IDI: Whats your problem?

[DeeDee249]

DNA can SOLVE a case - IF it's the right kind of DNA.

Touch DNA is the wrong kind of DNA. Skin cells are too easily transferred.

If the touch DNA could have been identified as belonging to someone known, THEN it is helpful to the case. If it had been a known sex offender proven to be in Boulder that night, well- bingo.
But "unknown male" is useless to the case.

If it was semen- Semen of any kind found on JB proves sexual assault and at least THAT question would be answered definitively. Yet, no semen.
We do not know exactly the nature of the substance in the panties containing the male DNA. It was mixed with JB's blood, but that doesn't mean it was deposited at the same time she bled. She could have bled onto a spot in the panties where the male DNA was already located. There is no way to tell when it was left.
We don't know if LE knows for sure what the male DNA in the panties was in. Was it blood? That was never officially stated. Was it saliva? That was never officially stated. Yet there is constant speculation, sometimes, stated as fact, that it was blood or saliva. Or was it just DNA on the cotton fabric, onto which JB shed a few drops of blood.
We only know officially that the DNA on the longjohns was skin cells. If the panty male DNA is also from skin cells, it is possible it has no association with the crime at all, as skin cells from either JB or her parents could have been transferred from their hands to the fabric of both the panties and the longjohns.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Indeed, HOTYH seized on it:

.

The RDI argument has truly become insolvent, as can be seen in the media. Heck, the DA didn't even need to write an exhoneration letter to JR. They went out of their way to do it, as they had no obligation to do so. This letter is therefore not relevant to money.

Well, that's precisely my point: the DA did a LOT for the Rs that she didn't have to do (and in my opinion, SHOULD NOT have done): taking over the case at LW's behest, purposely excluding anyone who didn't agree with her lockstep from the investigation, going to PR's funeral... Like I said: Nixon to China it ain't.

I'm not sure it helps your argument to take my post out of context and spin its meaning with a truly convoluted argument.

Boulder County officials published the exhoneration letter in response to new evidence. Were it not for the new evidence, there could be no exhoneration letter. This has nothing to do with money, and that was my point. You might have an argument if the exhoneration letter simply rehashed archaic stuff.

Boulder County officials don't 'take over cases at the behest of private attorneys.'

It seems you're forgetting that ML developed a JBR case factoid. Don't be jealous. Where's your new factoid?

 

[Roy23]

DNA can SOLVE a case - IF it's the right kind of DNA.

Touch DNA is the wrong kind of DNA. Skin cells are too easily transferred.

If the touch DNA could have been identified as belonging to someone known, THEN it is helpful to the case. If it had been a known sex offender proven to be in Boulder that night, well- bingo.
But "unknown male" is useless to the case.

If it was semen- Semen of any kind found on JB proves sexual assault and at least THAT question would be answered definitively. Yet, no semen.
We do not know exactly the nature of the substance in the panties containing the male DNA. It was mixed with JB's blood, but that doesn't mean it was deposited at the same time she bled. She could have bled onto a spot in the panties where the male DNA was already located. There is no way to tell when it was left.
We don't know if LE knows for sure what the male DNA in the panties was in. Was it blood? That was never officially stated. Was it saliva? That was never officially stated. Yet there is constant speculation, sometimes, stated as fact, that it was blood or saliva. Or was it just DNA on the cotton fabric, onto which JB shed a few drops of blood.
We only know officially that the DNA on the longjohns was skin cells. If the panty male DNA is also from skin cells, it is possible it has no association with the crime at all, as skin cells from either JB or her parents could have been transferred from their hands to the fabric of both the panties and the longjohns.

Touch DNA does create a whole lot of problems by itself. In this case, I feel differently. The RDI's can spin this all they want but after the crime, DNA was found in blood in her panties AND under her fingernails. A big problem was that there was not much sign of a break in and the BPD felt like this could be an inside job. I understand this. And from this point afterward everyone from the BPD, the DA's office, and the Ramsey's acted irresponsible on multiple occasions.

We have evidence that contradicts itself. The DNA was criticized. The fingernail DNA was partial and some called it degraded. But it was pretty consistant with the panty DNA. There is a mathmatical formula that could tell us out of how many people this DNA could match but we don't know. So then the panty DNA gets theorized as being from a factory worker unless you want to go down the road of planting DNA. Essentially the case is stuck.

Touch DNA essentially solved most of the case here even though you guys still are not recognizing it. I mean it is over. It is like you guys are stuck in a time warp. The new technology was used to determine if this DNA was innocently there. You want an explanation on what they tested and where they tested but it ain't happening. I want it too. They determined that skin cells(you know that wasn't planted) matched the panty DNA and most likely that gives the fingernail DNA a whole different significance.

We want to think here that Lacy determined these results but it ain't fact. So much information was available on this case that freaks like JMK and others have tried to involve themselves on the case. They won't make the same mistake but I guarantee you they have tested all kinds of stuff by now.

 

[Roy23]

Nice to see you, Roy.

Quite frankly there are a LOT of things in this case I'm surprised people don't get.



