A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[Mysteeri]

Anti-K:

Lacey (BBM): 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. http://tinyurl.com/k7qzwx5
...

With the previous exculpatory scientific evidence she must be referring to the mixed DNA sample in her underwear to which the touch DNA adds exculpatory value, according to Lacy. That`s what she emphasized in her letter to John- that the presence of matching male DNA on two different pieces of JBs clothing was the reason for the exoneration.

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, the “previous exculpatory scientific evidence” is probably a reference to the CODIS sample from the victim’s panties. “Scientific evidence” may also include items such as fibers and hair found in incriminating locations but not sourced to the Ramseys or the Ramsey home.

“Other evidence” could include items such as the tape and the cord which were also never sourced to the home, and of which the roll and remainder have never been found. It may include items (possibly) removed from the home and never found (ex: tape, cord, notepad pages, tip of paint brush). It may include the contradiction between degree of violence perpetrated and lack of behavioral/family history showing that the Ramseys were capable of inflicting such on their own child, it may be reference to lack of motive, etc.; although, I think that by “full appreciation for the other evidence” may simply be an acknowledgement of everything else regardless of exculpatory and/or incriminatory value. IOWs, “full appreciation for the other evidence” may simply mean “taking everything into account.”
...

AK

 

[otg]

Does anyone know the exact procedure for taking fingernail clippings from the deceased?
They bag the hands. Then does the coroner use a different nail clipper for each nail and put the nail and clipper in a container of some sort? So ten nails and ten clippers.

I have always wondered about this and how it was done. I have not been able to find the exact procedure on the internet.
TIA

Since this thread got bumped, I just noticed your query from last year, Charterhouse. I think each jurisdiction has different defined procedures, and they change over time. There are evidence collection kits that some medical examiners purchase nowadays. I looked into them some time back and recall seeing that some included ten separately-wrapped, disposable fingernail scraping tools. Others had nail clippers (usually two).

Without doing more searching now, my guess would be that today most medical examiners would do each fingernail separately whether it is required or not. But then, Dr. Meyer should certainly have known better than to use clippers that had been used in other autopsies -- but yet, he did. I can think of no excuse for such a lapse in judgement on his part.

 

[bettybaby00]

:bump:

A girl can try, right?

There seems to be a lot of discussion again about the DNA, and what it does or doesn't mean.

 

[questfortrue]

:bump:

A girl can try, right?

There seems to be a lot of discussion again about the DNA, and what it does or doesn't mean.

I’ll honor your bump on DNA! :crazy: For me the biggest hurdle for following DNA (down the rabbit hole imo) is the full collection of evidence points to the R’s, and this is why this will be my last post on it.

And, while I doubt we will find agreement on the DNA between RDI and IDI, I’ll post some additional information. (And hope other WS’ers eyes don’t glaze over.)

First believe in the other thread discussion we are speaking of two different types of contamination – one type from contamination from suspects and from collection of evidence, another from lab contamination. Lab contamination was my reference. The most famous contamination story being the lab worker in Europe whose faulty protocol caused various countries to believe a serial murderer was loose all over Europe. Here are some US examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/national/07dna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Lab's Errors Force Review of 150 DNA Cases in Virginia

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/DNA-testing-mistakes-at-the-State-Patrol-crime-1149846.php
Contamination and other errors in DNA analysis have occurred at the Washington State Patrol crime labs, most of it the result of sloppy work. . . . The most common problems are cross-contamination by microscopic traces of unrelated evidence and forensic scientists accidentally mixing their own DNA with the sample being tested.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/mar/09/forensics-firm-investigated-dna Firm discusses their rape match: LGC says the error was caused by contamination in its laboratory.
________________________
On the low profile DNA I misspoke when I referenced that DNA with 10 loci wouldn’t be allowed. It might be introduced, but it also might be thrown out. There are definite trial issues with lower profile DNA. Here’s some examples from http://hstlj.org/articles/concerns-associated-with-expanding-dna-databases/

If the amount of DNA recovered from a crime scene is very small or if the DNA sample recovered from a crime scene is either degraded or a mixture of DNA from many individuals, then there is often much less than 13 loci available for comparison.[lxiv] Therefore, the statistical weight attached to a match is lower and the probability of a coincidental match is higher.[lxv]
~SNIP~
Increasingly, convictions are relying on DNA evidence alone. Moreover, when the DNA evidence is a partial match on less than 13 loci, the risk of injustice is greater, as evidenced by the report of Arizona’s DNA database in 2005.

