice Ops]

Go on SuperDave, be more specific.

 

[Anti-K]

Funny how you guys never apply that to other items!



It's not unfounded. I remember when it was first entered back in 2003. I've probably forgotten more about this case than most people will ever know. As for regularly being run through the system, that's one thing. Whether it's relevant to the case is something else entirely.

Your faulty memory doesn’t change the fact that the sample was accepted by CODIS, and therefore must have met CODSI standards.

Nor does your faulty memory support your claim that the panty sample is in CODIS only because the FBI “didn't want the bad publicity that would have come from turning it down.” The sample is in CODIS because it met CODIS standards.

Until the DNA sample in CODIS is innocently explained it will enjoy the presumption of relevance.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I'll remember you said that!



I've never actually seen a named source for that claim. Not even from the Rs.



Tell that to Mark Beckner, Mike Kane and Jim Kolar. (If they'll listen.)

It seems, at best, somewhat dishonest to continually edit a person’s posts when quoting. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that this is against forum rules. Regardless:

In a November 30, 1996 letter to Westward, carol of Walnut Creek, CA, claims to have written and gotten a reply from the producer of 48 Hours to complain about their November 28 show involving Michael Tracey and Lou Smit. She asserted: "The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount."

Letters to the Editor
From the week of 12/07/2006

Great, funny article. I e-mailed 48 Hours because I had problems with statements like "the evidence shows blah-blah" without the show telling us what that evidence might be. The producer and Erin Moriarty both wrote me back. The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount. That was news to me.
Carol Martin
Walnut Creek, California
http://www.westword.com/2006-12-07/news/letters-to-the-editor/

Kolar also discusses this in his book, but like you I have some problems with memory.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

It seems, at best, somewhat dishonest to continually edit a person’s posts when quoting. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that this is against forum rules. Regardless:

In a November 30, 1996 letter to Westward, carol of Walnut Creek, CA, claims to have written and gotten a reply from the producer of 48 Hours to complain about their November 28 show involving Michael Tracey and Lou Smit. She asserted: "The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount."

Letters to the Editor
From the week of 12/07/2006

Great, funny article. I e-mailed 48 Hours because I had problems with statements like "the evidence shows blah-blah" without the show telling us what that evidence might be. The producer and Erin Moriarty both wrote me back. The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount. That was news to me.
Carol Martin
Walnut Creek, California
http://www.westword.com/2006-12-07/news/letters-to-the-editor/

Kolar also discusses this in his book, but like you I have some problems with memory.

...

AK

FF: WRKJB, p. 304:

"Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear.
...

He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear." (Kolar 2012)​

​

 

[Anti-K]

FF: WRKJB, p. 304:

"Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear.
...

He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear." (Kolar 2012)​

​

Thanks Mama2JML. I have that somewhere in my files, but I’m feeling a little rusty and haven’t looked through anything in quite some time.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Thanks Mama2JML. I have that somewhere in my files, but I’m feeling a little rusty and haven’t looked through anything in quite some time.
...

AK

No problem, AK. I already had the info at my fingertips.

(...& you're far from rusty. That's not JMO, that's a fact. )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

FF: WRKJB, p. 304:

"Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear.
...

He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear." (Kolar 2012)​

Heyya Mama2JML ,

But can one really discriminate the presence of distinct dna, based on mathematical probability, to a qualitative measure?
Is it not the presence or absence of distinct dna, that dictates the possibility of first or second hand contact?

 

[Tadpole12]

Thanks, andreww. I understand your POV.

Kolar's "recap" of the evidentiary DNA from Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (p.413-414):

"1. There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that was identified as belonging to her.

2. There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an unidentified male.

3. There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female DNA.)

4. There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-2.

5. The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear.

6. The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the wrist bindings that belonged to a different unidentified male.

7. The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the garrote that belonged to yet another unidentified male.

By our count, we were looking at six separate and independent DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising a group that consisted of five males and one female"​

Numbers 1-3, above, were collected and analyzed in 1997; pre-CODIS, pre-STR. The CBI analyzed the samples using "Polymarker" kits; targeting six loci (markers). The male profiles developed from these samples were consistent; meaning any markers identified in one sample were either present & matched in the next sample or the marker was unable to be identified. It is possible both samples came from one male individual. The unidentified female profile displayed consistencies with JonBenét's profile; JonBenét could not be excluded as the source.

These samples, collected & analyzed in 1997, cannot be compared to samples collected post-CODIS/STR because the tests target a different set of loci (markers). So, there's no way of knowing if Kolar's "unidentified male #1 & #2" also could have contributed any of the DNA samples analyzed later.

To be continued, in an appropriate thread, if you're interested...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ty Mama2JML

 

[Anti-K]

Heyya Mama2JML ,

But can one really discriminate the presence of distinct dna, based on mathematical probability, to a qualitative measure?
Is it not the presence or absence of distinct dna, that dictates the possibility of first or second hand contact?

Hi Tadpole12,
I know this was directed at Mama2JML so I hope you don’t mind me intruding. I wonder if you could rephrase your questions as I’m a little confused about what it is that you are asking.

I’m not sure what you mean by “But can one really discriminate the presence of distinct dna, based on mathematical probability, to a qualitative measure?” Distinct DNA would be DNA that has at least one identified marker that does not match a marker in the sample that it is being compared to. In such a case probability is zero.

“Is it not the presence or absence of distinct dna, that dictates the possibility of first or second hand contact?”
Presence of distinct DNA infers that 2 or more profiles exist. This does not indicate secondary transfer, but it would be consistent with secondary transfer. That is, when Person A transfers Peron B’s DNA they usually transfer their own DNA as well.

IOWs, the tDNA found on the leggings was from secondary transfer than we should expect those samples to have been mixed – 2 distinct profiles – one the unsourced DNA in question and the other the DNA of the person who transferred it. We don’t see this.

What I think is often forgotten (or ignored) is that the tDNA found on the leggings was probably skin cells and the non-tDNA found commingled in the victim’s blood on the panties was probably saliva. So, it is unlikely that the tDNA and the non-tDNA transferred from leggings to panties (or, vice versa). Besides, there is no practical or believable way for this DNA to go from the inside crotch of the panties to the outside sides of the leggings.

Excuse typos, etc (if any). In a rush

AK

 

[andreww]

Just a quick question; all these samples come from JBs clothing, but were any samples taken from her body? I know she was wiped clean, but obviously there was a blood stain on her fresh panties, so there must have been blood on her body right? Unless she was dressed in the size 12s, bled on them, then was undressed yet again and wiped, then redressed. I just have a huge problem with that single blood spot of JBs blood being mixed with a single spot of an intruders saliva. If this happened via an attempt at an oral sexual assault as some have suggested, wouldn't there me massive amounts of intruder DNA on her body?

 

[Mama2JML]

Just a quick question; all these samples come from JBs clothing, but were any samples taken from her body? I know she was wiped clean, but obviously there was a blood stain on her fresh panties, so there must have been blood on her body right? Unless she was dressed in the size 12s, bled on them, then was undressed yet again and wiped, then redressed. I just have a huge problem with that single blood spot of JBs blood being mixed with a single spot of an intruders saliva. If this happened via an attempt at an oral sexual assault as some have suggested, wouldn't there me massive amounts of intruder DNA on her body?

Unsourced male DNA has been isolated from three different bloodstains in the victim's panties; 1997, 2001 & 2003. There may be (or might have been) "massive amounts of intruder DNA on her body". I'm not sure if LE swabbed any areas of her body for DNA, but they collected DNA from her fingernails.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk