DNA Revisited

[Ames]

Well Ames, I'm thinking that if the blue cloth was used to wipe off blood, then -- voila!! -- it would have blood on it!! If the bathrobe was used, ditto.

Exactly! But...nobody even knows if that bathrobe was taken into evidence. Thanks to those Keystone Barney Fife Cops. :banghead:

 

[madeleine]

Exactly! But...nobody even knows if that bathrobe was taken into evidence. Thanks to those Keystone Barney Fife Cops. :banghead:

I think it was taken into evidence,they were after the Ramsey's and really wanted to get them and I think it was no match.:twocents:
But on the other hand,who knows,since ST (and others I am sure) were so eager to clear JR and have PR alone guilty for everything.

 

[joeskidbeck]

OR they were taken into evidence and had incriminating dna that belonged to someone too young to be considered. We would never be told about any evidence that implicated BR.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey guys,question.
So if I understand correctly it's very easy for touch DNA to be depostied anywhere and you claim it could have been anyone who touched JB's clothing (and then it got transfered on other pieces).Right?
This makes me wonder,how come did they find DNA belonging only to mr.X (alledged intruder)?
JB's DNA must be there,PR's DNA must be there,LHP's DNA must be there,JR's DNA must be there.Okay,their DNA is not relevant,they lived there.
What about other people though,if touch DNA gets transfered so easily I would expect them to find more of it from more unknown persons.

That's precisely what I tried to find out. Too bad BODE's not as forthcoming as you'd expect.

 

[BBB167893]

IIRC the CBI (not Bode)helped ML eliminate all these people as the dna owner(LE,those present at the autopsy).
Now I don't trust ML but I guess the CBI is different.

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.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/templates/bocoda.aspx?articleid=1256&zoneid=13

Even Bill Wise said it was unlikely that every person could have been tested.

 

[UKGuy]

The apparent lack of mention of findings of parental DNA on JB's clothing can mean any of of a few possibilities.
One, that this DNA does exist, but because whoever is in control of this evidence does not want this information to be made public, it has not been revealed. This person preventing this could be LW, or another defense attorney, and not necessarily the DA or other LE.
Two, is that it is NOT there, because they wore gloves when handling her and her panties and longjohns. Absolutely NO innocent reason for a parent to do this. They BOTH said they touched the longjohns. Patsy said she dressed JB in the longjohns,but tellingly she never mentions the panties. ANY mother seeing such a poorly-fitting pair of panties on a child (especially one known to wet the bed) would have changed them as well.
As for JR, he was SEEN to be holding JB around the waist while she was wearing the longjohns as he carried her stiffened body up from the basement, so the lack of mention of HIS DNA leads me to think it is the first theory, that it is there, but that information is being repressed.

DeeDee249,

As you suggest Ramsey dna on JonBenet's clothing may not be telling. But Ramsey forensic artifacts on her size-12's are of a different order.

If you think JonBenet wore those size-12's to the White's xmas party then read no further.

I reckon the size-12's were clean on JonBenet after being relocated to the basement. Now these size-12's were essentially forensically clean e.g. just out of the box. So any forensic traces should be relevant.

Now fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were allegedly found on JonBenet's external labia and inside the size-12's. So if additionally John's touch-dna is located on those size-12's then like Patsy I reckon this places him at the crime-scene.

Most RDI reckon those size-12's were new, e.g. pristine clean on JonBenet, so if the touch-dna is good enough for suspicion, why not those Israeli fibers?

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

As you suggest Ramsey dna on JonBenet's clothing may not be telling. But Ramsey forensic artifacts on her size-12's are of a different order.

If you think JonBenet wore those size-12's to the White's xmas party then read no further.

I reckon the size-12's were clean on JonBenet after being relocated to the basement. Now these size-12's were essentially forensically clean e.g. just out of the box. So any forensic traces should be relevant.

Now fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were allegedly found on JonBenet's external labia and inside the size-12's. So if additionally John's touch-dna is located on those size-12's then like Patsy I reckon this places him at the crime-scene.

Most RDI reckon those size-12's were new, e.g. pristine clean on JonBenet, so if the touch-dna is good enough for suspicion, why not those Israeli fibers?

ITA on all counts. Why couldn't the Israeli fibers be enough for suspicion? Well, as far the BPD are concerned, they ARE enough for suspicion. So are Patsy's jacket fibers. But the DA had another agenda. And it wasn't to solve the crime. It was to prevent him from going into another trial. He had a solid record of plea-bargain after plea-bargain, and by some accounts, he WAS ready to offer a plea-bargain to the Rs.

 

[joeskidbeck]

ITA on all counts. Why couldn't the Israeli fibers be enough for suspicion? Well, as far the BPD are concerned, they ARE enough for suspicion. So are Patsy's jacket fibers. But the DA had another agenda. And it wasn't to solve the crime. It was to prevent him from going into another trial. He had a solid record of plea-bargain after plea-bargain, and by some accounts, he WAS ready to offer a plea-bargain to the Rs.

You may think I'm crazy, but even a plea-bargain would have been better than 14 years with no justice for JonBenet. Who knows, the Ramseys may have even taken it in the beginning, before it became crystal clear that the DA's office would never bring charges against them. Of course that's only if their lord and protector, LW agreed.

 

[BBB167893]

You may think I'm crazy, but even a plea-bargain would have been better than 14 years with no justice for JonBenet. Who knows, the Ramseys may have even taken it in the beginning, before it became crystal clear that the DA's office would never bring charges against them. Of course that's only if their lord and protector, LW agreed.

At one time, I would have thought you were crazy, beck. I was adamantly opposed to the idea of a plea bargain. I strongly felt that, for all of their arrogance and the BS they subjected the country to, nothing short of the severest punishment would suffice, because to me, a plea bargain would have only proved that special people get special justice.

But as time has gone on, I've seriously reconsidered that position. I hate to say it, but this is one time when AH's "Let's Make a Deal" gameshow approach to justice might have been the best option available.

 

[MurriFlower]

Would Bode know the 'ethnicity' of the person whose matching DNA found on the longjohns?

 

[cynic]

Would Bode know the 'ethnicity' of the person whose matching DNA found on the longjohns?

