DNA Revisited

[cynic]

If they had LHP's DNA, could they tell if the male DNA was related to her?

Closely related family members will often have a high level of matching CODIS markers.
If this was the case with the crime scene DNA and LHP, LE would likely have investigated further.

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Familial DNA searches, although controversial have been used, and are being used by law enforcement.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown approved the use of familial DNA searches in that state in 2008, the first state to do so. Since then, authorities in the state have used the technique 10 times. Other states have tacitly allowed the procedure, without having any regulation or even formal policy in place to govern its use.
The United States isn’t the first to use the technique, however. Britain has conducted familial DNA searches 70 times since 2004, yielding 18 matches and 13 convictions, according to Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at Georgetown University Law School, who spoke with CNN.
In one case, British authorities tracked down a serial rapist using the technique. The culprit, who became known as the shoe rapist because police say he stole and kept his victims’ shoes, was caught after authorities matched crime-scene DNA with DNA from the suspect’s sister, who was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/dna-database/

A quarter-century of conventional detective work failed to track down the killer responsible for the deaths of at least 10 young women in south Los Angeles dating back to the mid-1980s. But a discarded piece of pizza and a relatively new method of DNA testing has finally cracked the case, police announced last week. On 7 July, L.A. police arrested Lonnie Franklin Jr., 57, a former garage attendant and sanitation worker they suspect is the serial killer nicknamed the "Grim Sleeper."
Since 2008, California has allowed so-called familial DNA searches, in which investigators look for close-but-not-exact matches between DNA evidence collected at crime scenes and the state's data bank of DNA collected from 1.3 million convicted felons. The method has a longer history in the United Kingdom, where it led to a conviction in a murder case in 2004. In Colorado, the only other U.S. state to allow it, the method led to a guilty plea in a car-theft case in Denver last year.
On Friday, ScienceInsider spoke with two scientists involved with the DNA search, senior criminalist Steven Myers and case-work laboratory manager Gary Sims, both based at the Jan Bashinski DNA Laboratory in Richmond, California. They explained that the searches initially focus on 15 regions of DNA on 13 chromosomes. These include the 13 regions used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and two additional regions used in California. All of these regions contain genetic stutters called short tandem repeats, in which a pattern of base pairs repeats itself over and over. The number of repeats varies from person to person, and two people who are related are likely to have the same number of repeats at more of these sites. The lab's analysis also considers how frequently a given variation occurs in the general population: two people who share a rare variation are more likely to be related than are two people who share a common one.
Sims and Myers explained that the lab's software uses this information to generate a ranked list of the convicted felons in the DNA database who are most likely to be first-order relatives—parents, children, or full siblings—of the person a DNA sample came from. (The statistics aren't strong enough to identify more distant relatives, they say.) When both individuals in question are male, the lab also looks at a similar number of short tandem repeats on the Y chromosome, which should be an exact match between fathers and sons and between full brothers.
California allows familial DNA searches only for violent crimes in which the perpetrator is still believed to be a danger to society. Sims and Myers say they have run 10 searches so far. The first nine came up empty, including a 2008 search with DNA evidence from the Grim Sleeper crime scene. "We did not find anybody in the database who we thought was a potential relative," says Sims.
However, a second search in April 2010 did turn up a potential match: a young man named Christopher Franklin who was convicted last year on a felony weapons charge. The DNA search, along with the dates of the murders cast suspicion on Christopher Franklin's father. After an internal review of the evidence, investigators at the Bashinski lab notified the L.A. police, who followed the elder Franklin and eventually got a DNA sample from a discarded piece of pizza. Lonnie Franklin's DNA matched DNA from the crime scenes, and police arrested him at his home last week.
Although it remains to be seen whether Franklin will be convicted, Sims says the lab is proud of its work. "To put this whole thing together ... and see it pay off is very gratifying," he says. "Nobody popped champagne bottles or anything like that, but we all feel like we earned our pay."
The apparent success of familial DNA testing in such a high-profile case may encourage other states to adopt it, but civil-liberties groups and some legal scholars have concerns about privacy and ethics issues. Stanford Law School professor Hank Greely is concerned about what he sees as a high likelihood of false-positive tests. In a database with DNA from a million or more individuals, several hundred people might have a close enough match on the CODIS markers to suggest a blood relationship, Greely estimates. If those matches result in false accusations, the burden of being falsely accused would fall disproportionately to African-Americans, who are overrepresented in the U.S. prison population. "It does raise some concerns about discrimination," he says. Even so, Greely says California's requirement for Y chromosome testing is a good safeguard. "Unlike some folks, I'm not opposed to the technique and especially not to its use in this case," he says.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/scientists-explain-how-familial.html

