Really?
It is a fact that the profile in CODIS from one of two sampled spots from JonBenet’s panties is a minor, partial profile; the major profile was from JonBenet.
It is a fact that according to the Ramseys own attorney (Lin Wood) that that profile was only 9 markers and 1 marker that was below standard.
It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...11/lkl.00.html
Through an unrevealed process that marker went from below standard to meeting the standard and the profile ended up in CODIS. IOW, it’s in CODIS by the skin of its teeth.
It may well be that the marker in question may have been originally considered to be stutter, but perhaps further evaluation deemed it to be an actual marker. I would like to see an independent review of what happened there.
It may have been that another analyst simply deemed the “iffy” marker to be sound as DNA analysis is often quite subjective. Consider the example below:
We took a mixed sample of DNA evidence from an actual crime scene- a gang rape committed in Georgia, US- which helped to convict a man called Kerry Robinson, who is currently in prison. We presented it, and Robinson's DNA profile, to 17 experienced analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US, without any contextual information that might bias their judgement.
In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that Robinson "could not be excluded" from the crime scene sample, based on his DNA profile. (A second man convicted of the same crime also testified that Robinson was an assailant, in return for a lesser jail term.) Each of our 17 analysts independently examined the profiles from the DNA mixture, the victim's profile and those of two other suspects and was asked to judge whether the suspects' profiles could be "excluded", "cannot be excluded" or whether the results were "inconclusive".
If DNA analysis were totally objective, then all 17 analysts should reach the same conclusion. However, we found that just one agreed with the original judgement that Robinson "cannot be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.
"Fingerprinting and other forensic disciplines have now accepted that subjectivity and context may affect their judgement and decisions," says Dror. "It is now time that DNA analysts accept that under certain conditions, subjectivity and even bias may affect their work." Dror presented the results at the Green Mountain DNA conference in Burlington, Vermont, last month.
Varying the identity of the suspect changed the answers that DNA analysts gave.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html?full=true
The weakness of this DNA was even mentioned by Tom Bennet, Mary Lacy’s investigator in response to some outrageous spin by the same people who fueled the Aphrodite Jones special, Ramsey “investigators”:
It may seem like the JonBenet Ramsey case is close to being solved because of a weekend media blitz on the subject, but the man handling the investigation said there`s been no breakthrough in the 8-year-old case.
Contrary to what was reported on a "48 Hours" special that aired Saturday night on CBS, DNA evidence found in JonBenet`s underwear doesn`t necessarily belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney`s Office investigator Tom Bennett said Monday. The office took over the Ramsey case two years ago and entered the DNA evidence into a national database for the first time earlier this year.
"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA…
http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_13061222#ixzz1W08wVwXF
“It can only exclude or include him as the possible killer. It can never be 100 percent,'' a forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, said Saturday, noting that investigators only have a partial profile to work with.
“There was different DNA and mixture DNA that was hard to develop a profile from,'' said Bob Grant, a former prosecutor from neighboring Adams County who was an adviser in the case.
JonBenet Murder Case Heats Up Boulder, Colo.
Saturday August 19, 2006 9:16 PM
By CHASE SQUIRES
Associated Press Writer
It is a fact that Mary Lacy was willing to throw the DNA entered in CODIS under the bus to potentially prosecute Karr, if only she could find some other evidence to connect him.
(There, of course, was none. It was a completely baseless arrest.)
"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."
…
"Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...23/miss-steps/
Obviously if the DNA was such that she felt she could proceed with prosecuting a suspect that did not match the DNA, then clearly it is not the almighty, unassailable DNA that IDI purports it to be.
The next IDI argument is usually, “the DNA entered in CODIS is corroborated by matching DNA found through touch DNA on the waistband of the long johns worn by JonBenet.”
It is a fact that further DNA was found through touch DNA.
The relevance of this, or any DNA evidence, is tied to the amount of markers present, and there is no legitimate source that provides us with that information with respect to what was found by the touch DNA analysis.
There is no indication that this is anything but another partial profile, and if we are to believe Patsy’s story that she put the long johns on JonBenet as she slept, then it also probable that DNA sampled from the waistband would yield a mixed partial profile which would include PR. It is also possible that if John Ramsey held her along the waistband as he carried her upstairs that markers from his profile may be present as well, not to mention JonBenet’s profile.
PR: And so I went to these drawers looking for the pajamas, and she was just laying there,
so I didn't want to raise her up and get everything off of her to put a long nightgown, so looking for pajamas bottoms to put on her. I couldn't find any, and the long underwear pants were in there drawer, so I got those.
Interview, Patsy Ramsey, 1998
PR: We just left her top on her.
TT: . . .you leave the top on. . .
PR: Yeah.
TT: . . .uh, find a pair of. . .
PR: bottoms.
TT: . . .bottoms for her to wear. Um, did she wake up at all during this?
