A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[Anti-K]

How does unsourced tDNA prove someone was not involved in JonBenet's death?

It doesn’t.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I see the DNA in a similar light as the boot print. It is dangerous assume that either of these pieces of evidence has anything to do with the crime, and to disregard all other evidence on the basis of its existence. The boot print shouldn't have been there. The Ramsey's all said they didn't own Hi-Teks, and all attending officers were ruled out as having left it. Would it make sense for us to eliminate suspects based on the fact that they never owned Hi-Tek boots? Thankfully Fleet White's keen memory alerted us to the fact that Burke did actually own those boots and it appears that the Ramsey all lied to keep that fact hidden. Although to this day they have never provided the boots for comparison, it is safe to say that that boot print like was Burke's and had nothing to do with and intruder. The DNA happens to be still unidentified. Its not the Ramsey's and it didn't come from any LE personnel either. It has also been checked against every person that the Ramsey's say came in to contact with JB that day. It is entirely possible that the Ramsey's neglected to mention someone who was at the house that day, somebody that may have worked for them, or perhaps even a trusted someone that was called after JB was struck. If an unknown party aided in the coverup, would the Ramsey admit it? Obviously not.

The DNA was collected over a period of years, not days or hours. Is there a list of all the people that came in to contact with these articles of clothing since day one? I imagine that the list would be extensive. Can we rule out that it was deposited by someone in LE, the morgue, one of the labs? Can we rule out that it was deposited during manufacturing or at the retail location they were purchased? There are just too many possibilities, and the fact that the Ramsey's already lied about the origin of the foot print, we can't even rule out that it came from someone at the home. I say that unless there is a match, its meaningless and it should not stand in the way of the prosecution of viable suspects.

It is interesting that Mary Lacy eventually ruled out JMK as a suspect, stating that the DNA did not match. I believe it was Beckner that said they knew in a day that JMK wasn't the guy because his story didn't add up and that there was evidence that he wasn't even in Boulder at the time. Lacy hid behind the DNA. Just like she hid the Ramsey's behind that DNA. It's a useful tool when you know how to use it.

I’m only going to comment on your concerns and points raised regarding the DNA.

Most of the possible sources you bring up can be provisionally ruled out, and have been.

Manufacture is ruled out because the DNA is on separate articles of clothing; one is probably skin cells, one is probably saliva; one is commingled in blood, one is not; one is on the interior crotch and one is on both, opposite sides of the exterior (one is not likely to contact the other); etc.

Contamination (someone in LE, the morgue, one of the labs, etc) is ruled out because persons associated with the autopsy, handling of the body, the investigation, etc had their DNA compared, as well as prior autopsies; the DNA was processed/analyzed, etc in separate labs; labs test and on guard for contamination (consider the BODE/Levy case).

What has factually happened is that innocent explanations have been provisionally ruled out. The not-so-innocent explanation remains. That makes it meaningful.

I do understand what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s a defensible position and it don’t think you’ll find a court, or a judge, or a prosecutor or a lawyer that would agree with you that the DNA is meaningless unless they find a match.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

andreww, thanks for the detailed response.

DNA can be inclusive evidence but it cannot be exclusive evidence. I'm surprised that some here don't seem to understand this (or pretend not to understand) and I don't mean you andreww.

There is no way unsourced touch DNA found on JonBenet proves that someone/anyone was *not* there or not involved in her death. It greatly bothers me that a lawyer, yet alone a DA, would say someone is excluded as a suspect based solely on unsourced DNA (especially touch DNA).

I don’t want to misunderstand you. Your objection is to the tDNA?

If this DNA – either the leggings, or the panties, or both – was semen or blood would your opinion remain the same?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I think Mary Lacy is the one that put so much emphasis on the DNA. I think that is directly attributable to her finding the TDNA on the leggings. At that point she made the "jump" that because matching DNA was found on two articles of clothing, that it must point to an intruder. Flawed logic, but she stood by it because she found it. She used that logic to cut the Ramsey's loose as suspects, and no matter how much she wanted to see him behind bars, she was forced to abandon JMK as a suspect. So now that she has set the precedent, there is no turning back. If someone is going to be arrested, their DNA is going to have to match or else the whole lot of them would look like morons. Not that they already don't.

I really think this case needs to start from scratch. A new team, a fresh set of eyes, and investigative techniques and technologies that have likely advanced greatly in the past 20 years. Reconvene the grand jury of necessary and get both John and Burke to testify. Ask the hard questions and stop treating suspects like royalty. The information is all still there, its just been tainted by poor management.