Bicka Barlow, a California attorney with both a law degree and a Masters in genetics, learned that Arizona’s DNA database contained two people whose genetic profiles matched at 9 loci, and filed a subpoena to learn more.[lxvi] The resulting report revealed that, out of 65,493 offenders in Arizona’s DNA database in 2005, 122 pairs of people had genetic profiles matching at 9 loci, 20 pairs matched at 10 loci, 1 pair of siblings matched at 11 loci, and 1 pair of siblings matched at 12 loci.[lxvii] Similar assessments of DNA databases have been conducted in Illinois and Maryland.[lxviii] Out of 220,000 profiles in the Illinois state database, 903 pairs matched at 9 or more loci, and out of 30,000 profiles in the Maryland state database, 32 pairs matched at nine loci and 3 pairs matched on all 13 loci.[lxix]
~Snip~
Sir Alec Jeffreys, the original inventor of DNA typing, has warned that when extremely large databases (such as CODIS and the NDNAD) undergo large numbers of exploratory searches, even exceptionally rare matches will occur.

Courts have taken varying stands on TDNA whether to allow it or not; from what I’ve read low profile DNA can generally benefit a defendant who has a good defense attorney arguing the points listed above and having it thrown out, especially if the regular ol’ evidence collected points to others’ involvement. MHO kay:

 

[Anti-K]

It is not true that “the full collection of evidence points to the R’s.” For example, the DNA evidence is part of the “full collection of evidence” and it does not point to the R’s.

I assume that “low profile DNA” is a reference to LCN (low copy number) and as such has no relevance to the Ramsey case as none of the Ramsey DNA was analyzed through this method.

.

Contamination does occur, but it is almost always found out. That’s why we get to read news stories about them. But, there is no reason to believe that contamination occurred in this case. We’re not just talking about three different locations and two articles of clothing, but different labs did the processing/analysis on different items. If this DNA was from contamination it would have been discovered as such by now.

.

The Arizona Database:
Nothing in the article cited (or the facts of inclusion) impacts or effects the Ramsey case as, so far, the DNA has only been used to exclude. If DNA-man is ever identified than those who wish to defend him can drag out the Arizona Database and have a go at trying to explain away the identification.

For those interested in such things, a search was conducted in the Arizona DNA database and an unexpected number of matches were found. The type of search done was not realistic or comparable to real life situation as the norm would be to compare a single profile to the 65,000 in the database. The researchers compared all 65,000 against each other – that’s a cpl billion possible combinations!

Researches also looked for matches at any of the 13 markers, and not, as would normally be done, for a specific profile. Researches were not able to take into account relativity, or race, etc. I’d have to go back through my notes for a refresher, but as I remember it the “final analysis” on this study has it that the reliability of RMP was affirmed and the findings expected (after all).

Something to consider is that the ‘odds’ are for a random person in the general population matching a particular profile. However, one also needs to take into account the odds that such a person would also fall into a suspect group, and the odds that such a person could be connected to a crime by some other means, that they would know the victim, etc. and so on.
...

AK

 

[questfortrue]

RSBM~
I assume that “low profile DNA” is a reference to LCN (low copy number) and as such has no relevance to the Ramsey case as none of the Ramsey DNA was analyzed through this method.

RSBM~
AK

No, for clarification so no one is misled, low copy DNA refers to the methodology of testing; low profile DNA refers to the fact that a full set of loci (13) is not available.

In a friendly tone, let me say if my statement about evidence was slanted, just cut me a break that I don’t view the DNA the same as you.