Short answer, no.
Long answer is below.
(The DNA in this case is unlikely to be of sufficient quality to be able to determine a usable “racial profile.”)

On July 16, 2002, a survey crew from the Department of Transportation found Pam Kinamore's nude, decomposing body in the area along the banks of the Mississippi known as Whiskey Bay, just west of Baton Rouge. The police tested the DNA and quickly realized that they were dealing with a serial killer: the same man who had killed two other white, middle-class women in the area.
The FBI, Louisiana State Police, Baton Rouge Police Department and sheriff's departments soon began a massive search. Based on an FBI profile and a confident eyewitness, the Multi-Agency Homicide Task Force futilely upended South Louisiana in search of a young white man who drove a white pick-up truck. They interrogated possible suspects, knocked on hundreds of doors, held frequent press conferences and sorted through thousands of tips.
In late December, after a fourth murder, police set up a dragnet to obtain DNA from some 1200 white men. Authorities spent months and more than a million dollars running those samples against the killer's. Still nothing.
In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer's race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.
Still, when they gathered in the Baton Rouge police department for a conference call with Frudakis in mid-March, they were not prepared to hear or accept his conclusions about the killer.
"Your guy has substantial African ancestry," said Frudakis. "He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all."
There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.
"This means we're going to turn our investigation in an entirely different direction," Frudakis recalls someone saying. "Are you comfortable with that?"
"Yes. I recommend you do that," he said. And now, rather than later since, in the time it took Frudakis to analyze the sample, the killer had claimed his fifth victim. The task force followed Frudakis' advice and, two months later, the killer was in custody.
…
The DNA forensic products available at the time could only be used to match DNA specimens in the CODIS, or Combined DNA Index System, database which contains about 5 million DNA profiles. If investigators have a crime scene sample but no suspect, they run it against those in the database to see if it matches a sample already on file.
But while CODIS is good at linking the criminals who are already catalogued from other crimes, the system is useless in identifying physical characteristics. It says nothing about race. It has been specifically set up to reveal no racial information whatsoever, in part so that the test would be consistently accurate irrespective of race.
But non-scientific considerations also factored into how the system was established. When the national DNA Advisory Board selected the gene markers, or DNA sequences which have a known location on a chromosome, for CODIS, they deliberately chose not to include markers associated with ancestral geographic origins to avoid any political maelstrom.
DNAWitness, the test Frudakis applied in the Baton Rouge case, uses a set of 176 genetic markers selected precisely because they disclose the most information about physical characteristics. Some are found primarily in people of African heritage, while others are found mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American or South Asian heritage.
No one sequence alone can predict ancestral origin. However, by looking collectively at hundreds and analyzing the frequency of the various markers, Frudakis says he could predict genetic ancestry with 99 percent accuracy.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all

Researchers are identifying genes that give rise to a person's physical traits, such as facial structure, skin color or even whether they are right- or left-handed. That could allow police to build a picture of what a criminal looks like not just from sometimes-fuzzy eyewitness accounts, but by analyzing DNA found at a crime scene.
Forensic experts are increasingly relying on DNA as "a genetic eyewitness," says Jack Ballantyne, associate director for research at the National Center for Forensic Science at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, who is studying whether a DNA sample can reveal a person's age. "We'd like to say if the DNA found on a bomb fragment comes from the young man who carried the bomb or from the wizened old mastermind who built it."
The push to predict physical features from genetic material is known as DNA forensic phenotyping, and it's already helped crack some difficult investigations. In 2004, police caught a Louisiana serial killer who eyewitnesses had suggested was white, but whose crime-scene DNA suggested -- correctly -- that he was black. Britain's forensic service uses a similar "ethnic inference" test to trace murderers and rapists.
In 2007, a DNA test based on 34 genetic biomarkers developed by Christopher Phillips, a forensic geneticist at the University of Santiago de Compostelo in Spain, indicated that one of the suspects associated with the Madrid bombings was of North African origin. His body was mostly destroyed in an explosion. Using other clues, police later confirmed he had been an Algerian, thereby validating the test results.
But the technique is still in early stages of development, and no one has developed a gene-based police sketch yet. There are big challenges. The technology currently has limited accuracy and can send law enforcement officials on the wrong track. It has also prompted ethical concerns.
For example, tests to assess a person's ethnic origin won't always work on people of mixed race. Other times, the conclusion can be ambiguous or unhelpful. "What does it mean to say that the DNA belongs to a 'light-skinned black man'? It's a subjective interpretation," says Pamela Sankar, who is teaches bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and has a National Institutes of Health grant to study societal implications of the new technology.
Worried about the ethical and social challenges, Germany doesn't permit the forensic use of DNA to infer ethnicity or physical traits. Nor do a handful of U.S. states, including Indiana, Wyoming and Rhode Island. The U.K. and the Netherlands allow it.
DNA-based racial profiling "has to be used carefully," especially in a diverse country like America, says Bert-Jaap Koops of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, who has studied the regulatory picture in different countries. "Some people could make connections between race, crime and genetic disposition" and thereby encourage stigmatization.
But scientists are working to overcome the deficiencies and say that more precise DNA tests for ethnicity and several physical traits are on the horizon.
For instance, Murray Brilliant, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, is developing a predictive test for skin, eye and hair color. Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, he and his colleagues recently analyzed DNA material provided by 1,000 university students from different ethnic backgrounds. They found a total of five genes that account for 76% of the variation for hair color, 75% for eye color and 46% for skin color.
Similarly, scientists from Erasmus University published a paper in March in the journal Current Biology based on a DNA analysis of 6,000 people in the Netherlands. For that population group, they found that only six DNA markers are needed to predict brown eye color with 93% accuracy and blue eye color with 91% accuracy.
Such studies bolster the case for devising a reliable DNA-based test for some physical characteristics. A person's hair color or skin tone can be relatively easy to predict because the identified genes have a fairly strong effect on the trait. However, it isn't quite so easy to make a useful prediction about traits such as height or body mass index. That's because many more genes are likely involved, with each making only a small contribution to the overall effect.
Dr. Ballantyne of the University of Central Florida can look at DNA and tell whether it comes from a newborn or a child that's a few months old. That's because some genes show different levels of activity at different stages of human development. But figuring out whether a piece of DNA has been shed at a crime scene by a 20-year-old, 40-year-old or 60-year-old -- a tool the police would clearly love to have -- is a much tougher problem and nowhere near being solved.
Similarly, height is a physical trait that's at least 80% heritable, yet no one has managed to develop a DNA-based test for it. A single gene has been associated with left- or right-handedness. But unlike many genes, examining this one in an adult can't help solve the lefty-righty question.
Mark Shriver, an anthropologist and geneticist at Pennsylvania State University, has also set himself a daunting challenge: Trying to construct a "picture" of a person's face by analyzing DNA. He calls the technique "forensic molecular photo fitting," and it is supported by a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice.
The notion isn't as crazy as it sounds. People look a lot like their parents, so it's clear that facial features are highly heritable. But how do you pinpoint the genes that underlie these facial features?
Prof. Shriver focused on 180 genes that have been previously linked to about 400 craniofacial abnormalities, such as cleft lip. He studied their rate of evolution, figuring that if a gene had led to different physical traits in populations -- such as shorter noses in one group, for example -- it would have evolved faster than other genes. These genes were likely to have been subject to sexual- or natural selection, and the traits associated with them would have been passed down through the generations.
His team collected DNA samples and photographs from 243 people, including many from the Penn State campus, and used computer techniques to correlate the genes with his subjects' facial features. They have found six genes that seem to influence such traits. One gene is associated with the height of the face; another is associated with its width. Yet another gene affects the shape of the lips and the nose. By piecing together these elements, Prof. Shriver hopes to create a modern-day version of the police artist sketch.
Because the world has so many different human populations -- and there is so much variation in their facial features -- a reliable test will require many more biomarkers. So the team has gotten additional samples from more than 3,500 people from around the world, including those in the U.S., Europe, Brazil and the Cape Verde Islands.
Prof. Shriver believes he may need samples from at least 8,000 people, including those from other populations, to develop a practical test for facial structure. He estimates it could cost $10 million and five years to get it done.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123810863649052551.html

