Is the DNA relevant to the crime?

[Anti-K]

The panty/leggings DNA samples are trace evidence found in incriminating locations.

This doesn’t prove anything, but trace evidence found in incriminating locations is always meaningful. That’s why investigators look for it in those locations (and not everywhere else). These are places of most recent contact and places where offenders are most likely to leave trace evidence.

So, the DNA is presumed to be connected to the crime, even though it is not yet known to be factually connected to the crime. This presumption is what gives it exculpatory value.

Yes, there are a lot of ways to explain away the DNA, but one of those explanations is that it was left by her killer. That’s what happens; sometimes, killers leave their DNA behind on their victims, and they leave it in incriminating locations. Sometimes they leave a busload, and sometimes they leave just a little itsy-bitsy-teensie-weensie amount and sometimes something in between (sometimes they leave none).
So far, despite concerted effort to disprove the presumption of connection, no innocent explanation has been demonstrated or found. As long as the presumption remains, the exculpatory value remains.

The bottom line of this is that the DNA found in incriminating locations is DNA that must be sourced, and explained. So far, that has not happened.
...

AK

 

[Anyhoo]

I have not spoken a lot about the DNA, but I do have some thoughts regarding it:

First, I believe it may be significant to the murder. It cannot be said (as IDI does) that it 100% is significant. Neither can it be just dismissed as random touch DNA as some here are doing.

Second, I believe there is an explanation for the foreign DNA that allows for RDI. The presence of the DNA in no way exonerates the Ramsey's (as much as they and IDI would like for it to).

Third, the DNA may be staging. I have long suspected this but have no proof of it. Some people on this forum have labeled the entire staging as sloppy and careless and chaotic, but I am not sure I agree with that. When I look at the totality of the staging (including the foreign DNA), what I see is a very organized effort to confuse LE and to point LE in as many different directions as possible. The goal of the staging was to make it impossible for LE to find the killer. And what extremely effective staging it was. Even the wording of the RN was part of it. This was not sloppy and chaotic but the work of an expert who knew what to do to very effectively obfuscate the crime scene. Moreover, I doubt that two parents, suddenly and unexpectedly thrown into a situation, who had no experience with and knowledge of how to do this staging, could have done it so effectively by themselves without assistance. But as to the DNA itself, there could be a way to artificially transfer DNA from an individual to the crime scene without that individual being present at the crime scene. We know this can be done. If you wanted to confuse LE and you know this can be done, then why not do it?

Fourth, If the DNA is from an individual who was at the crime scene, then it is not IMO an intruder but someone the Ramsey's know and allowed into the crime scene before the police were called. This individual may have had nothing at all to do with the murder.

 

[Mama2JML]

I have not spoken a lot about the DNA, but I do have some thoughts regarding it:

First, I believe it may be significant to the murder.

You've mentioned this before, and I'm interested to read your thoughts. So, thanks for sharing!
:seeya:

It cannot be said (as IDI does) that it 100% is significant.

The evidentiary DNA, does not prove IDI. Although, Ramsey DNA was not isolated in the same incriminating locations. ...nor was Ramsey DNA obtained from the wrist ligatures & the "garrote".

Neither can it be just dismissed as random touch DNA as some here are doing.

I agree. Scientific research supports this opinion.

Second, I believe there is an explanation for the foreign DNA that allows for RDI.

I don't disagree.

The presence of the DNA in no way exonerates the Ramsey's (as much as they and IDI would like for it to).

I agree. ...well, not with the "as much as IDI would like for it to," portion.

By itself, the evidentiary DNA doesn't prove Ramsey innocence, but the "totality" of the evidence doesn't prove IDI/RDI, either.

Third, the DNA may be staging. I have long suspected this but have no proof of it. Some people on this forum have labeled the entire staging as sloppy and careless and chaotic, but I am not sure I agree with that. When I look at the totality of the staging (including the foreign DNA), what I see is a very organized effort to confuse LE and to point LE in as many different directions as possible. The goal of the staging was to make it impossible for LE to find the killer. And what extremely effective staging it was. Even the wording of the RN was part of it. This was not sloppy and chaotic but the work of an expert who knew what to do to very effectively obfuscate the crime scene. Moreover, I doubt that two parents, suddenly and unexpectedly thrown into a situation, who had no experience with and knowledge of how to do this staging, could have done it so effectively by themselves without assistance. But as to the DNA itself, there could be a way to artificially transfer DNA from an individual to the crime scene without that individual being present at the crime scene. We know this can be done. If you wanted to confuse LE and you know this can be done, then why not do it?