Let’s agree to leave this discussion and enable people to follow up with their own research here. I recommend reviewing the lectures by Dr. Krane on Youtube. (If one is an RDI, as some of us here are, review snips of information on FFJ http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10137&page=3 – post 28 is especially interesting.) :seeya:

 

[Mama2JML]

In the interview linked below, Kolar details the DNA evidence. He mentions DNA, isolated in 1997, from JonBenet's fingernail clippings. This DNA was not "unique" when compared to the other male DNA obtained in 1997, per the lab report screen capture.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2012/07/19/websleuths-radio

 

[Anti-K]

No, for clarification so no one is misled, low copy DNA refers to the methodology of testing; low profile DNA refers to the fact that a full set of loci (13) is not available.

In a friendly tone, let me say if my statement about evidence was slanted, just cut me a break that I don’t view the DNA the same as you.

Let’s agree to leave this discussion and enable people to follow up with their own research here. I recommend reviewing the lectures by Dr. Krane on Youtube. (If one is an RDI, as some of us here are, review snips of information on FFJ http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10137&page=3 – post 28 is especially interesting.) :seeya:

I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, or argue with you. And, I don’t mind if you leave the discussion.

Before you go, I’d like to point out that “low profile DNA” is not a commonly used term, and what you are describing is more properly known as a partial profile.

I would also like to second your recommendation that everyone have at least one listen to Dr Krane on Tricia’s radioblog http://tinyurl.com/ktvaqyf and, also check him out on youtube.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

In the interview linked below, Kolar details the DNA evidence. He mentions DNA, isolated in 1997, from JonBenet's fingernail clippings. This DNA was not "unique" when compared to the other male DNA obtained in 1997, per the lab report screen capture.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2012/07/19/websleuths-radio

OMG. I just listened to the first 16 minutes. Good grief.

Kolar, as in his book, misuses the terms “weak,” and “artifact” and he repeats his claim that IDI must accept all or none of the six DNA profiles. Ha! Without prejudice or bias it is clear that Kolar does not understand the DNA and, at least in this regard, is guilty of very bad, almost amateurish reasoning. I’m not making this up.

A weak sample means that DNA was detected, but no markers could be identified. If one or more markers are identified (but less than the total amount targeted), than the sample is referred to as a Partial Profile.

Individual markers can be referred to as weak, but weak is not used to describe the number of markers.

If a Full Profile had weak markers, than we could – but probably shouldn’t – refer to it as a weak profile, but Partial Profiles should only be referred to as Partial Profiles, and NEVER as weak (or, low) Profiles.

Artifacts are errors in the analysis. I suppose, in his defence, artifacts could have a different meaning in crime scene analysis, but it does have a specific meaning when it comes to DNA analysis, and I think one needs to be careful about the distinction.

Kolar, in his book and on Tricia’s radioblog, tells us that IDI must accept all or none of the DNA. By this, Kolar commits a Fallacy of the Excluded Middle (AKA, a False Dilemma or False Dichotomy or Either/Or Fallacy). Obviously, logically and reasonably Kolar is wrong and there are very clearly other options and Kolar’s claim in this regard is fallacious, and, I would argue, amateurish so.

Here are (some) of the options that Kolar’s false dichotomy excludes:

1 female and 5 male = 1 female and 4 males are perpetrators; 1 male is innocent transfer

1 female and 5 male = 1 female and 3 males are perpetrators; 2 males are innocent transfer

1 female and 5 male = 1 female and 2 males are perpetrators; 3 males are innocent transfer

1 female and 5 male = 1 female and 1 male are perpetrators; 4 males are innocent transfer

1 female and 5 male = 5 males are perpetrators; 1 female is innocent transfer

1 female and 5 male = 4 males are perpetrators; 1 female and 1 male is innocent transfer

Etc...

Like I said, good grief.

Well, I’m listening to Lou Reed’s “Coney Island Baby,” now. Maybe I’ll listen to more of Kolar tomorrow.
...

AK

 

[midwest mama]

I am at a very far end of the spectrum when it comes to deciphering the details about using DNA in crime solving. I have to leave that up to the experts and those here on the forum who have far greater ability to look at just what the DNA can prove or disprove in this case.