Could not have said it better myself. And to me, therein lies the problem: I have no reason to believe this IS the right case. Until a donor is found, the deciding factor as to whether or not the DNA is indicative of an intruder is whether or not you believe in the intruder theory to start with. And that, as I see it, is a big part of it: a true believer achieved the power to pursue her boogeyman. This was not Nixon going to China; far from it.

Indeed, HOTYH seized on it:



Well, that's precisely my point: the DA did a LOT for the Rs that she didn't have to do (and in my opinion, SHOULD NOT have done): taking over the case at LW's behest, purposely excluding anyone who didn't agree with her lockstep from the investigation, going to PR's funeral... Like I said: Nixon to China it ain't.



That's a whole other issue, as I see it.

Disagree Dave. And how you doin?

They have already proven that when they find the donor, they will have found a guilty person. Maybe not the mastermind but the killer.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I voted in my own poll: not enough foreign effort. And here's some of the reasons why:

The gripes that were listed in the RN that were mostly superfluous to a kidnapping for ransom, or a sexual assault and murder, related to the U.S. and to fat cats.

Its not like this isn't a valid or contemporary complaint:

U.S. policies also are widely viewed as increasing the gap between rich nations and poor nations. This is even the case in several countries where the U.S. is generally well regarded. In addition, this is one of the few criticisms of the U.S. that is widely shared around the world and with which a plurality of Americans (38%) agree.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256

The RN author claimed he was foreign, and introduced anti-American and anti-rich ideology. To support this claim, there are now zero local suspects despite extensive investigation and testing. To further support this claim, nobody has come forward despite large cash rewards from the R's and from the tabloids.

Someday, somehow, someone is finally going to get the idea that JBR was killed by someone who came to this country to do this, for reasons that are not yet known.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have never read anywhere (except media reports that were erroneous) that the degraded fingernail DNA matched ANY other DNA, let alone was male. If you have reputable police reports saying this, please post it.

 

[madeleine]

I voted in my own poll: not enough foreign effort. And here's some of the reasons why:

The gripes that were listed in the RN that were mostly superfluous to a kidnapping for ransom, or a sexual assault and murder, related to the U.S. and to fat cats.

Its not like this isn't a valid or contemporary complaint:

U.S. policies also are widely viewed as increasing the gap between rich nations and poor nations. This is even the case in several countries where the U.S. is generally well regarded. In addition, this is one of the few criticisms of the U.S. that is widely shared around the world and with which a plurality of Americans (38%) agree.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256

The RN author claimed he was foreign, and introduced anti-American and anti-rich ideology. To support this claim, there are now zero local suspects despite extensive investigation and testing. To further support this claim, nobody has come forward despite large cash rewards from the R's and from the tabloids.

Someday, somehow, someone is finally going to get the idea that JBR was killed by someone who came to this country to do this, for reasons that are not yet known.

Re your SFF theory,I was wondering,do you think that this could be another clue?Printed in GOLD......Korea....................

 

[MurriFlower]

Printed in GOLD......Korea....................

Hmm, I'd think that was just where the paintbrush was made.

 

[MurriFlower]

The RN author claimed he was foreign, and introduced anti-American and anti-rich ideology.

Someday, somehow, someone is finally going to get the idea that JBR was killed by someone who came to this country to do this, for reasons that are not yet known.

Interesting theory HOTYH. What about if it was just someone (not necessarily a 'he'), born in another country who was living in Boulder but returned home (presumably on a foreign passport) after the killing? Not really a political killing, but fulfilling the poor/anti-American mould. Doesn't need to be from an 'enemy' of the US, 'cause as you said, anti-Americanism exists all over the world. Could have even been British? So was there anyone originally from Britain in the circle of friends/employees/acquaintences?

 

[madeleine]

Hmm, I'd think that was just where the paintbrush was made.

I know but I was thinking whether it's possible that this is the reason they even used THAT piece of brush,because they (SFF) wanted to leave another clue/message (maybe origin?) dunno,just speculating of course.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hmm, I'd think that was just where the paintbrush was made.

I am sure that's correct. If it were possible to check, there were probably others similarly marked brushes. The "GOLD" means nothing. I have pencils in my desk right now stamped in gold. Pretty common for use on dark colored brushes.
I really don't think a group of angry Koreans killed JB, do you?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Re your SFF theory,I was wondering,do you think that this could be another clue?Printed in GOLD......Korea....................

Of course it could be another clue.

Breaking off both ends could be a way to remove the simple 'paintbrush' aspect, leaving just the handle with the word "Korea" on it.

I had previously thought both ends were broken to create a multi-weapon.

Who knows, maybe this isn't a botched investigation after all. Dr. Meyer may have archived something that could drastically reduce the scope of the investigation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Interesting theory HOTYH. What about if it was just someone (not necessarily a 'he'), born in another country who was living in Boulder but returned home (presumably on a foreign passport) after the killing? Not really a political killing, but fulfilling the poor/anti-American mould. Doesn't need to be from an 'enemy' of the US, 'cause as you said, anti-Americanism exists all over the world. Could have even been British? So was there anyone originally from Britain in the circle of friends/employees/acquaintences?