Although this is possible, I don't believe it is at all probable. Regardless, assuming the DNA evidence is a result of staging, this hypothetical does not explain the lack of Ramsey DNA in the panties, on the cord, etc. If a Ramsey was engaged in a 'forceful' act, a violent altercation, &/or a sexual assault, one might expect the presence of the perpetrator's DNA.

Fourth, If the DNA is from an individual who was at the crime scene, then it is not IMO an intruder but someone the Ramsey's know and allowed into the crime scene before the police were called. This individual may have had nothing at all to do with the murder.

Possible. I'm just not sure who you theorize it might have been. Probably not a friend?...

 

[Darlene733510]

I am not aware that the rope or cord was tested for DNA. Is there a reference that it was tested?
I think there are tons of items packed away that should have been tested, bit it probably won't happen.

 

[Mama2JML]

I am not aware that the rope or cord was tested for DNA. Is there a reference that it was tested?
I think there are tons of items packed away that should have been tested, bit it probably won't happen.

FF: WRKJB?, p. 414:

"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." (Kolar, 2012)​

 

[ZBob]

FF: WRKJB?, p. 414:

"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." (Kolar, 2012)​

I wonder if the rope purchased (or available) at the hardware store was packaged and sealed? Sometimes rope is tied, but not sealed. If not sealed, could be someone at the hardware store that left TDNA on it as well or in fact any random person that might have browsed it.

 

[Anti-K]

I have not spoken a lot about the DNA, but I do have some thoughts regarding it:

First, I believe it may be significant to the murder. It cannot be said (as IDI does) that it 100% is significant. Neither can it be just dismissed as random touch DNA as some here are doing.

Second, I believe there is an explanation for the foreign DNA that allows for RDI. The presence of the DNA in no way exonerates the Ramsey's (as much as they and IDI would like for it to).

Third, the DNA may be staging. I have long suspected this but have no proof of it. Some people on this forum have labeled the entire staging as sloppy and careless and chaotic, but I am not sure I agree with that. When I look at the totality of the staging (including the foreign DNA), what I see is a very organized effort to confuse LE and to point LE in as many different directions as possible. The goal of the staging was to make it impossible for LE to find the killer. And what extremely effective staging it was. Even the wording of the RN was part of it. This was not sloppy and chaotic but the work of an expert who knew what to do to very effectively obfuscate the crime scene. Moreover, I doubt that two parents, suddenly and unexpectedly thrown into a situation, who had no experience with and knowledge of how to do this staging, could have done it so effectively by themselves without assistance. But as to the DNA itself, there could be a way to artificially transfer DNA from an individual to the crime scene without that individual being present at the crime scene. We know this can be done. If you wanted to confuse LE and you know this can be done, then why not do it?

Fourth, If the DNA is from an individual who was at the crime scene, then it is not IMO an intruder but someone the Ramsey's know and allowed into the crime scene before the police were called. This individual may have had nothing at all to do with the murder.

Yes, there are ways to “artificially transfer DNA from an individual to the crime scene without that individual being present at the crime scene.” Even back then, in the late ‘90’s, such a thing could have been done. But, back then most people didn’t know anything about DNA, and what most people knew came from following the oj trial. Even now, a lot of people find this subject to be completely mysterious (or they completely misunderstand it).
Anyway, because of the state of this science, back then, anyone wanting to plant such a thing would have had to deposit a sizable amount of a substance, or, an obvious object, if they expected investigators to find it.

I think it more likely that this DNA evidence was left by someone who was trying to NOT leave evidence (ransom note notwithstanding).

.

Some RDI have speculated that this DNA represents a person that the Ramseys invited into their home that night, to help them out or... something. I don’t think this is likely, either, but it certainly is within the realm of possibility.

RDI or IDI, that DNA represents a person who needs to be identified and investigated.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I wonder if the rope purchased (or available) at the hardware store was packaged and sealed? Sometimes rope is tied, but not sealed. If not sealed, could be someone at the hardware store that left TDNA on it as well or in fact any random person that might have browsed it.

I can’t remember if my cord came in a sealed package.
If the cord was new and open, than a number of people could have touched it – person who stocked the shelves, various shoppers, person who purchased it, person at checkout, etc.

At least three people touched this cord: two unidentified persons, and Mr Ramsey (who fumbled with the writs ligature). If the killer is not Mr Ramsey, and if he is not either of the two unidentified persons, than a fourth person handled this cord.
...

AK

 

[Anyhoo]

You've mentioned this before, and I'm interested to read your thoughts. So, thanks for sharing!

And I am glad to know that you are not a died in the wool IDI like someone else I can think of on the forum. At least you have an open mind and are willing to listen, even if you disagree.

The evidentiary DNA, does not prove IDI. Although, Ramsey DNA was not isolated in the same incriminating locations. ...nor was Ramsey DNA obtained from the wrist ligatures & the "garrote".