Yes, the tDNA was the icing on the cake. The straw that broke the camel’s back. Etc. The CODIS sample was already pretty compelling and the tDNA made it even more so.

Lacey has no say or influence on what any of her predecessors might decide regarding the case and the DNA. No precedent was set by her. It is simply true and factual that this DNA (tDNA and CODIS) is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match and it will remains so until it can be sourced and the source investigated and rule out.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Yes, the tDNA was the icing on the cake. The straw that broke the camel’s back. Etc. The CODIS sample was already pretty compelling and the tDNA made it even more so.

Lacey has no say or influence on what any of her predecessors might decide regarding the case and the DNA. No precedent was set by her. It is simply true and factual that this DNA (tDNA and CODIS) is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match and it will remains so until it can be sourced and the source investigated and rule out.
...

AK

Stupidest logic I've heard. What if that DNA doesn't belong to the killer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, the tDNA was the icing on the cake. The straw that broke the camel’s back. Etc. The CODIS sample was already pretty compelling and the tDNA made it even more so.

Lacey has no say or influence on what any of her predecessors might decide regarding the case and the DNA. No precedent was set by her. It is simply true and factual that this DNA (tDNA and CODIS) is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match and it will remains so until it can be sourced and the source investigated and rule out.
...

AK

Anti-K,

It is simply true and factual that this DNA (tDNA and CODIS) is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match

Nonsense on stilts! What if the touch-dna does not belong to the killer, then you run the risk of clearing the killer on the basis of invalid reasoning?

You need the owner of the touch-dna's identity so can rule them in or out, then you can rule everyone else in or out!



.

 

[BOESP]

I don’t want to misunderstand you. Your objection is to the tDNA?

If this DNA – either the leggings, or the panties, or both – was semen or blood would your opinion remain the same?
...

AK

AK, I don't know how to be more clear on what I'm saying. It *may* be inclusive but it can not be exclusive.

Until it is sourced and the source can be put at the scene it is just raw data.

I'm not going to speculate on "what ifs."

 

[Anti-K]

Stupidest logic I've heard. What if that DNA doesn't belong to the killer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if the DNA doesn’t belong to the killer?

Investigators (BPD, DA) have gone to great lengths to trace that DNA to innocent sources. To–date, they have failed. So, the question should really be, what if the DNA does belong to the killer?

BTW, despite your opinion, the logic is sound.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Nonsense on stilts! What if the touch-dna does not belong to the killer, then you run the risk of clearing the killer on the basis of invalid reasoning?

You need the owner of the touch-dna's identity so can rule them in or out, then you can rule everyone else in or out!



.

As noted in my post above, steps were taken to rule out innocent sources. So, what’s left? The not-so innocent source.

Because of the location in which this DNA is found there is a presumption of involvement that is attached to these samples. Presumption is that which must be disproved. Presumption is that which is presumed to be true because in most every similar situation it is true.

This IS the very foundation, the basis, the WHOLE and COMPLETE entire reason why investigators look for trace evidence in these locations – BECAUSE this is where a perpetrator is likely to leave such evidence. This is fundamental. So, when evidence is found in these locations, and when innocent explanation cannot be found, despite effort, we are left with the presumption: this trace evidence was probably left by the killer.

We can, and so far HAVE ruled out the innocent explanations. We cannot rule out the not-so innocent.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

As noted in my post above, steps were taken to rule out innocent sources. So, what’s left? The not-so innocent source.

Because of the location in which this DNA is found there is a presumption of involvement that is attached to these samples. Presumption is that which must be disproved. Presumption is that which is presumed to be true because in most every similar situation it is true.

This IS the very foundation, the basis, the WHOLE and COMPLETE entire reason why investigators look for trace evidence in these locations – BECAUSE this is where a perpetrator is likely to leave such evidence. This is fundamental. So, when evidence is found in these locations, and when innocent explanation cannot be found, despite effort, we are left with the presumption: this trace evidence was probably left by the killer.

We can, and so far HAVE ruled out the innocent explanations. We cannot rule out the not-so innocent.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Once you identity the owner of the foreign touch-dna. You can then decide if the owner was involved in the death of JonBenet, or simply had their dna randomly transferred.

Otherwise its simply unattributable forensic evidence, circumstantial artifact. You might like to think it represents an IDI, but we need proof, not supposition!

.

 

[OliviaG1996]

This intruder was smart enough not to leave degraded DNA or fingerprints on the ransom note or anywhere else in the home, smart enough to break into the home, stay, and leave undetected, but not smart enough to put their gloves back on when redressing JBR in her longjohns? Why did this obviously intelligent person take their gloves off in the first place? Odd...

 

[Tadpole12]

Here is the passage I’m referring to:

A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault.
​

Just prior to that sentence, Dr. Meyer noted finding “dried and semifluid blood” in several locations during the examination of her genital area. Make no mistake that, without it having been wiped from her legs and genitals and the area cleaned up, there would have been a lot of blood from the injuries. The “dried and semifluid blood” found within the folds of tissue (mostly external) are remnants of that blood that did not get wiped away. But internally, there would be no other reason I can think of for there to be “semiliquid thin watery red fluid” inside the vaginal vault other than some attempt at somehow “rinsing out” the blood that was present.

http://www.amazon.ca/JonBenet-Inside-Ramsey-Murder-Investigation/dp/1250054796#reader_1250054796

Heyya otg,

just a quick quote from ST, IRMI, p 39 .....

"small dark fibers were collected from her pubic region. Detective Trujillo then scanned the body with ultraviolet light and saw florescent marking long the thighs"

Is the assumption to be made that the thin watery red fluid within the vaginal vault is the same 'material' as on the thighs?

..............................

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Once you identity the owner of the foreign touch-dna. You can then decide if the owner was involved in the death of JonBenet, or simply had their dna randomly transferred.

Otherwise its simply unattributable forensic evidence, circumstantial artifact. You might like to think it represents an IDI, but we need proof, not supposition!

.

Yes. This is what I’ve always said: the DNA represents a person who must be identified and investigated. IOWS, the DNA represents a suspect. We can’t clear him until we know who he is.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Yes. This is what I’ve always said: the DNA represents a person who must be identified and investigated. IOWS, the DNA represents a suspect. We can’t clear him until we know who he is.
...

AK

So as a public service message to all future criminals, plant the DNA of some random, law abiding citizen on you victim. No matter what the evidence against you, they won't charge you until that DNA is identified (likely never).

You do realize how stupid your argument is don't you? If every person in America were required to have their DNA on file, that would be a practical way of doing things, but it's not. If this were semen or blood, it would be a different story as well, but it's not. The type of DNA we are talking about here is too easily transferred, and too prone to secondary transfer and it is impossible to say with any certainty that it has anything to do with this crime. Your argument about finding a match is flawed as well as only convicted criminals generally have their DNA on file. If it were an innocent transfer from a law abiding person, how is a match ever to be found? On the contrary, if this was an intruder, why has there never been a match? Odds say that someone who is a sadistic pedophile murderer likely would keep offending and likely would have been caught, or at the very least a matching profile would be found at another crime scene. Why is that AK?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

So as a public service message to all future criminals, plant the DNA of some random, law abiding citizen on you victim. No matter what the evidence against you, they won't charge you until that DNA is identified (likely never).

You do realize how stupid your argument is don't you? If every person in America were required to have their DNA on file, that would be a practical way of doing things, but it's not. If this were semen or blood, it would be a different story as well, but it's not. The type of DNA we are talking about here is too easily transferred, and too prone to secondary transfer and it is impossible to say with any certainty that it has anything to do with this crime. Your argument about finding a match is flawed as well as only convicted criminals generally have their DNA on file. If it were an innocent transfer from a law abiding person, how is a match ever to be found? On the contrary, if this was an intruder, why has there never been a match? Odds say that someone who is a sadistic pedophile murderer likely would keep offending and likely would have been caught, or at the very least a matching profile would be found at another crime scene. Why is that AK?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You raised several point with this post Andreww. Maybe too many to reply to as deserved. I’m going to reply to as many as I can in a somewhat random fashion.
.

The argument I am making – that the tDNA/CODIS sample represents a person who must be identified and investigated – is sound. My argument is the only reason why investigators looked in those areas for trace evidence. Not just in this case, but in every case.

I think that you actually understand this, and, your real objection is to the nature of the trace evidence, specifically, the tDNA/CODIS sample.
.

It’s unfortunate that so many seem to conflate the tDNA with the CODIS sample when arguing against them. One is probably skin cells, one is probably saliva; one is mixed, one is not, one is on the inside of this article of clothing and one is on the outside of a separate article of clothing. So, what type of DNA are you talking about when you say “the type of DNA we are talking about?” tDNA, I assume. But, the CODIS sample is not tDNA.
.

I don’t really understand how people can seemingly discount the fact that the most likely places where the DNA could have originated have been eliminated.
.

If tDNA transferred as easily as is being suggested than investigators should have found the DNA of those people the victim was most often, and, of course, most recently in contact with. If tDNA transferred through secondary means as easily as is being suggested than investigators should have found the DNA of those people that the people that the victim was most often and recently in contact with were in contact with (say that three times!).