Why not? The RN author claimed to 'disrespect' the US, remember? I think most Brits at least have respect.

 

[madeleine]

I am sure that's correct. If it were possible to check, there were probably others similarly marked brushes. The "GOLD" means nothing. I have pencils in my desk right now stamped in gold. Pretty common for use on dark colored brushes.
I really don't think a group of angry Koreans killed JB, do you?

Sorry maybe I didn't express my thoughts clearly.
If I would wanna leave a message to someone and if I'd be a person with a huge ego then I guess I'd want my name/origin printed in GOLD and not .......pink or orange.The person who wrote the note speaks about countries and respect..........you'd think if he/they were indeed a SFF they respected their OWN country and IF they left such a clue they made sure it's the right....colour.....GOLD...isn't GOLD the colour of VICTORY?
Maybe now I made myself more clear.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sorry maybe I didn't express my thoughts clearly.
If I would wanna leave a message to someone and if I'd be a person with a huge ego then I guess I'd want my name/origin printed in GOLD and not .......pink or orange.The person who wrote the note speaks about countries and respect..........you'd think if he/they were indeed a SFF they respected their OWN country and IF they left such a clue they made sure it's the right....colour.....GOLD...isn't GOLD the colour of VICTORY?
Maybe now I made myself more clear.

Olympics for 1996: Atlanta, Georgia.

S. Korea medals: 7, 15, 5

1996 Archery Double F.I.T.A. Round Men Kyo-Moon Oh BRONZE
1996 Archery Double F.I.T.A. Round Women Kyung-Wook Kim GOLD
1996 Archery Men's Team Bo-Ram Kim SILVER
1996 Archery Men's Team Yong-Ho Jang SILVER
1996 Archery Men's Team Kyo-Moon Oh SILVER
1996 Archery Women's Team Hye-Young Youn GOLD
1996 Archery Women's Team Kyung-Wook Kim GOLD
1996 Archery Women's Team Jo-Sun Kim GOLD
1996 Track & Field Marathon Men Bong-Ju Lee 2:12:39 SILVER
1996 Badminton Women's Singles Soo-Hyun Bang GOLD
1996 Badminton Women's Doubles Hye-Ock Jang SILVER
1996 Badminton Women's Doubles Young-Ah Gil SILVER
1996 Badminton Mixed Doubles Young-Ah Gil GOLD
1996 Badminton Mixed Doubles Dong-Moon Kim GOLD
1996 Badminton Mixed Doubles Joo-Bong Park SILVER
1996 Badminton Mixed Doubles Kyung-Min Ra SILVER
1996 Boxing Light Heavyweight Seung-Bae Lee SILVER
1996 Gymnastics Long Horse Vault Hung-Chul Yeo SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Sang-Eun Lee SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Jeong-Lim Park SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Seong-Ok Oh SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women O-Kyeong Lim SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Hyang-Ja Moon SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Yong-Ran Oh SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Eun-Mi Kim SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Jeong-Mi Kim SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Cheong-Shim Kim SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Mi-Sim Kim SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Rang Kim SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Hye-Jeong Kwag SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Sun-Hee Han SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Yeong-Ho Hong SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Soon-Young Huh SILVER
1996 Handball Handball Women Eun-Hee Cho SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Eun-Kyung Choi SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Mi-Soon Choi SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Eun-Jung Chang SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Eun-Jung Cho SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Young-Sun Jeon SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Deok-San Jin SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Myung-Ok Kim SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Chang-Sook Kwon SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Soo-Hyun Kwon SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Seung-Shin Oh SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Jeong-Sook Lim SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Eun-Young Lee SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Eun-Kyung Lee SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Ji-Young Lee SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Hyun-Jung Woo SILVER
1996 Field Hockey Field Hockey Women Jae-Sook You SILVER
1996 Judo Lightweight (71kg) Men Dae-Sung Kwak SILVER
1996 Judo Half Middleweight (78kg) Men In-Chul Cho BRONZE
1996 Judo Middleweight (86kg) Men Ki-Young Jeon GOLD
1996 Judo Half-Heavyweight (95kg) Men Min-Soo Kim SILVER
1996 Judo Half Lightweight (52kg) Women Sook-Hee Hyun SILVER
1996 Judo Lightweight (56kg) Women Sun-Yong Jung SILVER
1996 Judo Half Middleweight (61kg) Women Sung-Sook Jung BRONZE
1996 Judo Middleweight (66kg) Women Min-Sun Cho GOLD
1996 Table Tennis Men's Doubles Chul-Seung Lee BRONZE
1996 Table Tennis Men's Doubles Nam-Kyu Yoo BRONZE
1996 Table Tennis Women's Doubles Hae-Jung Park BRONZE
1996 Table Tennis Women's Doubles Ji-Hae Ryu BRONZE
1996 Wrestling Greco-Roman Light Flyweight 48kg Kwon-Ho Sim GOLD
1996 Wrestling Freestyle Featherweight 62kg Jae-Sung Jang SILVER
1996 Wrestling Freestyle Welterweight 74kg Jang-Soon Park SILVER
1996 Wrestling Freestyle Middleweight 82kg Hyun-Mo Yang SILVER