I find that very interesting and this is actually the first time I have heard this. May I ask what your sources for it are?

By itself, the evidentiary DNA doesn't prove Ramsey innocence, but the "totality" of the evidence doesn't prove IDI/RDI, either.

I agree.

Although this is possible, I don't believe it is at all probable. Regardless, assuming the DNA evidence is a result of staging, this hypothetical does not explain the lack of Ramsey DNA in the panties, on the cord, etc. If a Ramsey was engaged in a 'forceful' act, a violent altercation, &/or a sexual assault, one might expect the presence of the perpetrator's DNA.

Although there is no proof of it happening, on what basis do you say it is not at all probable? Please elucidate. We (at least I) are looking for an explanation for the foreign DNA that has Ramsey complicity, and this theory certainly sounds plausible to me. Outside of IDI, can you think of another explanation that has the Ramsey's at least knowing what happened to their daughter?

You are correct that this hypothetical does not explain the lack of Ramsey DNA in the panties, however now that you mention it, that too could be part of the staging. In other words, the panties could have been new. Someone could have worn gloves when they were putting them on JB so they would not leave their DNA. That would go right along with purposely putting someone else's DNA onto the panties. So both of these (the foreign DNA on the panties and the lack of Ramsey DNA on the panties) could be part of the same staging.

Possible. I'm just not sure who you theorize it might have been. Probably not a friend?...

I have no idea who it might have been.

 

[CherCher]

I recently watched a show on the Brianna Denison murder, a case that I had followed when it first occurred. The detectives harvested 'touch DNA' from the doorknob on the back door and that was used to find and ultimately help convict the killer. When they said this i thought about just how much DNA would be on a doorknob at any given time.

I had pretty much ruled out the touch DNA in the JBR case but now I wonder what's the difference in using that for the arrest of Brianna's perp vs using it for a JBR perp? Am I missing something?

Hi Nehemiah. In Brianna's case, the DNA collected had a match in 2 other unsolved crimes. There was also other evidence (witness testimony, the suspect known to be in the area, etc.) that convicted the perp.

Here is a very interesting article from a Forensic Science magazine.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/touch-dna-crime-scene-crime-laboratory#.Uu-p7_t7-ic

 

[Mama2JML]

I find that very interesting and this is actually the first time I have heard this. May I ask what your sources for it are?

...for which statement? FF: WRKJB provides the most up to date summary of the evidentiary DNA in this case. I will provide other sources, if I've misinterpreted your inquiry. Just let me know, specifically, the information you're interested in.

Although there is no proof of it happening, on what basis do you say it is not at all probable? Please elucidate.

I think it's highly improbable, although possible, the DNA evidence was planted. AK provides an explanation in line with my opinion: (BBM)

Yes, there are ways to “artificially transfer DNA from an individual to the crime scene without that individual being present at the crime scene.” Even back then, in the late ‘90’s, such a thing could have been done. But, back then most people didn’t know anything about DNA, and what most people knew came from following the oj trial. Even now, a lot of people find this subject to be completely mysterious (or they completely misunderstand it).

Anyway, because of the state of this science, back then, anyone wanting to plant such a thing would have had to deposit a sizable amount of a substance...

We (at least I) are looking for an explanation for the foreign DNA that has Ramsey complicity, and this theory certainly sounds plausible to me. Outside of IDI, can you think of another explanation that has the Ramsey's at least knowing what happened to their daughter?

There are many theories involving some level of Ramsey complicity; for example, Singular's initial theory, outlined in Presumed Guilty.

You are correct that this hypothetical does not explain the lack of Ramsey DNA in the panties, however now that you mention it, that too could be part of the staging. In other words, the panties could have been new. Someone could have worn gloves when they were putting them on JB so they would not leave their DNA. That would go right along with purposely putting someone else's DNA onto the panties. So both of these (the foreign DNA on the panties and the lack of Ramsey DNA on the panties) could be part of the same staging.

...not likely. IMO.

I have no idea who it might have been.

Me either. Who wasn't tested? That's a problem for this scenario...

 

[CherCher]

I truly recommend that everyone read the article from the Forensic Magazine link that I posted above. The last few paragraphs are especially pertinent to this thread.

 

[Anti-K]

These are the last two paragraphs:

<snip>

In my own experience, I have seen touch DNA results obtained from some unusual sources. These included DNA profiles developed from a pocket lining, grips from weapons, asphalt, face epithelials transferred to clothing, utensils, shoestrings, and a victim’s oral swab which contained DNA from the suspect’s tongue. On one occasion, I swabbed my own hand after handshakes at a social function to determine the presence of other epithelial cells. The laboratory was able to obtain a mixture of my DNA as well as two other individuals.