We recently introduced DNAWitness™2.5 to the forensics market. Law enforcement officers use this testing service to determine genetic heritage from DNA samples obtained from crime scenes, narrowing the potential suspect pool to a more focused group of likely candidates. The test enables law enforcement agencies to reduce both the cost and time needed to apprehend suspects. Current forensic DNA products in the market act like a fingerprint and can only be used to match DNA specimens. DNAPrint® is the first forensic product that provides predictive capability. DNAWitness™ will provide the percentage of genetic makeup amongst the four possible groups of Sub-Saharan African, Native American, East Asian, and European. When appropriate, DNAWitness™ allows for a breakdown of the European ancestry into four components: Northwestern European, Southeastern European, Middle Eastern and South Asian. The names of the components/groups is meaningful but not exact, since they are cast in modern-day terminology but the assay is an anthropological one that reports affiliation with populations who share common ancestry extending back many thousands of years. The real value of the percentages reported are as population (rather than individual) bar-codes, which are very useful for inferring certain elements of physical appearance.
Initial DNAWitness™ 2.5 customers include medical examiner's offices, special task forces, sheriffs' departments, and district attorney's offices from various cities. These cities include the three largest U.S. metropolitan areas of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Initial response from preliminary application of this forensics version to various high profile criminal cases has been promising.
Derrick Todd Lee, the alleged Louisiana serial killer, was recently apprehended and has been convicted for first-degree murder and aggravated rape. The Louisiana Multi-Agency Homicide Task Force (including the Baton Rouge Police, the FBI and other agencies) had initially relied on faulty eye-witness testimony to develop a “Caucasian” description for the “person of interest”. DNAPrint® was hired to analyze the DNA evidence left at some of the crime scenes and determined that the suspect was 85% Sub-Saharan African and 15% Native American. Based upon these findings, the Task Force materially altered the focus of their investigation and included Derrick Todd Lee as a person of interest. ABC’s Prime Time Thursday recently featured DNAPrint® with a story detailing the role DNAWitness™ had in the resolution of this case. In addition, this case was featured in US News and World Report (June 23, 2003), the New York Times (June 3, 2003), Popular Science (December, 2003), and prior to the case, by CBS Evening News.
We have performed about 13,000 “blind” tests to date. For example, one west coast police department sent 16 samples collected from members of the department. The results were judged by them to be correct (consistent with phenotype and self-held notions of ancestry) for all 16 samples. Similarly, an east coast police department sent 20 blind samples and DNAPrint® accurately predicted the genetic heritage of all 20 people.
We introduced an expansion of DNAWitness™ 2.5 by bringing out EUROWitness™ 1.0 which breaks down the four major groupings of Sub Saharan African, Native American, East Asian and Indo-European provided a DNAWitness™ 2.5 test comes back with 50% or greater Indo-European, it is eligible for EUROWitness 1.0 that further refines the admixture to Northwest European, Southeastern European, Middle Eastern and South Asian.
We also in 2005 released our RETINOME™ assay. RETINOME™ provides a dramatic improvement in our ability to construct a physical portrait of a person of interest for a detective based on a DNA sample from a crime scene or remains of an individual. RETINOME™ allows us to infer eye (iris) color from DNA and this SNP based method for testing eye color is the first of its kind. The method employs proprietary computational methods and combines human pigmentation gene SNP combinations and ancestry informative markers to predict human eye color directly, accurately and sensitively. Validation experiments necessary to define the precise accuracy reveal that the inferences are correct about 92% of the time – performance that is quite respectable given the genetic complexity of iris coloration. We continue to work on hair color, skin pigmentation and other physical characteristics that scientists have or have not yet identified gene markers.
DNAPrint®’s portfolio of services will now include an array of presumptive tests that will help detectives tackle the nearly 1.2 million reported incidents of violent crime in the U.S. Statistics from the National Institutes of Justice and many local and state agencies generally report that only about 50% result in an arrest, and only a small percentage of those result in a criminal conviction. In violent crimes, DNA evidence is left at a crime scene or on a victim’s body in the vast majority of cases. Most investigators highly value physical descriptions of individuals or persons of interest obtained from human eye-witnesses. However, as the Louisiana case illustrates, eye-witnesses can be mistaken, and sometimes they are subjective, inaccurate or sometimes intentionally misleading, generally however most eye witnesses try to accurately report what they have seen. Unfortunately, sometimes several people at a crime scene will report conflicting descriptions. Detectives can corroborate eyewitness reports or perhaps even change the direction of an investigation despite eyewitness reports based on our analysis of the DNA.
DNAWitness™ provides a “molecular” eye-witness that is more scientific because it is a quantitative analysis of inherited genetic markers. Moreover, DNA is more readily available from most crime scenes. As we continue our research, we intend to develop additional assays that address other inherited traits that bear on physical appearance. The idea is to provide a drivers license for each person of interest from a crime scene analysis, with as many of the physical descriptors as possible (minus their name and address of course).
Hundreds of thousands of rape-kits sit on shelves of investigative agencies around the country. For how many of them would accurate physical descriptions be useful in a more timely apprehension? In addition, there is a recent trend in the legal system to retroactively test DNA evidence left at crime scenes to substantiate or invalidate the previous legal defenses of incarcerated individuals. DNAPrint®'s technology could be used to screen the DNA samples and categorize them. For example, if the results of DNAPrint®'s testing shows that the DNA from the crime scene belongs to a an European individual and the incarcerated individual is an African American, that DNA would have priority for the more laborious and time-consuming STR testing because the likelihood of vindication is high. In recent years there have been more than 130 exonerations of previously convicted individuals based on DNA evidence. With the use of DNAPrint®'s DNAWitness™ 2.5, the length of wrongful incarceration for innocent individuals could be shortened.
In absence of and as confirmation to human witness, law enforcement officials and medical examiners using DNAWitness™ 2.5 have the capability to construct a physical description of the person of interest and narrow the field of investigation, saving time and money. By narrowing the list of possible interviews to those fitting a specific physical description, law enforcement officers can substantially reduce the amount of time and cost involved in apprehending crime suspects. To date, DNAWitness™ has been used in over 90 criminal investigations. The validation results are available on CD-ROM by request.
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/productsandservices/forensics/