N. Korea medals: 2, 1, 2

1996 Judo Extra Lightweight (48kg) Women Sun Hui Kye GOLD
1996 Weightlifting Lightweight 70kg Myong-Nam Kim 345 SILVER
1996 Weightlifting Middleweight 76kg Chol-Ho Jon 357.5 BRONZE
1996 Wrestling Freestyle Paperweight 48kg Il Kim GOLD
1996 Wrestling Freestyle Bantamweight 57kg Yong-Sam Ri BRONZE

A bid by N. Korea to host some of the events of the 1988 Seoul Olympics was snubbed.

 

[Roy23]

I have never read anywhere (except media reports that were erroneous) that the degraded fingernail DNA matched ANY other DNA, let alone was male. If you have reputable police reports saying this, please post it.

jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/DNA-Evidence

 

[cynic]

jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/DNA-Evidence

The link has a section entitled, “Possible Match with Fingernail DNA”
John San Augustin, Ollie Gray and Lin Wood are the sources for this information. The core of the RST, I would hardly expect any less from them.

Touch DNA essentially solved most of the case here even though you guys still are not recognizing it. I mean it is over. It is like you guys are stuck in a time warp. The new technology was used to determine if this DNA was innocently there. You want an explanation on what they tested and where they tested but it ain't happening. I want it too. They determined that skin cells(you know that wasn't planted) matched the panty DNA and most likely that gives the fingernail DNA a whole different significance.

Since the discovery of the new DNA on two places on the leggings that matched DNA in a blood stain in her underwear, there seems to be an irrationality about proceeding with the same unwavering arguments.

The DNA evidence was weak at the beginning, and remains weak.
The so called fingernail DNA “evidence” is not worth discussing and it would take someone who is not afraid of humiliation to show up in court with it.

"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41

Bob Grant, a former Adams County DA who helped investigate JonBenet’s death….
There were also DNA traces found under the child’s fingernails, but they were degraded and tests were inconclusive, Grant said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14441778/

Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
The other "minuscule" sample, which is probably blood, was mixed with JonBenet's DNA, he said. That leaves investigators with the daunting task of trying to match a partial DNA strand with a sample from John Karr.
"The amount of DNA is small enough that it could exclude someone. But it could not go so far for the inclusion," Wise said.
http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13061689


Moving on to the much vaunted DNA found in JBR’s panties.
After “working” the DNA results they managed to go from 9 ½ to 10 markers to meet the minimum threshold for submission to CODIS.
To keep things in perspective, it remains a partial profile, short of the full profile requirement which is 13 markers.
The question that you have to ask is why is it a partial profile?
There are two explanations. Extremely low sample quantity and/or degradation.


"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation” (2002)
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can`t just jump to the conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/count...925946,00.html

But Lacy, in announcing why Karr was being freed, admitted what several other investigators connected to the case had been saying for years: It might not even be the killer's DNA.
It is possible that the unidentified male DNA might have been left there through secondary contact, or even when the underwear was manufactured.
"The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/dec/23/miss-steps/

What are the possible explanations for the DNA in the Ramsey case?
(Not an exhaustive list.)

Intruder left behind skin cells via primary transfer during the assault and murder of JBR.
Someone known to the Ramseys left behind skin cells while in some way participating in the crime directly, or in the staging of the crime.
Human error (such as mistyping DNA due to complex mixtures and perhaps low sample size.)
Contamination.
Innocent transfer.
Secondary and tertiary transfer.

Human error:
The State Patrol cases reveal that the technology has an Achilles' heel: human error.
Forensic scientists tainted tests with their own DNA in eight of the 23 cases. They made mistakes in six others, from throwing out evidence swabs to misreading results, fingering the wrong rape suspect. Tests were contaminated by DNA from unrelated cases in three examinations, and between evidence in the same case in another. The source of contamination in five other tests is unknown.
…
Crime lab officials here and elsewhere don't like to talk about the fact that the same test that can link someone to a crime scene with a few minuscule cells left on a doorknob can also be contaminated by a passing sneeze. Or that DNA tests are only as reliable as the humans doing them -- a troubling prospect when dealing with evidence that has the power to exonerate suspects or imprison them for life.
"The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible," said William C. Thompson, a forensic expert and professor of criminology and law at the University of California-Irvine, who reviewed the incidents at the request of the P-I.
"What we're seeing in these 23 cases is really the tip of the iceberg."
That's because the lab is only catching obvious cases that likely signal more widespread problems, Thompson said.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

Contamination and innocent transfer:
“But the sensitivity of the test also means it detects even the slightest contamination.
In January, the Seattle lab's DNA supervisor, George Chan, was chatting with a forensic scientist who was examining evidence in a child rape case. Although Chan had no other exposure to the case, a subsequent test found Chan's DNA, as well as that of the suspect, in the evidence -- a sample taken from a pair of boxer shorts. The likely culprit: saliva spewed during Chan's conversation.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

Highly sensitive tests require a great deal of care in evidence collection, handling and storage.
What precautions were taken in the Ramsey case, or any case in the 90’s, when the potential for contamination and cross-contamination involving skin cells was not known?