PR: No.
TT: Stayed pretty crashed out?
PR: Uh huh.
TT: Okay. Sound asleep the whole time then.
PR: Um hum.
LE interview, Patsy Ramsey, 1997
“A few moments later Ramsey picked up his daughter. Rigor mortis had set in and her body was rigid. Holding her by the waist like a plank of wood, he raced down the short hallway and up the basement stairs, yelling that JonBenét had been found.”
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 18
With respect to the word “match” as it has been used in the JonBenet case, let me say that there is cause for concern.
Given the previous debacle with the so called “matching” fingernail DNA evidence, can we trust that this is a legitimate match?
Here is a statement from Ramsey PI’s:
“Agustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...l?tag=untagged
Sounds convincing doesn’t it, until you are made aware that there are merely two markers “matching” the 9 – 10 marker CODIS profile.
(Lou Smit in a deposition revealed that the fingernail scrapings from JonBenet’s right hand revealed 2 markers. This means that the DNA was so degraded that it bordered on being completely unusable.)
Why not reveal the number of matching markers between the touch DNA from the long johns and the CODIS profile based on DNA from JonBenet’s underwear?
Could it be that the DNA profile derived from the long johns is a weak profile, perhaps yet another mixed, partial profile consisting of only a few markers?
I’m quite confident that given Lacy’s bias, she would not hesitate to clear the Ramseys based on a “match” consisting of a few markers.
Did the BPD and the independent task force review the evidence including the touch DNA evidence only to find that Lacy was perhaps “stretching” the definition of “match?”
Could this be why the Ramseys were un-exonerated?
Regardless, there are certainly innocent ways that DNA can turn up in a crime scene, even in multiple matching locations and be completely unrelated to the true perpetrator of the crime.
Here are some examples:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - DNA Revisited
There is simply far too much evidence pointing to the Ramseys, as the body of evidence is considered in totality, to be led astray by what must be DNA deposited by adventitious means and, as such, unrelated to the crime.
See above, also the following links:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)
Mary Lacy's letter explains DNA
ext of DA's letter to John Ramsey
BOULDER, Colo.(AP)— Text of Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy's letter to John Ramsey, released Wednesday by the prosecutor's office:
July 9, 2008
Mr. John Ramsey,
As you are aware, since December 2002, the Boulder District Attorney's Office has been the agency responsible for the investigation of the homicide of your daughter, JonBenet. I understand that the fact that we have not been able to identify the person who killed her is a great disappointment that is a continuing hardship for you and your family.
However, significant new evidence has recently been discovered through the application of relatively new methods of DNA analysis. This new scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. I wish we could have done so before Mrs. Ramsey died.
We became aware last summer that some private laboratories were conducting a new methodology described as "touch DNA." One method of sampling for touch DNA is the "scraping method." This is a process in which forensic scientists scrape places where there are no stains or other signs of the possible presence of DNA to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. We contracted with the Bode Technology Group, a highly reputable laboratory recommended to us by several law enforcement agencies, to use the scraping method for touch DNA on the long johns that JonBenet wore and that were probably handled by the perpetrator during the course of this crime.
We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources."
The Bode Technology laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns. The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.
Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder.
Solving this crime remains our goal, and its ultimate resolution will depend on more than just matching DNA. However, given the history of the publicity surrounding this case, I believe it is important and appropriate to provide you with our opinion that your family was not responsible for this crime. Based on the DNA results and our serious consideration of all the other evidence, we are comfortable that the profile now in CODIS (the Combined DNA Index System) is the profile of the perpetrator of this murder.
To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry: No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. I have the greatest respect for the way you and your family have handled this adversity.
I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence, including the reliable forensic DNA evidence that has been developed as a result of advances in that scientific field during this investigation.
We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. Otherwise, we will continue to refrain from publicly discussing the evidence in this case.
We hope that we will one day obtain a DNA match from the CODIS data bank that will lead to further evidence and to the solution of this crime. With recent legislative changes throughout the country, the number of profiles available for comparison in the CODIS data bank is growing steadily. Law enforcement agencies are receiving increasing numbers of cold hits on DNA profiles that have been in the system for many years. We hope that one day soon we will get a match to this perpetrator. We will, of course, contact you immediately. Perhaps only then will we begin to understand the psychopathy or motivation for this brutal and senseless crime.
Respectfully,
Mary T. Lacy
District Attorney
Twentieth Judicial District
Boulder, Colorado
Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Lacy issues the following announcement with regard to the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA.
As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide,
the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available.
Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as “touch DNA.” One method for sampling for touch DNA is the “scraping method.” In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work.
Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology.
Mary Lacy
Note that they consulted with independent DNA forensic experts, they base their conclusion on all of the evidence, and to say no innocent explanation is to say that scenarios involving the Asian factory worker sneeze and secondary transfer has been ruled out.