Boulder LE has used this technology in the Susannah Chase case.
Boulder investigators learned in 2004 that the suspect could be Hispanic or Native American after sending the DNA specimen from Chase's body to DNAPrint Genomics in Florida.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/28/dna-match-made-a-decade-later/

More on the Susannah Chase case in the post below.

 

[cynic]

It’s clear that Diego Olmos Alcalde is guilty with respect to the charges against him in the Susannah Chase case; however, it is interesting to note that, once again, “unidentified DNA” was found and proven to be unrelated to the perpetrator of the crime.
“Unidentified DNA” was found in the cervix of Susannah Chase as well as on the murder weapon.
Alcade’s DNA was not found on the murder weapon, although his girlfriend’s DNA was found, secondary transfer perhaps?

DNA on a baseball bat used to kill a University of Colorado student in 1997 has been linked to the slaying suspect's girlfriend, according to a published report.
DNA collected from the body of Susannah Chase already linked Diego Olmos Alcalde to her, but the new DNA evidence shows Alcalde had access to the weapon, the Daily Camera reported Thursday.
Alcalde's former girlfriend consented to provide DNA to investigators, the newspaper reported.
The former girlfriend, identified in court documents as Sonci Frances, has been ruled out as a suspect in the Chase killing because she was not in Colorado at the time of the slaying.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19136297/detail.html

Defense attorney Steven Jacobson vigorously questioned the testing methods used and choices made by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation on the Susannah Chase case Friday afternoon.
In particular, he challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt on his decision not to tell police or put in his 2002 report that he had found on the baseball bat handle a sample of male DNA that didn't match his client, Diego Olmos Alcalde.
Jacoboson chided Arndt for not submitting the profile -- which was a weaker profile to a female DNA profile found on the bat -- to the nationwide DNA criminal database for comparison to crime scene evidence.
"Nothing happened about anyone analyzing that male on the bat and putting him the database?" Jacobson asked.
Arndt said his agency didn't go back in later years to put the profile in the database, even as DNA analysis techniques improved.
"It could have happened in 2005, but it did not," Arndt said.
Jacobson asked him if it wasn't true that the profile was only submitted to the criminal DNA database earlier this year after he visited CBI to ask about it.
Arndt said that was true.
Jacobson also asked Arndt if solid DNA profiles might not have been lifted from the many cigarette butts that were found in the crime scene by police.
Arndt said 90 percent of the time DNA profiles can be successfully recovered from smoked cigarettes.
Defense attorney Steven Jacobson challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt during cross-examination Friday afternoon.
He asked Arndt if DNA breaks down over time, to a point where a good profile can no longer be identified.
Arndt said that's true.
Jacobson noted that Arndt was doing tests on the baseball bat handle in 2002 -- five years after Susannah Chase was attacked.
The lawyer also challenged Arndt on how possible it is to tell when DNA was left.
"You can't say anything about the time frame when the DNA was deposited based on your lab work," he asked.
"That is correct," Arndt said.
Testimony went into detailed discussion about DNA analysis this afternoon, with prosecutor Ryan Brackley putting on display a variety of charts showing regions of DNA strands and what they reveal about genetic material recovered on the baseball bat found at the crime scene.
Ronald Arndt, a DNA specialist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, testified that he used the new touch DNA extraction method in 2002 in an attempt to recover a DNA profile from the bat handle.
He said he managed to find a major profile, which belonged to a female, and a minor profile, which belonged to a male. Arndt told the jury he was unable to match the profiles to any known person.
He also said he developed a DNA profile from a swab taken from Susannah Chase's cervix. He said he found a mix of Chase's DNA and that of an unknown male from that swab.
Again, he told the jury, he was unable to match the unknown sample to an identifiable person.
The CBI agent who did DNA analysis on the evidence in the Susannah Chase murder case said he didn't find any semen in Chase's underpants or jeans.
Ronald Arndt, the agent-in-charge of the agency's biological science unit, said investigators will often find traces of semen in the underwear of a woman who recently had sexual intercourse, due to "drainage" of seminal fluid on to the underpants.
Prosecutor Ryan Brackley asked Arndt if it's possible there wouldn't be evidence of semen drainage if the woman was lying down or her underwear was not in contact with her crotch.
Arndt said that was possible.
The agent then testified that from the sexual assault evidence kit collected from Chase -- which included swabs taken from her vagina and cervix -- he found a heavier concentration of sperm in Chase's vagina than in her cervix.
When Brackley asked him what that meant in terms of when intercourse might have taken place, Arndt said it indicated that intercourse likely happened more recently because the bulk of the sperm hadn't yet migrated toward the uterus.
He didn't provide a specific estimate of when intercourse may have taken place.
The argument over the age of the seminal fluid found inside Chase is critical in the case, with the prosecution claiming that Diego Alcalde raped Chase the night he attacked her while the defense has hinted that its client may have had consensual sex with Chase days before the attack.
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13125712
also…
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_12962999