 

[tragco]

How is your look at the fiber evidence going?

Thanks for asking, very sweet! Well, I looked for a specific fiber thread, fibers are mentioned all over the place here Patsy's fibers all wound up in the garrotte? No way that could happen by her just throwing herself on top of JonBenet after she was dead. Possibly a fiber of John's found in the crotch of her panties??? OMG. Also want to know if she was wiped down where did those fibers come from.

I also am getting sidetracked, too... I will read something interesting about the rope or whatever and start to look into that. The fiber evidence is very damning from what I have read.. but some of the evidence is just word of mouth so I don't know if it's factual.

It took the Ramseys 1 year to give the police their clothing. That looks guilty.

The only thing I have heard about some intruder/third party fibers is that some sort of brown fiber cannot be matched.

What I have decided, though, is that the case evidence was not butchered (relative gets to dress up like a cop and take whatever she wants), lost, misused, not asked for (phone records?), solely or even mainly due to ineptitude of the police department.

The reason this case was never looked at closely and never solved is because of one thing only: MONEY. The money and power those two had in the community. What power they didn't have, they bought- in the form of attorneys with connections. It makes me sick.

 

[DeeDee249]

The brown fiber (also described as tan) could not be matched because it probably came from the American Girl doll that went missing and then mysteriously replaced by an anonymous person who sent it to JR's office after her death. Those dolls have different complexions; some are darker-skinned than others. And I think most men would describe them all as "brown".

 

[Tadpole12]

Closely related family members will often have a high level of matching CODIS markers.
If this was the case with the crime scene DNA and LHP, LE would likely have investigated further.

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Familial DNA searches, although controversial have been used, and are being used by law enforcement.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown approved the use of familial DNA searches in that state in 2008, the first state to do so. Since then, authorities in the state have used the technique 10 times. Other states have tacitly allowed the procedure, without having any regulation or even formal policy in place to govern its use.
The United States isn’t the first to use the technique, however. Britain has conducted familial DNA searches 70 times since 2004, yielding 18 matches and 13 convictions, according to Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at Georgetown University Law School, who spoke with CNN.
In one case, British authorities tracked down a serial rapist using the technique. The culprit, who became known as the shoe rapist because police say he stole and kept his victims’ shoes, was caught after authorities matched crime-scene DNA with DNA from the suspect’s sister, who was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/dna-database/

