A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[cynic]

Thanks so much. You work so hard, cynic, to give us the info to back up the evidence.

So you've been privy to Dr. Krane's expertise for a long time? Oh, you sly dog, you.

I can't wait to see what else you have up your sleeve.

Thanks KK.
I'm just trying to catch-up to the hours you've logged.
BTW, I know you have at least one secret.

 

[Venom]

Could anyone put what was said on the show in simple terms? I didn't listen to the show. I gather that the DNA evidence discounts an intruder?

 

[cynic]

Could anyone put what was said on the show in simple terms? I didn't listen to the show. I gather that the DNA evidence discounts an intruder?

Early in the show there was discussion relating to placing DNA within the context of other evidence in any given investigation, DNA is only one piece of a puzzle.

All that was said with respect to DNA as it relates to the JonBenet case, specifically, is the following:
The main DNA in this case, (from the crotch of the underpants of JonBenet) produced a PARTIAL MIXED profile which was placed in the FBI database, CODIS.
That DNA, which is unquestionably the STRONGEST profile of all, (excluding JonBenet,) would be INADMISSIBLE in court according to Dr Krane.
The reason is that DNA without a statistical weight is meaningless and, at least for the present, there is no reliable method available to give statistical weight to a mixed sample with dropout. The dropout refers to the fact that 3 out of 13 areas revealed no genetic information.
The statistical weight refers to the often insanely high numbers you hear at a trial.
For example, you may have heard something along these lines:
Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the DNA shows that "the probability of a randomly selected, unrelated individual having contributed DNA to this sample is approximately 101.5 quadrillion to one."
That number, 101.5 quadrillion to one, is a calculated statistical weight.
What Dr Krane is saying is that with the DNA in the JonBenet case, you cannot attach a statistical weight because the test results are inconclusive.
If you can't attach a statstical weight, you can't show up in court with it.

The other main point is that Dr Krane said that if Mary Lacy based the exoneration of the Ramseys exclusively on the DNA evidence in this case, then that was an overreach, and “THAT THAT CONVEYS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DNA.”

 

[Venom]

Early in the show there was discussion relating to placing DNA within the context of other evidence in any given investigation, DNA is only one piece of a puzzle.

All that was said with respect to DNA as it relates to the JonBenet case, specifically, is the following:
The main DNA in this case, (from the crotch of the underpants of JonBenet) produced a PARTIAL MIXED profile with an unknown male source, (a minor contributor,) which was placed in the FBI database, CODIS.
That DNA, which is unquestionably the STRONGEST profile of all, (excluding JonBenet,) would be INADMISSIBLE in court according to Dr Krane.
The reason is that the DNA without a statistical weight is meaningless and, at least for the present, there is no reliable method available to give statistical weight to a mixed sample with dropout. The dropout refers to the fact that 3 out of 13 areas revealed no genetic information.
The statistical weight refers to the often insanely high numbers you hear at a trial.
For example, you may have heard something along these lines:
Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the DNA shows that the chance that "the probability of a randomly selected, unrelated individual having contributed DNA to this sample is approximately 101.5 quadrillion to one."
That number, 101.5 quadrillion to one, is a calculated statistical weight.
What Dr Krane is saying is that with the DNA in the JonBenet case, you cannot attach a statistical weight because the test results are inconclusive.
If you can't attach a statstical weight, you can't show up in court with it.


The other main point is that Dr Krane said that if Mary Lacy based the exoneration of the Ramseys exclusively on the DNA evidence in this case, then that was an overreach, and “THAT THAT CONVEYS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DNA.”

Cynic, thanks for the explanation.

 

[aussiesheila2]

Hi aussiesheila2,

I have been following Dr Krane’s work for many years through a number of trials and, of course, I also have worked through the materials that he and his colleagues have put together at www.bioforensics.com.
It was an extraordinary privilege to have had a number of conversations with him as well as a significant exchange of emails. It was great to have him on Tricia’s show in order that people here could also hear what he had to say about the JonBenet case.
What would truly be amazing would be if somehow we could obtain the DNA reports that are in evidence and have Dr Krane look those over.
I can’t see that happening because I believe that the DNA in this case is a HUGE embarrassment. It is evident from the reluctance to fully disclose relevant DNA information to the Cold Case Task Force that assembled in 2009 which James Kolar attended.
In answer to your question, my information is from James Kolar’s book and that information was received during a DNA briefing by Andy Horita at the 2009 Task Force two day meeting.