This is from a recent interview between Evidence Technology Magazine and Joe Minor-Technical DNA Manager & Special Agent-Forensic Scientist Supervisor, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation:
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: When you teach classes for crime-scene investigators, what are some of the key points in DNA collection that you cover?
MINOR: I talk to them about basic concepts, like proper recognition and preservation of the evidence. We discuss the fundamentals of packaging biological evidence and how that should be packaged in breathable containers. And everything needs to be packaged separately. Even if they think that it is the victim’s clothes and it is all the victim’s blood and it wouldn’t hurt to package a few of those similar items together… I say: Stop and think about that. Don’t do it. Package everything separately so there is no cross-transfer.
…
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: The technology you are using is getting very sensitive, isn’t it?
MINOR: Yes—which brings up another thing that I tell folks about changing their gloves frequently to prevent cross-contamination. It is pretty well understood that when you are at a scene collecting bloody items, you don’t want to touch something, get blood on the gloves, and then handle another item. Everybody knows that. But now we need to start thinking about skin cells. If you are wearing a glove and you handle something that may have been handled by somebody else, you may need to think about changing gloves before you touch the next item. As a matter of fact, if you put on a pair of clean gloves and you inadvertently bring your finger up and scratch your face or nose, then your skin cells are going to be on that glove, and that can go to the next item you touch, as well.
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: How about fingerprint brushes? Can they cause cross-contamination of DNA?
MINOR: Well, that’s a very good question. As a matter of fact, one point in our laboratory’s policy states that items that have been processed for latent prints will not be examined for touch DNA. Most people are not using disposable brushes, from what we understand. The problem with that is going to be if you dust with a brush that has dusted blood samples from a previous case and it gets transferred to an item. If you are lucky enough to get a DNA profile from that item, it could be very problematic because then you have a profile that might not match the suspect because it really came from another crime.
http://www.evidencemagazine.com/inde...d=160&Itemid=9

and…
Trace DNA Precautions
By The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratories

Have you ever thought about what happens to objects when you breathe on them, cough or sneeze near them, talk over them, or even adjust your glasses or wipe your brow while wearing gloves? All of these offer the potential to deposit your DNA on surfaces, usually unknowingly!
Remember when we used to wear gloves and masks to avoid getting something from a body or scene? Technology has changed the way we need to do our business.
Our intent is to provide a brief overview of what can happen at scenes, in a lab, morgue or autopsy room, and what information can be obtained from DNA as analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
What are some precautions we can all take to minimize this “trace DNA” from ourselves? This is the classic two-edged sword. We have the sensitivity to get identifiable DNA from someone’s finger touching a light switch or doorknob (such as a perpetrator); however, this same sensitivity can allow our own DNA to be found during an analysis!
Since we are analyzing small amounts of DNA (125 cells may be adequate to get a full profile), there is also the potential of removing DNA from an item that may have significance to the case.
Let’s address DNA concerns at the scene, in the lab, morgue or autopsy room and finally the information we can obtain from DNA analysis.

Scene:
The weapon such as the grip of a firearm, the trigger of a firearm, or the handle of a knife may have DNA from the person who handled that weapon.
The body of the deceased may have DNA from someone who has manually strangled the victim. A ligature used to bind or strangle may contain DNA.
Clothing items may contain DNA of someone who has handled the clothing of the deceased.
Skin touched in the process of moving a victim in some fashion or dressing or undressing a victim may have foreign DNA.
A suspect (or anyone) may also leave DNA if they happen to cough sneeze, or spit accidentally (while talking) over or on the deceased. The doorknob used to enter and exit the room or other objects that may be present in the path from the entry way to the body.

Morgue, autopsy room, or lab:
The items mentioned above need to be handled with caution if they do end up in one of these places, especially the clothing items. Remember the removal of DNA is as significant as the addition of your DNA to an object.
We need to think about the potential for contamination from previous deceased, autopsies, or evidence; even scissors that are used to cut clothing from one body may transfer DNA to a second body or object if not cleaned.
http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf

Secondary and Tertiary Transfer:
Secondary transferof DNA is a proven fact. It has been observed in experiments and in the field.

Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing. The experiment was then repeated, but with the introduction of a delay of 30 minutes between the time of the handshake and the tube-holding. The results indicated that although the poor shedder deposited some alleles, secondary transfer of the good shedder’s DNA still occurred.
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

Transferof DNA is seen with variable degrees of efficiency in each of the two types of transferexperiments conducted. In most cases the transferred DNA was a lower concentration than the DNA of the individual to whom it was transferred, however, this was not observed in all instances.
In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels and in none of the experiments with the other towel. In each of these sets of experiments the towel was exposed to the individuals DNA from only one face washing and drying. Larger quantities of DNA would be expected to be deposited on the towel from multiple uses of the towel.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf


You might be saying, that is theoretical, what might be seen in the lab may not be seen in “real life” crime scenes. A recent case bears out what has been demonstrated in experiments.