A quarter-century of conventional detective work failed to track down the killer responsible for the deaths of at least 10 young women in south Los Angeles dating back to the mid-1980s. But a discarded piece of pizza and a relatively new method of DNA testing has finally cracked the case, police announced last week. On 7 July, L.A. police arrested Lonnie Franklin Jr., 57, a former garage attendant and sanitation worker they suspect is the serial killer nicknamed the "Grim Sleeper."
Since 2008, California has allowed so-called familial DNA searches, in which investigators look for close-but-not-exact matches between DNA evidence collected at crime scenes and the state's data bank of DNA collected from 1.3 million convicted felons. The method has a longer history in the United Kingdom, where it led to a conviction in a murder case in 2004. In Colorado, the only other U.S. state to allow it, the method led to a guilty plea in a car-theft case in Denver last year.
On Friday, ScienceInsider spoke with two scientists involved with the DNA search, senior criminalist Steven Myers and case-work laboratory manager Gary Sims, both based at the Jan Bashinski DNA Laboratory in Richmond, California. They explained that the searches initially focus on 15 regions of DNA on 13 chromosomes. These include the 13 regions used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and two additional regions used in California. All of these regions contain genetic stutters called short tandem repeats, in which a pattern of base pairs repeats itself over and over. The number of repeats varies from person to person, and two people who are related are likely to have the same number of repeats at more of these sites. The lab's analysis also considers how frequently a given variation occurs in the general population: two people who share a rare variation are more likely to be related than are two people who share a common one.
Sims and Myers explained that the lab's software uses this information to generate a ranked list of the convicted felons in the DNA database who are most likely to be first-order relatives—parents, children, or full siblings—of the person a DNA sample came from. (The statistics aren't strong enough to identify more distant relatives, they say.) When both individuals in question are male, the lab also looks at a similar number of short tandem repeats on the Y chromosome, which should be an exact match between fathers and sons and between full brothers.
California allows familial DNA searches only for violent crimes in which the perpetrator is still believed to be a danger to society. Sims and Myers say they have run 10 searches so far. The first nine came up empty, including a 2008 search with DNA evidence from the Grim Sleeper crime scene. "We did not find anybody in the database who we thought was a potential relative," says Sims.
However, a second search in April 2010 did turn up a potential match: a young man named Christopher Franklin who was convicted last year on a felony weapons charge. The DNA search, along with the dates of the murders cast suspicion on Christopher Franklin's father. After an internal review of the evidence, investigators at the Bashinski lab notified the L.A. police, who followed the elder Franklin and eventually got a DNA sample from a discarded piece of pizza. Lonnie Franklin's DNA matched DNA from the crime scenes, and police arrested him at his home last week.
Although it remains to be seen whether Franklin will be convicted, Sims says the lab is proud of its work. "To put this whole thing together ... and see it pay off is very gratifying," he says. "Nobody popped champagne bottles or anything like that, but we all feel like we earned our pay."
The apparent success of familial DNA testing in such a high-profile case may encourage other states to adopt it, but civil-liberties groups and some legal scholars have concerns about privacy and ethics issues. Stanford Law School professor Hank Greely is concerned about what he sees as a high likelihood of false-positive tests. In a database with DNA from a million or more individuals, several hundred people might have a close enough match on the CODIS markers to suggest a blood relationship, Greely estimates. If those matches result in false accusations, the burden of being falsely accused would fall disproportionately to African-Americans, who are overrepresented in the U.S. prison population. "It does raise some concerns about discrimination," he says. Even so, Greely says California's requirement for Y chromosome testing is a good safeguard. "Unlike some folks, I'm not opposed to the technique and especially not to its use in this case," he says.
[URL="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/scientists-explain-how-familial.html"]http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/scientists-explain-how-familial.html[/URL]

hey cynic.

Familial DNA searches, although controversial have been used, and are being used by law enforcement.


I had been reading avout familial dna and cases in Britain where family members willingly donated dna, leading to convictions.
How could this come into fruition with respect to this case,
the likelyhood? Is it an impossibilty?

 

[claudicici]

...does the DNA on the long john's waistband really match the DNA found inside of the panties?

 

[cynic]

hey cynic.

Familial DNA searches, although controversial have been used, and are being used by law enforcement.


I had been reading avout familial dna and cases in Britain where family members willingly donated dna, leading to convictions.
How could this come into fruition with respect to this case,
the likelyhood? Is it an impossibilty?

Hi Tadpole

It is used regularly in only two states, California and Colorado. The searches are within their own state DNA databases.