A man accused of beating and raping a University of Colorado student in 1997 was found guilty on all counts Friday afternoon, ending her family's 12-year quest for answers.
Diego Olmos Alcalde, 39, was found guilty of first-degree murder, sexual assault and kidnapping in the death of 23-year-old Susannah Chase.
Prosecutors said Olmos Alcalde's DNA was found inside Chase and that DNA on a baseball bat from Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend links the Chilean native to the murder.
Defense attorneys argued prosecutors failed to pursue other suspects. They also said Olmos Alcalde had consensual sex with Chase, which explains why his DNA was on her body.
Prosecutors said the claim that the sex was consensual is "preposterous." After the verdict, prosecutor Amy Okubo said it was an argument that the jury flatly rejected. "Their verdict made it clear that that would not be a possibility," she said.
Olmos Alcalde was linked to the cold case last year through a DNA sample taken from him after he was convicted in Wyoming for kidnapping.
"The defendant would like you to believe that he was Romeo out there, suave," prosecutor Amy Okubo told jurors before they were given the case. Okubo said it was unlikely that Chase would have met Olmos Alcalde and had sex with him, since she had spent the last three days of her life attending a graduation ceremony, buying Christmas presents and spending the night at a hotel with her boyfriend and his family.
Okubo said Chase wasn't a reckless woman who would have random sex with someone.
Prosecutors said the murder weapon, a child-size baseball bat, belonged to Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend. They said the ex-girlfriend's DNA was found on the bat, linking Olmos Alcalde to the beginning and end of the crime.
Defense attorneys had argued that partial fingerprints and the DNA profile of another male also were found on the bat handle, suggesting that the real killer was still on the loose.
Okubo said investigators have checked the DNA profile with a national database and came up with no suspects, and that the other set of DNA likely came from a child.
"The defendant wants you to believe astronomical coincidences are out there," she said. "That the bat directly connected to... the defendant's girlfriend was used by some unknown person to kill Susannah Chase. That's impossible. It's preposterous."
Defense attorney Mary Claire Mulligan said nurses and doctors who treated Chase indicated at the time that there was no evidence of sexual assault. She also told jurors that Chase's jeans had no blood on them, despite the bloodiness of the crime scene and prosecutors' allegation that the assailant put the woman's jeans on Chase's body after the sexual assault.
"They assumed that whoever had sex with her must have killed her, so they focused on that and they put on blinders to everything else," Mulligan told jurors.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19870284/detail.html

 

[cynic]

I am going to tackle the fiber evidence next.

whew. See ya'll in about a week maybe?

How is your look at the fiber evidence going?

 

[MurriFlower]

It’s clear that Diego Olmos Alcalde is guilty with respect to the charges against him in the Susannah Chase case; however, it is interesting to note that, once again, “unidentified DNA” was found and proven to be unrelated to the perpetrator of the crime.
“Unidentified DNA” was found in the cervix of Susannah Chase as well as on the murder weapon.
Alcade’s DNA was not found on the murder weapon, although his girlfriend’s DNA was found, secondary transfer perhaps?

DNA on a baseball bat used to kill a University of Colorado student in 1997 has been linked to the slaying suspect's girlfriend, according to a published report.
DNA collected from the body of Susannah Chase already linked Diego Olmos Alcalde to her, but the new DNA evidence shows Alcalde had access to the weapon, the Daily Camera reported Thursday.
Alcalde's former girlfriend consented to provide DNA to investigators, the newspaper reported.
The former girlfriend, identified in court documents as Sonci Frances, has been ruled out as a suspect in the Chase killing because she was not in Colorado at the time of the slaying.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19136297/detail.html