Example of secondary transfer; the case of Janelle Patton:
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

Factors that must be considered when determining the relevance of DNA evidence in this or any case:
Was the crime scene preserved?
Were the samples properly stored?
Were appropriate precautions taken to prevent contamination at all stages, from collection at the scene to final analysis at the lab?
Caution must be used when assigning a probative value to skin cell based DNA because of its susceptibility to secondary transfer as well as other innocent explanations.
How should we treat DNA evidence obtained from skin cells?
Because of the “mobility” of this DNA, it is not possible that it should carry the same weight as DNA from blood, urine, or semen. It should be of approximately the same value as hair and fiber, and of lesser significance than fingerprint evidence.
As a matter of fact, there is at least one DNA expert that agrees with me.

The DNA vs. Fingerprints Debate
…
This raises the question, which of the two types is the stronger evidence? Answer: Fingerprints - and I say this as a DNA expert.
…
We also consider the nature of the transfer of evidence. If I were to touch a smooth surface such as a wall, I would deposit DNA and leave some fingerprints behind on the wall. This is called ‘direct’ or ‘primary’ transfer. However, if someone was to come along and wipe that wall with a cloth, it would remove my DNA onto the cloth and wipe the fingerprint off. If that person then uses that cloth to wipe the door handle, my DNA can then be transferred on to that door handle. Therefore, my DNA could be recovered from that handle without me ever coming into contact with it. This is referred to as ‘indirect’ or ‘secondary’ transfer. In this example, my DNA is transferred, but my fingerprint is not. This means that if my fingerprint is found on a surface, then I must have touched that surface; whereas, if my DNA is found on a surface, then I may have come into contact with that surface or it got there by secondary transfer.
-Graham Williams
http://www2.hud.ac.uk/sas/comment/gw260609.php

But “DNA samples recovered from crime scenes are often so small and in such disintegrated condition that they are easy to mishandle or manipulate.” In fact, the criminal justice system “does a poor job of distinguishing unassailably powerful DNA evidence from weak, misleading DNA evidence.” A recent Chicago Tribune examination of 200 DNA and death row exoneration cases since 1986 found that more than a quarter involved faulty crime lab work or testimony.
As forensic expert William C. Thompson has concluded:
“The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible.”
http://www.thejusticeproject.org/wp-...bs-hofstra.pdf

 

[joeskidbeck]

Cynic, thanks for this research. It would seem that touch dna has a long way to go before it could be deemed conclusive. It's kinda scary if you start to think about all of the ways an innocent person's dna could end up at a crime scene.

 

[Roy23]

The link has a section entitled, “Possible Match with Fingernail DNA”
John San Augustin, Ollie Gray and Lin Wood are the sources for this information. The core of the RST, I would hardly expect any less from them.


The DNA evidence was weak at the beginning, and remains weak.
The so called fingernail DNA “evidence” is not worth discussing and it would take someone who is not afraid of humiliation to show up in court with it.

"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41

Bob Grant, a former Adams County DA who helped investigate JonBenet’s death….
There were also DNA traces found under the child’s fingernails, but they were degraded and tests were inconclusive, Grant said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14441778/

Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
The other "minuscule" sample, which is probably blood, was mixed with JonBenet's DNA, he said. That leaves investigators with the daunting task of trying to match a partial DNA strand with a sample from John Karr.
"The amount of DNA is small enough that it could exclude someone. But it could not go so far for the inclusion," Wise said.
http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13061689


Moving on to the much vaunted DNA found in JBR’s panties.
After “working” the DNA results they managed to go from 9 ½ to 10 markers to meet the minimum threshold for submission to CODIS.
To keep things in perspective, it remains a partial profile, short of the full profile requirement which is 13 markers.
The question that you have to ask is why is it a partial profile?
There are two explanations. Extremely low sample quantity and/or degradation.


"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation” (2002)
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can`t just jump to the conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/count...925946,00.html

But Lacy, in announcing why Karr was being freed, admitted what several other investigators connected to the case had been saying for years: It might not even be the killer's DNA.
It is possible that the unidentified male DNA might have been left there through secondary contact, or even when the underwear was manufactured.
"The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/dec/23/miss-steps/

What are the possible explanations for the DNA in the Ramsey case?
(Not an exhaustive list.)

Intruder left behind skin cells via primary transfer during the assault and murder of JBR.
Someone known to the Ramseys left behind skin cells while in some way participating in the crime directly, or in the staging of the crime.
Human error (such as mistyping DNA due to complex mixtures and perhaps low sample size.)
Contamination.
Innocent transfer.
Secondary and tertiary transfer.