Additionally, a bill has been introduced by Congressman Adam Schiff, but not yet passed which attempts to introduce familial searching at the federal level of CODIS.
7/30/2010--Introduced.Utilizing DNA Technology to Solve Cold Cases Act of 2010 - Requires the Attorney General to adopt policies and procedures to ensure that:
(1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may conduct familial searches for DNA samples collected from crime scenes;
(2) state law enforcement agencies may request that the FBI conduct such searches in state investigations; and
(3) the privacy interests of persons identified in familial searches are protected. Defines "familial search" as a search of the offender index in the National DNA Index System in which a DNA sample from an unknown source collected from a crime scene is compared to such index to determine if a familial match exists between the DNA profile contained in such index and the DNA sample collected from the crime scene. Allows FBI familial searches to be conducted only if:
(1) no identical match for a DNA sample collected from a crime scene can be identified in the offender index; and
(2) the investigation for which DNA samples are collected involves murder, manslaughter, a sex offense against a minor, sexual assault, or an offense that involves a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.

 

[cynic]

...does the DNA on the long john's waistband really match the DNA found inside of the panties?

Once upon a time, the RST were busy touting the fingernail DNA as somehow matching the other DNA. Unfortunately, for Lin Wood and others, Lou Smit let it slip that there were only two markers in common with the DNA in JBR’s panties.
There are at least two markers, clear distinct markers under the fingernails of the right hand.
-Lou Smit deposition
A full DNA profile consists of 13 markers, 10 markers are required to upload a profile to CODIS.
Although the initial analysis of one of the samples from JBR’s panties only yielded 9 ½ markers, they eventually “worked” it to 10 markers and thus met the minimum CODIS standard.
To say that two markers “matching” 2 of the 10 markers in the CODIS profile constitutes a “match” is preposterous.
They say that the DNA from the panties matches the DNA from touch DNA analysis of the long johns; unfortunately they have not said how many makers are matching.
I would need to know how many markers are actually matching before I could comment on the significance.
As they played fast and loose with the DNA evidence in the past, I am a bit wary with respect to these recent findings and use of the term, "match."

 

[claudicici]

thank you so much cynic,I realize I still tend towards RDI because I can read the words they have spoken for myself.I can read how they have changed their stories,said IMO incredibly odd things and sometimes flat out lied.
The DNA evidence I never really understand.So is it correct,that the DNA from the panties are most likely from saliva and can come from anywhere and that the touch DNA on the Long John's may or may not match that DNA?
If only a few markers match however does that mean the long john touch DNA and the panty DNA might come from people that are related?....or is that not a factor?
....since the panty DNA was "stretched" could they have ended up with a profile that is incorrect?Could they have destroyed it instead of enhanced it and now there could never be an exact match?

 

[cynic]

Thank you so much cynic, I realize I still tend towards RDI because I can read the words they have spoken for myself. I can read how they have changed their stories, said IMO incredibly odd things and sometimes flat out lied.

Yes, the Ramseys gave the BPD plenty of reasons to be under the “umbrella of suspicion.”

The DNA evidence I never really understand. So is it correct, that the DNA from the panties are most likely from saliva and can come from anywhere

"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."
…
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

There are several good reasons why I believe that the unknown DNA profile from the sample taken from JBR’s panties is from skin cells.
If it was saliva, why would they suggest that the profile is attributable to “human handling”
If the source was from a bodily fluid then it should have also been found on JBR’s body or from vaginal swabs that were taken at the autopsy.
Moreover, there are very sensitive and effective presumptive tests that identify bodily fluids.
For example, the RSID-Saliva kit is very effective at determining whether saliva is present.
RSID-Saliva gave positive results when saliva was diluted 1/128
Saliva could be detected with RSID-Saliva on swabs from the skin of a normal active individual 72 hours post saliva deposition
A positive result was still obtained from swabs of the skin that had been deposited with saliva even after the skin had been wet prior to swabbing
http://www.seidden.com/Saliva%20-%20archivo%205.pdf