Defense attorney Steven Jacobson vigorously questioned the testing methods used and choices made by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation on the Susannah Chase case Friday afternoon.
In particular, he challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt on his decision not to tell police or put in his 2002 report that he had found on the baseball bat handle a sample of male DNA that didn't match his client, Diego Olmos Alcalde.
Jacoboson chided Arndt for not submitting the profile -- which was a weaker profile to a female DNA profile found on the bat -- to the nationwide DNA criminal database for comparison to crime scene evidence.
"Nothing happened about anyone analyzing that male on the bat and putting him the database?" Jacobson asked.
Arndt said his agency didn't go back in later years to put the profile in the database, even as DNA analysis techniques improved.
"It could have happened in 2005, but it did not," Arndt said.
Jacobson asked him if it wasn't true that the profile was only submitted to the criminal DNA database earlier this year after he visited CBI to ask about it.
Arndt said that was true.
Jacobson also asked Arndt if solid DNA profiles might not have been lifted from the many cigarette butts that were found in the crime scene by police.
Arndt said 90 percent of the time DNA profiles can be successfully recovered from smoked cigarettes.
Defense attorney Steven Jacobson challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt during cross-examination Friday afternoon.
He asked Arndt if DNA breaks down over time, to a point where a good profile can no longer be identified.
Arndt said that's true.
Jacobson noted that Arndt was doing tests on the baseball bat handle in 2002 -- five years after Susannah Chase was attacked.
The lawyer also challenged Arndt on how possible it is to tell when DNA was left.
"You can't say anything about the time frame when the DNA was deposited based on your lab work," he asked.
"That is correct," Arndt said.
Testimony went into detailed discussion about DNA analysis this afternoon, with prosecutor Ryan Brackley putting on display a variety of charts showing regions of DNA strands and what they reveal about genetic material recovered on the baseball bat found at the crime scene.
Ronald Arndt, a DNA specialist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, testified that he used the new touch DNA extraction method in 2002 in an attempt to recover a DNA profile from the bat handle.
He said he managed to find a major profile, which belonged to a female, and a minor profile, which belonged to a male. Arndt told the jury he was unable to match the profiles to any known person.
He also said he developed a DNA profile from a swab taken from Susannah Chase's cervix. He said he found a mix of Chase's DNA and that of an unknown male from that swab.
Again, he told the jury, he was unable to match the unknown sample to an identifiable person.
The CBI agent who did DNA analysis on the evidence in the Susannah Chase murder case said he didn't find any semen in Chase's underpants or jeans.
Ronald Arndt, the agent-in-charge of the agency's biological science unit, said investigators will often find traces of semen in the underwear of a woman who recently had sexual intercourse, due to "drainage" of seminal fluid on to the underpants.
Prosecutor Ryan Brackley asked Arndt if it's possible there wouldn't be evidence of semen drainage if the woman was lying down or her underwear was not in contact with her crotch.
Arndt said that was possible.
The agent then testified that from the sexual assault evidence kit collected from Chase -- which included swabs taken from her vagina and cervix -- he found a heavier concentration of sperm in Chase's vagina than in her cervix.
When Brackley asked him what that meant in terms of when intercourse might have taken place, Arndt said it indicated that intercourse likely happened more recently because the bulk of the sperm hadn't yet migrated toward the uterus.
He didn't provide a specific estimate of when intercourse may have taken place.
The argument over the age of the seminal fluid found inside Chase is critical in the case, with the prosecution claiming that Diego Alcalde raped Chase the night he attacked her while the defense has hinted that its client may have had consensual sex with Chase days before the attack.
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13125712
also…
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_12962999

A man accused of beating and raping a University of Colorado student in 1997 was found guilty on all counts Friday afternoon, ending her family's 12-year quest for answers.
Diego Olmos Alcalde, 39, was found guilty of first-degree murder, sexual assault and kidnapping in the death of 23-year-old Susannah Chase.
Prosecutors said Olmos Alcalde's DNA was found inside Chase and that DNA on a baseball bat from Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend links the Chilean native to the murder.
Defense attorneys argued prosecutors failed to pursue other suspects. They also said Olmos Alcalde had consensual sex with Chase, which explains why his DNA was on her body.
Prosecutors said the claim that the sex was consensual is "preposterous." After the verdict, prosecutor Amy Okubo said it was an argument that the jury flatly rejected. "Their verdict made it clear that that would not be a possibility," she said.
Olmos Alcalde was linked to the cold case last year through a DNA sample taken from him after he was convicted in Wyoming for kidnapping.
"The defendant would like you to believe that he was Romeo out there, suave," prosecutor Amy Okubo told jurors before they were given the case. Okubo said it was unlikely that Chase would have met Olmos Alcalde and had sex with him, since she had spent the last three days of her life attending a graduation ceremony, buying Christmas presents and spending the night at a hotel with her boyfriend and his family.
Okubo said Chase wasn't a reckless woman who would have random sex with someone.
Prosecutors said the murder weapon, a child-size baseball bat, belonged to Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend. They said the ex-girlfriend's DNA was found on the bat, linking Olmos Alcalde to the beginning and end of the crime.
Defense attorneys had argued that partial fingerprints and the DNA profile of another male also were found on the bat handle, suggesting that the real killer was still on the loose.
Okubo said investigators have checked the DNA profile with a national database and came up with no suspects, and that the other set of DNA likely came from a child.
"The defendant wants you to believe astronomical coincidences are out there," she said. "That the bat directly connected to... the defendant's girlfriend was used by some unknown person to kill Susannah Chase. That's impossible. It's preposterous."
Defense attorney Mary Claire Mulligan said nurses and doctors who treated Chase indicated at the time that there was no evidence of sexual assault. She also told jurors that Chase's jeans had no blood on them, despite the bloodiness of the crime scene and prosecutors' allegation that the assailant put the woman's jeans on Chase's body after the sexual assault.
"They assumed that whoever had sex with her must have killed her, so they focused on that and they put on blinders to everything else," Mulligan told jurors.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19870284/detail.html

Ok, well it appears there is still a chance that the ethnicity of this person will be determined, if not at present, then at some time in the future. Thanks for this cynic.

Edited to Add:

Just on DNA testing in this case. If the DNA profile found on the longjohns was compared with CODIS, would this profile stay on the file? What I'm wondering is, if it was tested in 2000 for example and no match was found, and the perp was arrested subsequently, would there be a 'hit' or does the profile need to be re-submitted intermittently to pick up matching profiles from newly added DNA?

 

[joeskidbeck]

Ok, well it appears there is still a chance that the ethnicity of this person will be determined, if not at present, then at some time in the future. Thanks for this cynic.

Edited to Add:

Just on DNA testing in this case. If the DNA profile found on the longjohns was compared with CODIS, would this profile stay on the file? What I'm wondering is, if it was tested in 2000 for example and no match was found, and the perp was arrested subsequently, would there be a 'hit' or does the profile need to be re-submitted intermittently to pick up matching profiles from newly added DNA?

It would stay in Codis and if a suspects DNA was entered that matched there would be a hit. This has solved a lot of cases in the past. Especially cases of rape.

 

[cynic]

Ok, well it appears there is still a chance that the ethnicity of this person will be determined, if not at present, then at some time in the future. Thanks for this cynic.

You’re welcome.
I must admit that this area of DNA research interests me greatly, and I believe it shows tremendous promise for helping law enforcement in their investigations.

Edited to Add:

Just on DNA testing in this case. If the DNA profile found on the longjohns was compared with CODIS, would this profile stay on the file? What I'm wondering is, if it was tested in 2000 for example and no match was found, and the perp was arrested subsequently, would there be a 'hit' or does the profile need to be re-submitted intermittently to pick up matching profiles from newly added DNA?

As Beck said in the post above, the original DNA profile would remain and all subsequent additions to CODIS would automatically be compared to that profile.

Some more information on CODIS is below.