Human error:
The State Patrol cases reveal that the technology has an Achilles' heel: human error.
Forensic scientists tainted tests with their own DNA in eight of the 23 cases. They made mistakes in six others, from throwing out evidence swabs to misreading results, fingering the wrong rape suspect. Tests were contaminated by DNA from unrelated cases in three examinations, and between evidence in the same case in another. The source of contamination in five other tests is unknown.
…
Crime lab officials here and elsewhere don't like to talk about the fact that the same test that can link someone to a crime scene with a few minuscule cells left on a doorknob can also be contaminated by a passing sneeze. Or that DNA tests are only as reliable as the humans doing them -- a troubling prospect when dealing with evidence that has the power to exonerate suspects or imprison them for life.
"The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible," said William C. Thompson, a forensic expert and professor of criminology and law at the University of California-Irvine, who reviewed the incidents at the request of the P-I.
"What we're seeing in these 23 cases is really the tip of the iceberg."
That's because the lab is only catching obvious cases that likely signal more widespread problems, Thompson said.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

Contamination and innocent transfer:
“But the sensitivity of the test also means it detects even the slightest contamination.
In January, the Seattle lab's DNA supervisor, George Chan, was chatting with a forensic scientist who was examining evidence in a child rape case. Although Chan had no other exposure to the case, a subsequent test found Chan's DNA, as well as that of the suspect, in the evidence -- a sample taken from a pair of boxer shorts. The likely culprit: saliva spewed during Chan's conversation.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

Highly sensitive tests require a great deal of care in evidence collection, handling and storage.
What precautions were taken in the Ramsey case, or any case in the 90’s, when the potential for contamination and cross-contamination involving skin cells was not known?

This is from a recent interview between Evidence Technology Magazine and Joe Minor-Technical DNA Manager & Special Agent-Forensic Scientist Supervisor, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation:
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: When you teach classes for crime-scene investigators, what are some of the key points in DNA collection that you cover?
MINOR: I talk to them about basic concepts, like proper recognition and preservation of the evidence. We discuss the fundamentals of packaging biological evidence and how that should be packaged in breathable containers. And everything needs to be packaged separately. Even if they think that it is the victim’s clothes and it is all the victim’s blood and it wouldn’t hurt to package a few of those similar items together… I say: Stop and think about that. Don’t do it. Package everything separately so there is no cross-transfer.
…
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: The technology you are using is getting very sensitive, isn’t it?
MINOR: Yes—which brings up another thing that I tell folks about changing their gloves frequently to prevent cross-contamination. It is pretty well understood that when you are at a scene collecting bloody items, you don’t want to touch something, get blood on the gloves, and then handle another item. Everybody knows that. But now we need to start thinking about skin cells. If you are wearing a glove and you handle something that may have been handled by somebody else, you may need to think about changing gloves before you touch the next item. As a matter of fact, if you put on a pair of clean gloves and you inadvertently bring your finger up and scratch your face or nose, then your skin cells are going to be on that glove, and that can go to the next item you touch, as well.
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: How about fingerprint brushes? Can they cause cross-contamination of DNA?
MINOR: Well, that’s a very good question. As a matter of fact, one point in our laboratory’s policy states that items that have been processed for latent prints will not be examined for touch DNA. Most people are not using disposable brushes, from what we understand. The problem with that is going to be if you dust with a brush that has dusted blood samples from a previous case and it gets transferred to an item. If you are lucky enough to get a DNA profile from that item, it could be very problematic because then you have a profile that might not match the suspect because it really came from another crime.
http://www.evidencemagazine.com/inde...d=160&Itemid=9

and…
Trace DNA Precautions
By The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratories

Have you ever thought about what happens to objects when you breathe on them, cough or sneeze near them, talk over them, or even adjust your glasses or wipe your brow while wearing gloves? All of these offer the potential to deposit your DNA on surfaces, usually unknowingly!
Remember when we used to wear gloves and masks to avoid getting something from a body or scene? Technology has changed the way we need to do our business.
Our intent is to provide a brief overview of what can happen at scenes, in a lab, morgue or autopsy room, and what information can be obtained from DNA as analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
What are some precautions we can all take to minimize this “trace DNA” from ourselves? This is the classic two-edged sword. We have the sensitivity to get identifiable DNA from someone’s finger touching a light switch or doorknob (such as a perpetrator); however, this same sensitivity can allow our own DNA to be found during an analysis!
Since we are analyzing small amounts of DNA (125 cells may be adequate to get a full profile), there is also the potential of removing DNA from an item that may have significance to the case.
Let’s address DNA concerns at the scene, in the lab, morgue or autopsy room and finally the information we can obtain from DNA analysis.

Scene:
The weapon such as the grip of a firearm, the trigger of a firearm, or the handle of a knife may have DNA from the person who handled that weapon.
The body of the deceased may have DNA from someone who has manually strangled the victim. A ligature used to bind or strangle may contain DNA.
Clothing items may contain DNA of someone who has handled the clothing of the deceased.
Skin touched in the process of moving a victim in some fashion or dressing or undressing a victim may have foreign DNA.
A suspect (or anyone) may also leave DNA if they happen to cough sneeze, or spit accidentally (while talking) over or on the deceased. The doorknob used to enter and exit the room or other objects that may be present in the path from the entry way to the body.