Some of the confusion lies with the media presentation of the touch DNA results as determined by Bode Technology Group.
The press seemed to fawn over this “new” technology, when in reality it was repackaged technology that had been around for years.
The misconception was born that the only way to find DNA from skin cells was through the methods devised by Bode.
I’m sure that the people who were perpetuating this myth would be quite surprised to find out that those long johns could just as easily been swabbed and a DNA profile obtained.
Bode used razor scraping on the long johns.
Contact or touch DNA is obtained by swabbing or razor scraping.
With respect to clothing, the danger of razor scraping for DNA is that if you scrape too large of an area, the cells found may have their origin from several people, and therefore yield a profile that may be very difficult to analyze.
Even if great care is taken to minimize the scraped area, there is still a chance that the profile will be mixed and somewhat difficult to analyze.
The cells that are liberated from clothing may involve cells from skin, mucous, saliva or potentially other body fluids as long as their quantities and or distribution are such that they have not left a visible stain. (Visible stains will be swabbed.)
The advantage of swabbing is that it minimizes the sample area, and therefore minimizes the possibility of a badly mixed sample.
The disadvantage is that there may not be enough cells in the sample for a usable profile.
The advantage of razor scraping is that it liberates significant quantities of cells.
The disadvantage is that there are often mixed profiles due to the size of the area scraped.

and that the touch DNA on the Long John's may or may not match that DNA?

The problem is that we were never told how many markers were in the profile from the long johns. Simply saying that it matched doesn’t really mean much, and if only a few markers are in common, it has little significance.

If only a few markers match however does that mean the long john touch DNA and the panty DNA might come from people that are related?....or is that not a factor?

Depends on how few. If we take the example of the 2 marker fingernail DNA, it’s so meaningless it isn’t all that improbable that you may have those 2 markers.
With respect to samples from a crime scene, it’s more probable that a reasonable number of markers in common would mean that the same individual is responsible for the DNA as opposed to related individuals, unless other evidence or context indicates that more than one person may be involved.

....since the panty DNA was "stretched" could they have ended up with a profile that is incorrect?

Yes, and you can be assured that if this DNA evidence were to ever see the inside of a courtroom, it would be subject to a bitter dispute.

There are no generally accepted thresholds for how high peaks must be to qualify as a "true allele." Applied Biosystems, Inc., which sells the most widely used system for STR typing (the ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer™ with the ProfilerPlus™ system) recommends a peak-height threshold of 150 RFU, saying that peaks below this level must be interpreted with caution. However, many crime laboratories that use the ABI system have set lower thresholds (down to 40 RFU in some instances). And crime laboratories sometimes apply their standards in an inconsistent manner from case to case or even within a single case. Hence, a defendant may be convicted in one case based on "peaks" that would not be counted in another case, or by another lab. And in some cases there may be unreported peaks, just below the threshold, that would change the interpretation of the case if considered.
Finding and evaluating low-level peaks can be difficult because labs can set their analytic software to ignore peaks below a specified level and can print out electropherograms in a manner that fails to identify low-level alleles. The best way to assess low-level alleles is to obtain copies of the electronic data files produced by the genetic analyzer and have them re-analyzed by an expert who has access to the analytic software.
http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

See the post below for more info.

Could they have destroyed it instead of enhanced it and now there could never be an exact match?

If there is enough of a sample, it usually gets divided into a minimum of three parts (if possible) called aliquots.
Two of those are tested for DNA and one is set aside for testing in the future.
That is normal procedure, when there is enough sample. I don’t know whether there was enough sample in this case.

 

[cynic]

....since the panty DNA was "stretched" could they have ended up with a profile that is incorrect?

DNA is not as objective as you might think. ..The findings suggest that the difference between prison and freedom could often rest on the opinions of a single individual.
Much of the DNA analysis conducted can suffer from worrying subjectivity and bias

The introduction of DNA evidence to the courtroom in the mid 1980s revolutionized forensic science, resulting in thousands of convictions and exonerating 255 wrongly convicted people so far in the US alone. The reason for more than 50 per cent of these wrongful convictions was unvalidated or improper forensic testing, including incorrect hair, blood or fingerprint analysis.

"It's not unreasonable to hold up DNA as a way that the rest of forensic science should be done," says William Thompson of the University of California, Irvine, and an occasional expert witness on DNA. "It is better validated, and often more carefully done and more rigorously interpreted than many areas of forensic science."