As of this writing, I have been unable to determine the strength of the genetic markers that were identified as the Touch DNA samples found in the leggings worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body. Horita reported that they were weaker than the partial sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2.
Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? James Kolar, page 417

Thanks for your reply cynic, I've read Kolar's book but I obviously forgot that quote. But just what did Horita mean by weaker? It would be good to find out because it may not mean that there were fewer peaks, he might have meant smaller peaks. If the latter that would not mean there was allele drop out. Would it??

I agree Professor Krane gives excellent explanations and seems like a very nice guy, certainly giving up his time like that, not too many people in his position would do that.

And yes to your 'if only'

 

[aussiesheila2]

And thank you cynic, not only for the work you have done in bringing Professor Krane to the forum but the links to his work as well. I have been waiting since February for this. It is all very interesting stuff.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Interesting in it's own right but it has nothing whatsover to do with the death of JonbBenet.

 

[midwest mama]

Interesting in it's own right but it has nothing whatsover to do with the death of JonbBenet.

Except.....let's just say that since Garnett has "unexonerated" the remaining Ramsey parent who could face a FELONY MURDER charge for JonBenet's death, and there now is professional definition which makes it clear that the DNA evidence crock would not even be admissible in court, there appears to be an opportunity for a D.A. (with some confidence in his own ability and a shred of personal integrity for desiring to earn his pay) to make a move forward with a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence.

And don't squawk about the risk involved with trying a case based on circumstantial evidence! Cases HAVE been won in the past that way. No doubt it might be difficult, but certainly NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

I say LET THE JURY DECIDE once and for all.

 

[cynic]

Thanks for your reply cynic, I've read Kolar's book but I obviously forgot that quote. But just what did Horita mean by weaker? It would be good to find out because it may not mean that there were fewer peaks, he might have meant smaller peaks. If the latter that would not mean there was allele drop out. Would it??

All I can tell you is that the context indicates that strength and weakness refer to the number of loci in the profile, consider:

As of this writing, I have been unable to determine the strength of the genetic markers that were identified as the Touch DNA samples found in the leggings worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body. Horita reported that they were weaker than the partial sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2.
The strength of the loci (genetic markers) observed in the cord of the wrist bindings were reported to be 6 markers, and those of the male in the garrote were 7.
Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? James Kolar, page 417

ETA
After I posted my opinion above, I thought I would contact James just to be on the safe side.
He confirmed that by "weaker," he meant to convey that it was fewer loci.

 

[KoldKase]

All I can tell you is that the context indicates that strength and weakness refer to the number of loci in the profile, consider:

As of this writing, I have been unable to determine the strength of the genetic markers that were identified as the Touch DNA samples found in the leggings worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body. Horita reported that they were weaker than the partial sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2.
The strength of the loci (genetic markers) observed in the cord of the wrist bindings were reported to be 6 markers, and those of the male in the garrote were 7.
Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? James Kolar, page 417

I'm going to perhaps only confuse the matter further by bumbling through this, but here goes....

Long ago I was reading that the issue of markers being unreliable arises with weak and degraded samples. The word I'm looking for escapes me this minute....

I'm specifically thinking of some research done on false positives? Or is it some other term?

As best as I could understand it, perhaps it was a weaker "peak", with the inclusion questionable when it wasn't a marker at all. I do remember that the problem comes down to different interpretation or validation of the allele by different lab techs processing them?

Sorry I can't be more clear, but I do believe this is similar to what Dr. Krane was alluding to when he spoke of statistical validation being impossible at this time based on "drop-out": if the markers are not reliable, if they're open to differing interpretations as to whether they even are an allele at a specific locus or a false positive, then there is no way to determine the accuracy of the profile.

Or something.

 

[madeleine]

Except.....let's just say that since Garnett has "unexonerated" the remaining Ramsey parent who could face a FELONY MURDER charge for JonBenet's death, and there now is professional definition which makes it clear that the DNA evidence crock would not even be admissible in court, there appears to be an opportunity for a D.A. (with some confidence in his own ability and a shred of personal integrity for desiring to earn his pay) to make a move forward with a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence.

And don't squawk about the risk involved with trying a case based on circumstantial evidence! Cases HAVE been won in the past that way. No doubt it might be difficult, but certainly NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

I say LET THE JURY DECIDE once and for all.

yep!that's what makes it so frustrating!I am following so many other cases and see so many determined cops and prosecutors!sometimes all they got is just weak circumstantial evidence but they just don't give up!and when I see how many cold cases (many very difficult to solve) are brought back on the table by some stubborn determined law officers it makes me :banghead: that the ones in charge of this one just DON'T wanna touch it!like it's a deadly disease or something

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

a move forward with a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence.

And just what is that evidence?

 

[midwest mama]

And just what is that evidence?

Oh, puhlleeze, BB01!! Let's not even consider that old song and dance. Plenty of information in the public domain to be used by anyone who seeks the answer to that question. I formed my opinion by using it, and I'm sure you're smart enough to decide for yourself what you will or will not consider case evidence.

 

[midwest mama]

TO THE FFJ CORE GROUP: :rockon:

Cynic, KoldKase, Cherokee and others on that forum have posted some tremendous comments after Dr. Krane's time on the podcast Sunday. Their comments mirror the feelings of some of us here on this forum too. And it is such a good feeling to know there are those people out there who still have a heart for justice for a beautiful little abused darling who not only probably lived through things in her life not at all happy or healthy for a child, but who, IMO, suffered a heinous death at the hands of people she should have been able to trust to love and protect her at all costs.

Thanks for making my day with your posts following the show!!

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Oh, puhlleeze, BB01!! Let's not even consider that old song and dance. Plenty of information in the public domain to be used by anyone who seeks the answer to that question. I formed my opinion by using it, and I'm sure you're smart enough to decide for yourself what you will or will not consider case evidence.

Pick your best piece of evidence that John was involved please.

 

[DeeDee249]

Pick your best piece of evidence that John was involved please.

I have 2. He knew right where the body was. His fibers from a shirt worn that day were INSIDE her panty crotch. Not outside, where is is easier to argue secondary transfer. The panties were worn UNDER longjohns, and the body was then UNDER a blanket. No way the shirt fibers got there unless he put the panties on or off or was there when someone else did.

 

[cynic]

Pick your best piece of evidence that John was involved please.

My apologies for butting in, but there are threads better suited for this sort of discussion.
I will bump the following thread and perhaps things could continue there.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186371&page=8

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

I have 2. He knew right where the body was. His fibers from a shirt worn that day were INSIDE her panty crotch. Not outside, where is is easier to argue secondary transfer. The panties were worn UNDER longjohns, and the body was then UNDER a blanket. No way the shirt fibers got there unless he put the panties on or off or was there when someone else did.

John found the body at 11 am.
Patsy dressed JonBenet's body after wiping it and tranfered the fibers.

 

[aussiesheila2]

All I can tell you is that the context indicates that strength and weakness refer to the number of loci in the profile, consider:

As of this writing, I have been unable to determine the strength of the genetic markers that were identified as the Touch DNA samples found in the leggings worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body. Horita reported that they were weaker than the partial sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2.
The strength of the loci (genetic markers) observed in the cord of the wrist bindings were reported to be 6 markers, and those of the male in the garrote were 7.
Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? James Kolar, page 417

ETA
After I posted my opinion above, I thought I would contact James just to be on the safe side.
He confirmed that by "weaker," he meant to convey that it was fewer loci.

OK cynic, I see your logic. Thanks for the explanation.

And you have since confirmed it with Kolar?

So let me get this straight - the number of markers identified on the leggings was fewer than the number of markers from the panties bloodstain? Yet we have been told that the number of markers from the bloodstain was 10, which just meets the requirement for the forensic CODIS database. So from this most recent information from Kolar we have to believe that the number of markers from the leggings was 9 or less. Have I got this right?

That is interesting new information. Thank you

 

[cynic]

OK cynic, I see your logic. Thanks for the explanation.

And you have since confirmed it with Kolar?

So let me get this straight - the number of markers identified on the leggings was fewer than the number of markers from the panties bloodstain? Yet we have been told that the number of markers from the bloodstain was 10, which just meets the requirement for the forensic CODIS database. So from this most recent information from Kolar we have to believe that the number of markers from the leggings was 9 or less. Have I got this right?

That is interesting new information. Thank you

You're welcome, glad to help. Yes and yes to your two questions.