What I do wonder, though, is why, if we are to accept the DNA as viable connective evidence to JB's killer, and accept that suspects are cleared because of no matching DNA, then shouldn't there be more tests conducted on those case related persons of interest who have not previously given samples?

How can we WSers learn or know who all has NOT been tested, other than through already published sources for that information? I barely scratched around on acandyrose.com and learned of a couple of suspicious persons, IMO, who have no DNA test results posted.

For me, if we have to reason against one of the three household Ramsey's killing JB, then the next place we have to look is to someone very, very close who could have also enabled an additional perp into the home that night. This step, IMO, would seem logical because of the indications that someone had to be familiar with the home in order to put JB into the wine cellar.

 

[bettybaby00]

I am at a very far end of the spectrum when it comes to deciphering the details about using DNA in crime solving. I have to leave that up to the experts and those here on the forum who have far greater ability to look at just what the DNA can prove or disprove in this case.

What I do wonder, though, is why, if we are to accept the DNA as viable connective evidence to JB's killer, and accept that suspects are cleared because of no matching DNA, then shouldn't there be more tests conducted on those case related persons of interest who have not previously given samples?

How can we WSers learn or know who all has NOT been tested, other than through already published sources for that information? I barely scratched around on acandyrose.com and learned of a couple of suspicious persons, IMO, who have no DNA test results posted.

For me, if we have to reason against one of the three household Ramsey's killing JB, then the next place we have to look is to someone very, very close who could have also enabled an additional perp into the home that night. This step, IMO, would seem logical because of the indications that someone had to be familiar with the home in order to put JB into the wine cellar.

I saw a post on FF the other day with a screen cap from one of the shows (48 hours?) showing a lab report re: who was tested, and now I can't find it....anyone??

 

[otg]

I saw a post on FF the other day with a screen cap from one of the shows (48 hours?) showing a lab report re: who was tested, and now I can't find it....anyone??

Hi, bettybaby. I think this is probably what you saw:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=185839#post185839"]Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence - Forums For Justice[/ame]



It's a long post to read for the details you're looking for. I tried to condense the information in this post:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10164897#post10164897"]Body being wiped down - Page 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[bettybaby00]

Hi, bettybaby. I think this is probably what you saw:
Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence - Forums For Justice



It's a long post to read for the details you're looking for. I tried to condense the information in this post:
Body being wiped down - Page 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

The whole "if" thing is interesting.

 

[Venom]

Thanks otg!!!!

Bringing this from otg's link to FFJ:

#6, RE: Poster
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 02:08 PM
In response to message #3
I observe the wording. The summary says that samples from 7 (the panties), 14L and 14M (the left and right hand nails) revealed a mixture (see the word "mix-" which leads to the off-screen completion "-ture"?). But look further. "IF the minor" component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M "were contributed by a single" individual, then the Ramseys can be excluded. But we are all smart enough to fill in that particular blank. If the minor component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M were contributed by more than a single individual, then the Ramseys are not excluded, not by this summary, in any case. If both John's and Patsy's DNA are under JonBenet's nails, they may well be included because neither individually has the same markers as all components of the sample, but together they may add up to the components found.

#7, RE: Poster
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 02:13 PM
In response to message #6
We have letter combinations to reference now. For example, we can see that there are genetic locations referenced as BB and AA. If John has a marker of WA at location BB, but not a marker of WB at location AA, then he is excluded. But if John has a marker of WA at location BB, and Patsy has a marker of WB at location AA, then the sample may be a mixture of both their markers.


Am I reading this correctly:
In that IF the samples from 7, 14L, and 14M were from more then a single person then the R's cannot be excluded.
The samples 14L and 14R are from JB's fingernails that were possibly contaminated at the autopsy by using clippers that were used on other people.
So only if 14L and 14R (and 7) are from JB, then the R's can be excluded. But since the clippers may have other dna on them, you can't definitively exclude the R's?

Am I wrong? I hope I'm making sense.

 

[questfortrue]

Thanks otg!!!!