That's not the same as saying DNA is perfect, however. In a growing number of cases, DNA samples taken from crime scenes produce partial profiles, partly because smaller samples are collected. "Labs are trying to get more samples and they're trying to [get results from] lower and lower amounts of DNA," says John Butler, head of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology's genetics group, which aims to improve standards in DNA testing.

A standard DNA profile consists of a series of peaks relating to the number of repeating stretches of DNA found in certain genetic sequences, or alleles (see diagram). The repeats occur at specific locations on the chromosomes, called loci, and there are two alleles at each locus- one inherited from each parent. The number of repeats in each allele varies widely between individuals, allowing a person to be identified this way. Labs in the US typically look at 13 loci.

Yet in partial profiles, alleles may fail to show up, a phenomenon called "drop-out". False peaks in the profile created by imperfections in the analysis machine may also be mistaken for alleles. This is called "drop-in".

It gets more complicated when several people's DNA is mixed (see "Mix and mismatch"). Butler has reviewed more than 5000 DNA samples from 14 US labs and found that mixing is a common occurrence: 34 per cent of the samples he studied included DNA from two people, while 11 per cent were three or four-person mixtures.

Interpreting alleles in a mixed or partial sample is where the subjective opinion of an analyst could play a part. To test this, New Scientist teamed up with Itiel Dror, a neuroscientist at University College London and head of Cognitive Consultants International, and Greg Hampikian of Boise State University in Idaho.

We took a mixed sample of DNA evidence from an actual crime scene- a gang rape committed in Georgia, US- which helped to convict a man called Kerry Robinson, who is currently in prison. We presented it, and Robinson's DNA profile, to 17 experienced analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US, without any contextual information that might bias their judgement.

In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that Robinson "could not be excluded" from the crime scene sample, based on his DNA profile. (A second man convicted of the same crime also testified that Robinson was an assailant, in return for a lesser jail term.) Each of our 17 analysts independently examined the profiles from the DNA mixture, the victim's profile and those of two other suspects and was asked to judge whether the suspects' profiles could be "excluded", "cannot be excluded" or whether the results were "inconclusive".

If DNA analysis were totally objective, then all 17 analysts should reach the same conclusion. However, we found that just one agreed with the original judgement that Robinson "cannot be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.

"Fingerprinting and other forensic disciplines have now accepted that subjectivity and context may affect their judgement and decisions," says Dror. "It is now time that DNA analysts accept that under certain conditions, subjectivity and even bias may affect their work." Dror presented the results at the Green Mountain DNA conference in Burlington, Vermont, last month.
Varying the identity of the suspect changed the answers that DNA analysts gave

Christine Funk, an attorney in the Office of the Public Defender for the State of Minnesota, says the results of New Scientist's survey have profound implications for criminal justice. "The difference between prison and freedom rests in the hands of the scientist assigned the case," she says.

Eric Buel, director of Vermont Forensic Laboratory in Waterbury agrees that there is a problem, although he doesn't think it will apply to every lab. "I would be a little bit concerned if one person excludes, and one person includes him. At the end of the day, we all should come to about the same answer on this stuff." Both he and Butler suggest that inconsistencies in analysts' training may be partly to blame.
Variable thresholds

The problem of subjective interpretation could be further exacerbated by differences in procedure between labs. According to a second survey conducted by New Scientist, many crime labs set their own thresholds for how high a peak must be to demonstrate the presence of an allele, and these can be inconsistently applied.

New Scientist sent a questionnaire to crime labs in the US, Canada, UK and Australia. Of the 19 that replied, we found that four labs routinely allow analysts to use their discretion when interpreting peaks whose height is below their statistical cut-off. A further two said that although it wasn't routine, there were circumstances when analysts could use their discretion. Fifteen labs said that they did not have a minimum requirement below which someone would be excluded from a mixture.