The four primary functions of the current CODIS software are:
• DNA profile entry and management: deals with the database DNA profiles.
• Searching: allows a search of database DNA profiles.
• Match management: manages search results. For example, it allows a laboratory to record and distinguish whether a particular match is an offender hit or a forensic hit, and whether the match is within or outside of the state.
• Statistical calculations: enables laboratory personnel to calculate profile statistics, based on the laboratory's or FBI's population frequency data .

CODIS has a three-tiered hierarchical structure. DNA information originates at the local level (LDIS, Local DNA Index System), where biological samples are taken at police departments and sheriffs' offices. Data from the LDIS then flows into the state (SDIS, State DNA Index System) and the national (NDIS, National DNA Index System) databases. SDIS provides a means for local crime labs within a state to exchange information. The NDIS allows for the exchange of DNA profiles on the broadest scale at the national level. The hierarchical nature of CODIS allows investigators to use their databases according to the specific laws under which they operate.
CODIS does not store: Criminal history information, DOB, Case related information, Social Security #’s

Three levels:
• National DNA Index System (NDIS)
Operated by the FBI maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from casework, arrestees and convicted offenders
Data submitted from each state is searched against each other potential matches are returned to the corresponding lab, victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed

• State DNA Index System (SDIS)
Processes and enters arrestee and convicted offender samples, Victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed.
Provides a liaison between the local labs and NDIS
Maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from the local labs and the state lab
Searches the local labs and state data against each other
Potential matches are returned back to the corresponding lab
(While each state has its own laws concerning the collection of DNA and its expungement upon acquittal, there are some universal rules for states wanting to contribute to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). This includes a requirement that records of the innocent must be expunged. However, only 43% of states that collect DNA samples automatically expunge the data upon acquittal. In most states the suspect must request that their record be expunged from the database.)

• Local DNA Index System (LDIS)
Submits acceptable DNA profiles to SDIS
Suspect profiles are/not allowed (depends on each jurisdiction)
Victim and exclusionary samples are/are not allowed (depends on law)
Searches against itself

CODIS Indices:
• Convicted offender/arrestee
• Forensic/Crime scene
• Relatives of missing persons
• Missing persons
• Unidentified human remains

The Forensic Index contains DNA information from the crime scene, including DNA information found on the victim. The Offender Index contains DNA profiles of convicted felons. Most states require all people convicted of sexual offenses, as well as many convicted of violent crimes, to provide genetic information to CODIS.
Some legal scholars say that the collection of DNA from arrestees violates the U.S. Constitution because only the convicted have forfeited their rights to privacy.
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,649,605 offender profiles and 328,067 forensic profiles as of July 2010.
In addition, CODIS contains ancillary information that provides additional information for investigators to use in order to solve crimes. One index catalogues information collected from unidentified human remains and another collects DNA profiles voluntarily donated by the relatives of missing persons. CODIS also includes a population file consisting of anonymously donated DNA profiles. This file is used to quantify the statistical significance of a match.

Search Frequency:
• NDIS
– Weekly (Monday)
• SDIS
– Weekly (day varies)
(Missing Persons (NDIS)
– monthly)

CODIS has a matching algorithm that searches the various indexes against one another. For solving a homicide, for example, CODIS searches the Forensic Index against itself and against the Offender Index. A Forensic to Forensic match provides an investigative lead that connects two or more previously unlinked cases possibly identifying serial offenders. Police can coordinate separate investigations and share leads.
Matches made between the forensic and offender indexes ultimately provide the investigator(s) with a potential suspect for an otherwise unsolved case. It is important to note that the CODIS matching algorithm only produces a list of candidate matches. Each candidate match is confirmed or refuted by a qualified DNA analyst.

 

[MurriFlower]

You’re welcome.
I must admit that this area of DNA research interests me greatly, and I believe it shows tremendous promise for helping law enforcement in their investigations.
As Beck said in the post above, the original DNA profile would remain and all subsequent additions to CODIS would automatically be compared to that profile.

Some more information on CODIS is below.

The four primary functions of the current CODIS software are:
• DNA profile entry and management: deals with the database DNA profiles.
• Searching: allows a search of database DNA profiles.
• Match management: manages search results. For example, it allows a laboratory to record and distinguish whether a particular match is an offender hit or a forensic hit, and whether the match is within or outside of the state.
• Statistical calculations: enables laboratory personnel to calculate profile statistics, based on the laboratory's or FBI's population frequency data .

CODIS has a three-tiered hierarchical structure. DNA information originates at the local level (LDIS, Local DNA Index System), where biological samples are taken at police departments and sheriffs' offices. Data from the LDIS then flows into the state (SDIS, State DNA Index System) and the national (NDIS, National DNA Index System) databases. SDIS provides a means for local crime labs within a state to exchange information. The NDIS allows for the exchange of DNA profiles on the broadest scale at the national level. The hierarchical nature of CODIS allows investigators to use their databases according to the specific laws under which they operate.
CODIS does not store: Criminal history information, DOB, Case related information, Social Security #’s

Three levels:
• National DNA Index System (NDIS)
Operated by the FBI maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from casework, arrestees and convicted offenders
Data submitted from each state is searched against each other potential matches are returned to the corresponding lab, victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed

• State DNA Index System (SDIS)
Processes and enters arrestee and convicted offender samples, Victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed.
Provides a liaison between the local labs and NDIS
Maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from the local labs and the state lab
Searches the local labs and state data against each other
Potential matches are returned back to the corresponding lab
(While each state has its own laws concerning the collection of DNA and its expungement upon acquittal, there are some universal rules for states wanting to contribute to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). This includes a requirement that records of the innocent must be expunged. However, only 43% of states that collect DNA samples automatically expunge the data upon acquittal. In most states the suspect must request that their record be expunged from the database.)