While touch DNA has become a much requested and successful test for DNA laboratories to perform, we must remember its limitations and be aware of the factors which may affect the results. These include:
- Was the amount of DNA adequate for meaningful interpretation?
- Was contamination minimized and accounted for?
- Did uninvolved individuals have access to the scene or victim?
- Was it likely that a suspect could have deposited epithelial cells on the surface of the evidence?

If every contact leaves a trace, as Locard stated, then we must be prepared to answer these questions.
<snip> http://tinyurl.com/kpfnpze

First, let’s remind ourselves that one of the three matching samples was not a product of tDNA. These three samples - two tDAN and the panty/CODIS DNA - all corroborate each other. Anyway...

Was the amount of DNA adequate for meaningful interpretation?
Yes. It must have been otherwise they would not have been able to announce that it matched the previously discovered panty DNA

Was contamination minimized and accounted for?
Presumably. BODE is a respected lab and has proven protocols in place, and while errors occur, they are most often caught and corrected (see the BODE/Chandra Levy story). Also addressed by (failed) attempts to source DNA to persons connected to the investigation.”

Did uninvolved individuals have access to the scene or victim?
Not to our knowledge. Almost certainly not to the panties or the leggings. Also addressed by (failed) attempts to source DNA to persons connected to the investigation.”

Was it likely that a suspect could have deposited epithelial cells on the surface of the evidence?
Yes. In fact, this is the presumption. The killer pulled the victim’s leggings down. The killer pulled the victim’s leggings back up. The killer was one of the last to have contact with this article of clothing (and, victim).
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

Contamination was not at all minimized nor accounted for. There were people tromping all over the house and when the body was found, PR threw herself on top of JBR.

 

[Venom]

Also from that article:

What are some of the problems DNA analysts encounter with touch DNA cases?

No presumptive tests
Partial profiles yielding low statistics
Complex Mixtures: A mixed sample may contain background DNA, crime-related DNA, and post-crime contamination, and it may be difficult to identify the relevant profile. • Increased chance of contamination
The profile may not be sufficient to enter into CODIS
A late touch DNA request for examination of shared evidence
Re-examination of cold cases which may not have been collected, stored, or examined with trace DNA detection sensitivities in mind.
Touch DNA does not tell you “when” or “how” DNA was deposited
Background DNA obtained from clothing which was handled by someone else or by the manufacturer
A bloodstain containing epithelial cells from another source

Take it as you will....

 

[Tawny]

The article itself mentions a manufacturer!? So I guess that wasn't such a far stretch, huh? Interesting.

 

[Mama2JML]

The article itself mentions a manufacturer!? So I guess that wasn't such a far stretch, huh? Interesting.

It wasn't a huge stretch, initially, when the only DNA profile isolated through STR analysis was from the panties. Although, tests found the amount of genetic material left behind innocently during the manufacturing process was far less than the amount of genetic material found commingled with JonBenet's blood. So, even then, in 2003 it was somewhat of a stretch. Fast forward to 2008; The same DNA profile is isolated from the long john's JonBenet was found wearing in, not one, but TWO locations. ...both sides of the pants where a person would likely place their hands and pull to remove them. It's nearly impossible, IMO, that this DNA has an innocent explanation.

 

[Anyhoo]

It wasn't a huge stretch, initially, when the only DNA profile isolated through STR analysis was from the panties. Although, tests found the amount of genetic material left behind innocently during the manufacturing process was far less than the amount of genetic material found commingled with JonBenet's blood. So, even then, in 2003 it was somewhat of a stretch. Fast forward to 2008; The same DNA profile is isolated from the long john's JonBenet was found wearing in, not one, but TWO locations. ...both sides of the pants where a person would likely place their hands and pull to remove them. It's nearly impossible, IMO, that this DNA has an innocent explanation.

Well, I do see your point about the DNA, M2M, but it does not necessarily indicate that the person the DNA belongs to is the murderer. It only indicates the person was at the crime scene, perhaps assisting with the cover up. IMO the Ramsey parents proved beyond all doubt that they knew what happened and never believed in the fake kidnapping story, so I am looking for an explanation for it that has the Ramsey parents knowing what happened, not IDI. Is there a way we can come together and find an explanation that meets this criteria?

 

[madeleine]

re point 20.

so without a direct swab it would have been difficult to get a match because the panty DNA was a mixture....then how on earth did they get a match with the TOUCH DNA on the longjohns?

 

[madeleine]

so let me know if I got it right.....

the unknown DNA found co-mingled with JB's blood in her panties is very weak.

because it's so weak,in order to have a match,you need a sample directly from the suspect's mouth and that's why they dragged Karr from Thailand to the US

please explain to me how they got a MATCH then with only a few skin cells from the longjohns :waitasec: