DNA links Denver burglary, child assault

[Britt]

I have read in many places that the pubic hair doesn'tt match any of the R's. Also, someone here theother day said that the partial plam print was not connt. to them either.

Keep in mind that some of the information in the books is outdated. Since they were published, there have been depositions, interviews, reports etc with additional and updated info. (Many of these are available at acandyrose's site.) The ancillary hair and palm prints on the wine cellar door have all been ID'd. The info on the ransom note prints is in Thomas's book.

Edited to add: Ivy, great posts

 

[Barbara]

Another great post, Barbara. I think I'll just follow you around today and applaud :clap:

Aww shucks Britt...thank you for your kind words :blushing:

 

[Toth]

>Keep in mind that some of the information in the books is outdated.
So is some of the information in the posts.

>The ancillary hair
ancillary to what? Latin for armpit is axila.
Its been variously referred to, but all that is known about it is that it does NOT come from any of the Ramseys. Nobody knows who it does come from.

There are reports that the palm print on the wine cellar door has been matched to Melinda but that has not been established for certain.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

It's not a rationale. It's a matter of following the evidence. Neither the palm print nor the ancillary/pubic hair have been declared a match by anyone connected to the case.

Smit never insisted that an Air Taser was used on JonBenét. He found that a particular model of the Air Taser was configured in such a way that it was possible that one like it had been used on JonBenét. He allowed that there may be other models of stun guns with similar configurations that could also make marks the same size and distance apart.

 

[Barbara]

".....it was Lou Smit who first made the information public about the DNA under the nails and in the panties being consistent. It hasn't been denied by anyone in the case since. "

What makes the fact that nobody has denied the above different from the fact that nobody has denied that the prints and the hair have been matched?

Who has denied that the print/hair has been matched other than the forum posters?

As far as the Air Taser, when Steve Tuttle denied that the marks belonged to his Air Taser gun, everyone RST, you included at that time, on *******'s forum, tried to discredit him, saying everything from "he doesn't want his product associated with JBR's murder" to "just plain lying", etc., etc. Nobody then stated that Lou might be mistaken. Everyone on the RST, including Lou did in fact "insist" it was Tuttle's Air Taser.

Now the story has changed quite a bit!

 

[Shylock]

It's not a rationale. It's a matter of following the evidence. Neither the palm print nor the ancillary/pubic hair have been declared a match by anyone connected to the case. .

"Investigators also said a palm print on the door leading to the wine cellar is that of Melinda Ramsey , JonBenet's adult half-sister, who was in Georgia at the time of the girl's death. The technician who originally ruled her out as the source of the print erred, the newspaper said.

Authorities have known the answers for some time, the newspaper reported. A footprint found in mold on the floor of the Ramseys ' wine cellar, near where the girl's body was found, was linked by investigators to her then-9-year-old brother, Burke.
http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=25

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Again, unnamed "investigators" and "sources". There's absolutely no evidence that either claim is true.

There may still be "sources" like ST who want to dismiss such evidence as unrelated to the crime but there have been no official claims that those stories are anything more than rumor or wishful thinking by RDIs.

 

[tipper]

The "weakness" of these DNA samples caught my eye. The straw was apparently collected immediately after use but still yielded a weak sample.

[url]http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/15432.php[/url]
...
While the DNA match was relatively weak, investigators wrote, "the chances of a match from someone else other than (the man) were roughly in the order of one in 58,000."
...

A letter received by the Tucson office of Southwest Gas on July 8, 2002, demanded the reinstatement of retirement benefits for all employees fired since 1994 and a gift of two months' wages.
…

Whitbeck: If, hypothetically, if, if you were to do something like this, how would you do, go about doin'?

(Man): I'd shut this whole town down. I know where every valve is, every major station is. I've worked it for years. I could shut down Green Valley, Tucson, Catalina.

Whitbeck: OK.

(Man): Every town there is.

In February 2003, a Department of Public Safety criminalist was able to obtain a weak, male, partial DNA sample from one of the extortion letters left at a sabotaged regulator station.

FBI agents surveyed the former employee, watching him at his home. A few months after the partial DNA sample was obtained, an FBI agent obtained a drinking straw discarded by the former employee at a Tucson restaurant. DPS criminalists were able to obtain a weak DNA profile from it.

In comparing the sample from the letter to the sample on the straw, investigators believe the match is "at a level lower than generally preferred for court."

Search warrants show investigators searched the man's home and his truck. Seized items include bolt cutters, a map of the SaddleBrooke development, a Southwest Gas map of Tucson, screws and a hacksaw. A search of his home turned up a stencil, keys, photographs, a computer and a "black bag with contents and documents."

Skip Perkins, an engineering professor at the University of Arizona, said many utilities including natural-gas lines are vulnerable to disruption, although they do not necessarily present a public safety concern.

"If you want to be a terrorist, there's an awful lot of easy targets," Perkins said.

Many Southwest Gas employees have taken the acts of sabotage as personal attacks on them, Howell said.

"They've really taken this personally. They've had to step up their surveillance and their after-hours activity. They feel their good name is being impugned," she said. "They're really ticked off about this. They really want this person caught. They take public safety very seriously."

 

[Ivy]

It's my understanding that "pure" saliva contains no DNA, and that the DNA found in saliva comes from epithelial cells in the lining of the mouth (buccal cells). If this is true, I suppose it's possible that the cigarette-smoking suspect was a poor shedder, one of the people who don't shed cellular material readily.

Edited to add: If he was a poor shedder, maybe he didn't shed many, if any, skin cells from his lips either.

imo

 

[why_nutt]

The "weakness" of these DNA samples caught my eye. The straw was apparently collected immediately after use but still yielded a weak sample.

Is not a rather large crimp put into the LovelyPigeon premise that a weak DNA sample, all by itself, would compel prosecution?

From the same article:

The Arizona Daily Star is not identifying the man because he has not been arrested or charged with a crime.

...

Investigators appear to have little evidence against the man, said his lawyer, Alfred Donau.

"I'm confident that he has nothing to do with the sabotage of the pipeline. There's been no criminality supported," said Donau, adding he's basing that on his experience after practicing law more than 30 years.

Despite the connection between the two DNA samples, Donau said it's "not really impressive." To be reliable in court, a DNA sample should show that the chances of a match to someone else is one in billions, he said.

"I don't believe that they have, obviously, enough convincing evidence to even go before a grand jury," Donau said.

You watch: If this man is brought to trial, DNA will not be a deal-sealer. It will be lucky to be admitted at all.

 

[Honeybee]

You're right on all counts, LP. And someday, it will all be come clear to even the most dense that the Ramseys--all of the Ramseys--are innocent in JB's murder.

And to whomever said that JB could have gotten the dNA under her fingernails by shaking hands, I have yet to shake hands with someone and be scratched nor have I scratched the person whose hand I am shaking. The fact remains, and it doesn't matter who likes it or who doesn't like it, the DNA in the blood in JB's panties matches the DNA under her fingernails to an extent that could not be mere coincidence. It is the DNA of the killer. Period.

 

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Honeybee
It is the DNA of the killer. Period.

Oh, no...another one of them.

imo

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Welcome, Honeybee. Glad to have another one of "them"(or is it "us" LOL) around.

why_nutt, isn't it just like a defense lawyer to think that DNA for trial "should be in the billions" in comparison.

That case has a "weak, partial male DNA sample" from an extortion letter in evidence and a "weak {supposedly male}DNA profile" from the drinking straw used by the suspect.

If the suspect gives a DNA sample the comparison may improve remarkedly.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Granted, this isn't the U.S. but this case allowed plenty of testimony about "weak" DNA comparisons with results not even in the thousands, much less the millions or billions:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2510436 1 in 110
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2468647 1 in 600 and 1 in 60

 

[Ivy]

LP, the "them" I referred to are people who refuse to acknowledge the possibility (strong possibility) that the "foreign" DNA in the Ramsey case is from (a) lab contamination, or (b) a false positive resulting from the amplification process, or (c) innocent transfer via JonBenet herself. "Them" also includes people who come here not to discuss the case but only to spread the "gospel" that the Ramseys are innocent.

imo

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Well.

I guess you told "them". LOL

 

[Ivy]

Yes, but true to form, they'll probably just brush it off and keep on spinnin'.

imo

 

[Shylock]

And to whomever said that JB could have gotten the dNA under her fingernails by shaking hands, I have yet to shake hands with someone and be scratched nor have I scratched the person whose hand I am shaking.

Sorry HoneyBee, but all your post does is show how little you know about both this case and DNA technology.
JonBenet didn't "scratch" anyone. If you read the books on the case you would know that there was nothing under her nails in the way of blood or skin. That includes scratching herself.

As far as your knowledge of DNA goes, I posted an article a long time ago here where tests showed that if you handled money today, you probably have another person's DNA on your hands. I guess you missed that article or you wouldn't be making foolish statements about shaking hands with people, which OBVIOUSLY would cause their DNA to be transfered to your hand--without SCRATCHING them.

This is not a DNA case. It never was a DNA case.

 

[Toth]

Shylock... do you feel sorry for all those poor laboratory technicians who have to perform dna testing whenever a rape victim has her fingernail's scraped, all the hospital workers or paramedics who have to "bag" the victim's hands? After all, their actions must be absolutely futile since you seem to think that women all go around town with someone else's dna under their fingernails all the time.

 

[Shylock]

Toth, if you can't comprehend the difference between this case and a standard rape crime then maybe you shouldn't be discussing it.

Can you name one other rape case where the country's leading DNA expert has said "This is NOT a DNA case"?
Can you name one other rape crime where the experts from the CellMark DNA lab have said the DNA might not even exist--that it might just be a product of the testing process?

Trying to make the Ramsey case into a valid DNA case is not only a futile effort, it's a joke.