Bringing this from otg's link to FFJ:

#6, RE: Poster
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 02:08 PM
In response to message #3
I observe the wording. The summary says that samples from 7 (the panties), 14L and 14M (the left and right hand nails) revealed a mixture (see the word "mix-" which leads to the off-screen completion "-ture"?). But look further. "IF the minor" component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M "were contributed by a single" individual, then the Ramseys can be excluded. But we are all smart enough to fill in that particular blank. If the minor component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M were contributed by more than a single individual, then the Ramseys are not excluded, not by this summary, in any case. If both John's and Patsy's DNA are under JonBenet's nails, they may well be included because neither individually has the same markers as all components of the sample, but together they may add up to the components found.

#7, RE: Poster
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 02:13 PM
In response to message #6
We have letter combinations to reference now. For example, we can see that there are genetic locations referenced as BB and AA. If John has a marker of WA at location BB, but not a marker of WB at location AA, then he is excluded. But if John has a marker of WA at location BB, and Patsy has a marker of WB at location AA, then the sample may be a mixture of both their markers.


Am I reading this correctly:
In that IF the samples from 7, 14L, and 14M were from more then a single person then the R's cannot be excluded.
The samples 14L and 14R are from JB's fingernails that were possibly contaminated at the autopsy by using clippers that were used on other people.
So only if 14L and 14R (and 7) are from JB, then the R's can be excluded. But since the clippers may have other dna on them, you can't definitively exclude the R's?

Am I wrong? I hope I'm making sense.

How could this happen?
Perhaps, since we know ML missed the fact that there was other tDNA at the scene on the instruments of JB's death, according to Kolar, perhaps she also missed the English class addressing:
A copulative conjunction is a conjunction that denotes an addition, a cause, a consequence, or a supposition: as,
• "He and I shall not dispute; for, if he has any choice, I shall readily grant it."
The copulatives include: and, as, both, because, even, for, if, that, then, since, seeing, so.

For if ML missed the class on copulative conjunctions, then she would not understand the lab report. If JMK was not in Boulder, then he’s excluded from being a suspect. .
Just an explanation for ML decisons? :moo:

 

[bettybaby00]

How could this happen?
Perhaps, since we know ML missed the fact that there was other tDNA at the scene on the instruments of JB's death, according to Kolar, perhaps she also missed the English class addressing:
A copulative conjunction is a conjunction that denotes an addition, a cause, a consequence, or a supposition: as,
• "He and I shall not dispute; for, if he has any choice, I shall readily grant it."
The copulatives include: and, as, both, because, even, for, if, that, then, since, seeing, so.

For if ML missed the class on copulative conjunctions, then she would not understand the lab report. If JMK was not in Boulder, then he’s excluded from being a suspect. .
Just an explanation for ML decisons? :moo:

OMG you just made my head spin!! :floorlaugh:

 

[Mama2JML]

How could this happen?
Perhaps, since we know ML missed the fact that there was other tDNA at the scene on the instruments of JB's death, according to Kolar, perhaps she also missed the English class addressing:
A copulative conjunction is a conjunction that denotes an addition, a cause, a consequence, or a supposition: as,
• "He and I shall not dispute; for, if he has any choice, I shall readily grant it."
The copulatives include: and, as, both, because, even, for, if, that, then, since, seeing, so.

For if ML missed the class on copulative conjunctions, then she would not understand the lab report. If JMK was not in Boulder, then he’s excluded from being a suspect. .
Just an explanation for ML decisons? :moo:

How could what happen? What makes you think ML "missed" the other DNA @ the scene?

 

[questfortrue]

How could what happen? What makes you think ML "missed" the other DNA @ the scene?

It was on a podcast of Tricia's couple years ago. Carol McKinley interviewed ML for the Daily Beast and asked about the other profiles of DNA found. ML said she didn't know anything about those samples.

 

[Mama2JML]

It was on a podcast of Tricia's couple years ago. Carol McKinley interviewed ML for the Daily Beast and asked about the other profiles of DNA found. ML said she didn't know anything about those samples.

Oh, okay. I don't remember exactly what McKinley said, but I think Chief Kolar might have misinterpreted &/or misrepresented the evidentiary DNA. I remember thinking (@ the time of the interview) McKinley relayed the information presented in FF, so Lacy's response/reaction was no surprise to me.