• Local DNA Index System (LDIS)
Submits acceptable DNA profiles to SDIS
Suspect profiles are/not allowed (depends on each jurisdiction)
Victim and exclusionary samples are/are not allowed (depends on law)
Searches against itself

CODIS Indices:
• Convicted offender/arrestee
• Forensic/Crime scene
• Relatives of missing persons
• Missing persons
• Unidentified human remains

The Forensic Index contains DNA information from the crime scene, including DNA information found on the victim. The Offender Index contains DNA profiles of convicted felons. Most states require all people convicted of sexual offenses, as well as many convicted of violent crimes, to provide genetic information to CODIS.
Some legal scholars say that the collection of DNA from arrestees violates the U.S. Constitution because only the convicted have forfeited their rights to privacy.
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,649,605 offender profiles and 328,067 forensic profiles as of July 2010.
In addition, CODIS contains ancillary information that provides additional information for investigators to use in order to solve crimes. One index catalogues information collected from unidentified human remains and another collects DNA profiles voluntarily donated by the relatives of missing persons. CODIS also includes a population file consisting of anonymously donated DNA profiles. This file is used to quantify the statistical significance of a match.

Search Frequency:
• NDIS
– Weekly (Monday)
• SDIS
– Weekly (day varies)
(Missing Persons (NDIS)
– monthly)

CODIS has a matching algorithm that searches the various indexes against one another. For solving a homicide, for example, CODIS searches the Forensic Index against itself and against the Offender Index. A Forensic to Forensic match provides an investigative lead that connects two or more previously unlinked cases possibly identifying serial offenders. Police can coordinate separate investigations and share leads.
Matches made between the forensic and offender indexes ultimately provide the investigator(s) with a potential suspect for an otherwise unsolved case. It is important to note that the CODIS matching algorithm only produces a list of candidate matches. Each candidate match is confirmed or refuted by a qualified DNA analyst.

Are there any States that do not collect DNA from convicted criminals, or are there any classes of criminals (political for example) who do not have DNA taken?

 

[CathyR]

Ok after reading this thread I have come to some conclusions.

DNA belonging to a male was found along the waistband of JB's longjohns. Inside the band and outside the band. The same DNA was found inside the panties.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Debates about LPH- isn't that a female, I am just getting use to all the initials here.
It wouldn't be off base to think all females have been eliminated as the DNA belongs to a male.

 

[DeeDee249]

Ok after reading this thread I have come to some conclusions.

DNA belonging to a male was found along the waistband of JB's longjohns. Inside the band and outside the band. The same DNA was found inside the panties.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Debates about LPH- isn't that a female, I am just getting use to all the initials here.
It wouldn't be off base to think all females have been eliminated as the DNA belongs to a male.

LHP is a female. She was Patsy's housekeeper and she came to the house three times a week. The DNA cannot belong to her because it is male DNA. I believe LHP (and some of her family?) gave DNA samples.
Cynic, you're the DNA expert here. If they had LHP's DNA, could they tell if the male DNA was related to her?

 

[cynic]

Are there any States that do not collect DNA from convicted criminals?

No.

The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 limited compulsory extraction of DNA to people who had been convicted of a “qualifying federal offense.” Under the original act, “qualifying federal offenses” included limited but selected felonies, such as murder, kidnapping, and sexual exploitation.
After September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the “qualifying federal offense” definition to include terrorism-related crimes. In 2004, the Justice for All Act further extended the definition.
With regard to federal offenses for which DNA profiles may be obtained and entered into CODIS, the category has been expanded, but a conviction remains a prerequisite to entry into the DNA database. Qualifying federal offenses now include any felony, crimes of sexual abuse, any crime of violence, as well as any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses. Qualifying military offenses formerly limited to felony or sex offenses, now include any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for which a sentence of confinement for more than one year may be imposed.
The statute also requires that each state that includes arrestee profiles in their DNA database “shall promptly expunge” from CODIS the DNA analysis of the arrestee who has not been convicted of the crime and the charges have been dismissed or an acquittal entered.
In April 2008 the Department of Justice published a proposed rule directing certain U.S. law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under U.S. authority.
The 109th Congress authorized the Attorney General, in his discretion, to require compulsory DNA collection from people who have been detained or arrested but not convicted on criminal charges. Specifically, the DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005 authorized collection “from individuals who are arrested or from non-U.S. persons who are detained under the authority of the United States.”
Similarly, when Congress renewed the Violence Against Women Act in 2006, it included an amendment that authorizes federal officials to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested and from non-United States persons detained under U.S. authority. (Non-United States persons are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent resident aliens.)
The U.S. Department of Justice implemented this authorization in December 2008; beginning January, 9 2009, its rule requires U.S. agencies to collect DNA samples from “individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under authority of the United States.”

All 50 states require that convicted sex offenders provide a DNA sample, and states are increasingly expanding these policies to include all felons and some misdemeanor To date, 48 states require that all convicted felons provide a DNA sample to the state’s database.

New Hampshire and Idaho are the holdouts.
New Hampshire law requires DNA collection from those convicted of homicide, negligent homicide, first- and second-degree assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, arson, burglary and robbery.
Similarly, in Idaho, only those convicted of certain felonies - mostly violent crimes and sexual offenses - have their DNA submitted to CODIS.

At least 15 states to date include certain misdemeanors among those who must provide a DNA sample. Some are misdemeanors for which sex offender registration is required; other states specify certain sex offenses or child victim offenses.
By 2009, 21 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas Vermont and Virginia, had passed laws authorizing DNA samples of certain arrestees; seven were passed in 2009 including Arkansas and Vermont, among others. Arkansas’s qualifying offenses are murder and sex crime arrests. The Texas law allows post-indictment samples of certain sex offenders. Minnesota's similarly requires a DNA sample after probable cause determination in a charge of one of many serious felonies. California’s Proposition 69, approved by voters on November 2, 2004, requires DNA samples of adults arrested for or charged with a felony sex offense, murder or voluntary manslaughter, or attempt of these crimes. Starting in 2009, the measure requires arrestee sampling be expanded to arrests for any felony offense. The same measure expanded DNA testing to all convicted felons. Kansas added the requirement that felony or drug sentencing guidelines grid level 1 or 2 crime arrestees provide a DNA sample in its law; and expanded in mid-2008 to all felony arrestees. New Mexico’s law also enacted arrestee samples from specified violent felons.

Are there any classes of criminals (political for example) who do not have DNA taken?

To the best of my knowledge, no; however, backroom political and/or intelligence community deals are a possibility, I suppose.