And, if tDNA transferred as easily as is being suggested than investigators should have found the DNA of these people all mixed together.

If tDNA transferred as easily as is being suggested than investigators should have found that mixed DNA everywhere they looked for it.
.

Finding an innocent source should be easy – you know where to look; finding a not-so innocent source – could be a needle in a haystack in a haystack.

Sometimes a match is never made. I don’t see how one can attach any meaning to this other than to say that the most likely innocent sources have been eliminated and that persons with a profile in the databank have been eliminated.
.

IMO, if IDI, we are not talking about a pedophile or a sadist.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

We can, and so far HAVE ruled out the innocent explanations. We cannot rule out the not-so innocent.

YOU say. I have not ruled them out. Specifically, even Bill Wise said that it's not likely that every tech who came into contact could have been tested. And, I see no reason to think JB couldn't have transferred it herself from one spot to another.

 

[Anti-K]

YOU say. I have not ruled them out. Specifically, even Bill Wise said that it's not likely that every tech who came into contact could have been tested. And, I see no reason to think JB couldn't have transferred it herself from one spot to another.

Yes, I suppose that was badly worded.

And, of course you don’t rule out innocent explanations.

What I should have said is that, so far, and to date, attempts to trace this DNA to an innocent source has failed. The sources so far ruled out as being the source for the DNA include persons that the victim was most recently in contact with as well as persons associated with the family and the investigation (going back autopsies) etc.

So, it should be factual to say that the likeliest innocent sources have been ruled out.

I think it’s legitimate and important to consider that this DNA may have an innocent explanation. But, I also think it is significant that none has been found despite effort. And, the locations are exactly the same locations where her killer would have left DNA if he was to leave any. That, too, is significant.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, I suppose that was badly worded.

And, of course you don’t rule out innocent explanations.

What I should have said is that, so far, and to date, attempts to trace this DNA to an innocent source has failed. The sources so far ruled out as being the source for the DNA include persons that the victim was most recently in contact with as well as persons associated with the family and the investigation (going back autopsies) etc.

So, it should be factual to say that the likeliest innocent sources have been ruled out.

I think it’s legitimate and important to consider that this DNA may have an innocent explanation. But, I also think it is significant that none has been found despite effort. And, the locations are exactly the same locations where her killer would have left DNA if he was to leave any. That, too, is significant.
...

AK

Anti-K,

And, the locations are exactly the same locations where her killer would have left DNA if he was to leave any. That, too, is significant.

Really, who says so, who mandates this is so?

Why is there no similar touch-dna elsewhere on JonBenet's person, on the ligature, wrist-restraints, duct-tape, paintbrush, ransom note, etc?

This is a more important consideration than simply lowering your gaze onto JonBenet's torso, and claiming by divine revelation, we have IDI!

.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Really, who says so, who mandates this is so?

Why is there no similar touch-dna elsewhere on JonBenet's person, on the ligature, wrist-restraints, duct-tape, paintbrush, ransom note, etc?

This is a more important consideration than simply lowering your gaze onto JonBenet's torso, and claiming by divine revelation, we have IDI!

.

Who says that the locations are exactly the same locations where her killer would have left DNA if he was to leave any? Who mandates it? The investigators; the field of forensic science; Locard’s Exchange Principle, common sense, reason.

It just makes no sense to look for trace evidence in places where almost anyone could have left it, and at any time not related to the crime.

Why is there no similar DNA elsewhere? Do you mean no matching DNA or no other tDNA?

If no other matching DNA, than the answer could be as simple as, 1) it was never detected by investigators (they missed it) and/or 2) no other tDNA was transferred by him.

If you mean no other tDNA, than the answer is other tDNA was found; for example, on the wrist ligature and the cord used for the garrotte.

But, there is a further answer that applies to all the questions asked: DNA does not transfer as easily and readily as some seem to believe.
..

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, I suppose that was badly worded.

And, of course you don’t rule out innocent explanations.

What I should have said is that, so far, and to date, attempts to trace this DNA to an innocent source has failed. The sources so far ruled out as being the source for the DNA include persons that the victim was most recently in contact with as well as persons associated with the family and the investigation (going back autopsies) etc.

So, it should be factual to say that the likeliest innocent sources have been ruled out.

I think it’s legitimate and important to consider that this DNA may have an innocent explanation. But, I also think it is significant that none has been found despite effort. And, the locations are exactly the same locations where her killer would have left DNA if he was to leave any. That, too, is significant.
...

AK

I'll go along with that...for now. UKGuy asks some good questions, though.

DNA isn't the end-all, be-all that pop culture would have us believe, for several reasons.