Morgue, autopsy room, or lab:
The items mentioned above need to be handled with caution if they do end up in one of these places, especially the clothing items. Remember the removal of DNA is as significant as the addition of your DNA to an object.
We need to think about the potential for contamination from previous deceased, autopsies, or evidence; even scissors that are used to cut clothing from one body may transfer DNA to a second body or object if not cleaned.
http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf

Secondary and Tertiary Transfer:
Secondary transferof DNA is a proven fact. It has been observed in experiments and in the field.

Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing. The experiment was then repeated, but with the introduction of a delay of 30 minutes between the time of the handshake and the tube-holding. The results indicated that although the poor shedder deposited some alleles, secondary transfer of the good shedder’s DNA still occurred.
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

Transferof DNA is seen with variable degrees of efficiency in each of the two types of transferexperiments conducted. In most cases the transferred DNA was a lower concentration than the DNA of the individual to whom it was transferred, however, this was not observed in all instances.
In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels and in none of the experiments with the other towel. In each of these sets of experiments the towel was exposed to the individuals DNA from only one face washing and drying. Larger quantities of DNA would be expected to be deposited on the towel from multiple uses of the towel.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf


You might be saying, that is theoretical, what might be seen in the lab may not be seen in “real life” crime scenes. A recent case bears out what has been demonstrated in experiments.

Example of secondary transfer; the case of Janelle Patton:
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

Factors that must be considered when determining the relevance of DNA evidence in this or any case:
Was the crime scene preserved?
Were the samples properly stored?
Were appropriate precautions taken to prevent contamination at all stages, from collection at the scene to final analysis at the lab?
Caution must be used when assigning a probative value to skin cell based DNA because of its susceptibility to secondary transfer as well as other innocent explanations.
How should we treat DNA evidence obtained from skin cells?
Because of the “mobility” of this DNA, it is not possible that it should carry the same weight as DNA from blood, urine, or semen. It should be of approximately the same value as hair and fiber, and of lesser significance than fingerprint evidence.
As a matter of fact, there is at least one DNA expert that agrees with me.

The DNA vs. Fingerprints Debate
…
This raises the question, which of the two types is the stronger evidence? Answer: Fingerprints - and I say this as a DNA expert.
…
We also consider the nature of the transfer of evidence. If I were to touch a smooth surface such as a wall, I would deposit DNA and leave some fingerprints behind on the wall. This is called ‘direct’ or ‘primary’ transfer. However, if someone was to come along and wipe that wall with a cloth, it would remove my DNA onto the cloth and wipe the fingerprint off. If that person then uses that cloth to wipe the door handle, my DNA can then be transferred on to that door handle. Therefore, my DNA could be recovered from that handle without me ever coming into contact with it. This is referred to as ‘indirect’ or ‘secondary’ transfer. In this example, my DNA is transferred, but my fingerprint is not. This means that if my fingerprint is found on a surface, then I must have touched that surface; whereas, if my DNA is found on a surface, then I may have come into contact with that surface or it got there by secondary transfer.
-Graham Williams
http://www2.hud.ac.uk/sas/comment/gw260609.php

But “DNA samples recovered from crime scenes are often so small and in such disintegrated condition that they are easy to mishandle or manipulate.” In fact, the criminal justice system “does a poor job of distinguishing unassailably powerful DNA evidence from weak, misleading DNA evidence.” A recent Chicago Tribune examination of 200 DNA and death row exoneration cases since 1986 found that more than a quarter involved faulty crime lab work or testimony.
As forensic expert William C. Thompson has concluded:
“The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible.”
http://www.thejusticeproject.org/wp-...bs-hofstra.pdf

I am fully aware that the DNA had gone through a lot of criticism in the early days after the crime. What you seem to fail to realize, though, is that through innovation they were able to develop a full profile of this DNA. And not only that, they were able to match all of it from the corresponding areas to this same profile.

This is why the Ramsey's are no longer considered suspects. This is why your above argument is no longer relevant. Now, I actually agree somewhat that maybe the Ramsey's should not be totally out of the woods. But it is time for all of us to start thinking out of the box and realize this case has moved WAY past these really Old articles from the beginning of this case.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am fully aware that the DNA had gone through a lot of criticism in the early days after the crime. What you seem to fail to realize, though, is that through innovation they were able to develop a full profile of this DNA. And not only that, they were able to match all of it from the corresponding areas to this same profile.

This is why the Ramsey's are no longer considered suspects. This is why your above argument is no longer relevant. Now, I actually agree somewhat that maybe the Ramsey's should not be totally out of the woods. But it is time for all of us to start thinking out of the box and realize this case has moved WAY past these really Old articles from the beginning of this case.

Judge Roy: Why don't you ask cynic about this full DNA profile actually being a mix of JR and PR DNA, thus placing the parents at the crime scene in a criminal way?