So what can be done? This year, the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), which issues guidance to US labs performing forensic DNA analysis, published new recommendations regarding the interpretation of forensic DNA. These include a suggestion that labs develop strict criteria for deciding what denotes the presence of an allele, and what amount of DNA constitutes the minimum for a profile to be constructed. Labs should also document and define any assumptions used in the analysis of a mixture. "The bottom line is that you want to be as consistent and accurate as possible," says Butler, who chaired the SWGDAM committee.

It seems lab managers would welcome consistent rules. Forensic lab directors at the 19 labs we surveyed also provided their views about how their analysis is currently done: 15 either agreed or strongly agreed that interpretation procedures should be based on national standards, and 11 agreed or strongly agreed that decisions over alleles should not be based on analyst opinion.

Labs must also take steps to avoid bias. Butler says that some labs continue to insist upon seeing suspect profiles before analysing evidence from the crime scene, which could lead to biased decision-making (see "Crime Scene Investigation: Impartiality"). Analysts also often know too much about a suspect and other evidence to be impartial, and public labs often have close ties to police. "Crime labs, including DNA labs, should not be under the control of a law enforcement agency," says one US analyst, who wished to remain anonymous. "We are scientists, not cops or prosecutors."

In our survey using the Georgia sample, respondents were blinded to contextual information about the case. Larry Mueller of the University of California in Irvine says we may have seen different results if the data had been presented to them by police officers or prosecution lawyers. "The difference between you giving them the data and saying 'what do you make of it?' and the local district attorney giving them the data and saying: 'We've arrested someone, is his profile in here?' is huge," he says.

Bruce Budowle, a former head of the FBI's DNA lab, would also like to see labs employ a second analyst to review initial conclusions, and all of this data be made available to defence teams.

Eighteen of the labs that we surveyed said they already conduct independent reviews. However, in the majority of cases, the reviewer is allowed to see the first analyst's conclusions, as well as the original data. "Technical peer reviews are a good step, but I can point to several examples where peer-reviewers just rubber-stamp the cases," says a different US analyst, who works in a private DNA lab that carries out case work for the police. In the case of a disagreement, 15 of the labs said a supervisor would be called in to make the final call, but only two labs said that this disagreement would be documented in their final report.

Still, when done correctly, DNA remains a powerful tool for fighting crime, says Budowle. "Are there cases done wrongly? Absolutely, there have been cases," he says. "Are they the vast majority? No, it's a small number."

Buel adds that some DNA labs are beginning to accept that improvements need to be made. "DNA analysis is still relatively young. It may take us a while to make sure we're all playing by the same set of rules," he says. "At the end of the day, I think we're all interested in making sure we get the right person. DNA is headed in the right direction, but as in any field, you can make it better."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html?full=true

 

[madeleine]

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm

1997-04-07: Geraldo Rivera Show Discussion Forum, "Suspects"
Tribune Entertainment Company (http://tribapps.tribune.com/)

jams jameson - 08:32am May 7, 1997 (#399 of 500)
Hunter said the DNA will not be the silver bullet. If it were an outsider and they had a match - it would be, but not necessarily if it is the father's - we know of no scratch on him that day and there are innocent ways that DNA might have gotten there.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jams jameson - 08:59am May 7, 1997 (#400 of 500)
A "source" said the CBI lab results indicate it COULD be JR's DNA. That may mean it could be JR as well as 30% of the population - we just don't know. Cellmark labs should have more detailed results.


:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

 

[joeskidbeck]

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm

1997-04-07: Geraldo Rivera Show Discussion Forum, "Suspects"
Tribune Entertainment Company (http://tribapps.tribune.com/)

jams jameson - 08:32am May 7, 1997 (#399 of 500)
Hunter said the DNA will not be the silver bullet. If it were an outsider and they had a match - it would be, but not necessarily if it is the father's - we know of no scratch on him that day and there are innocent ways that DNA might have gotten there.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jams jameson - 08:59am May 7, 1997 (#400 of 500)
A "source" said the CBI lab results indicate it COULD be JR's DNA. That may mean it could be JR as well as 30% of the population - we just don't know. Cellmark labs should have more detailed results.


:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

Could she have tried any harder to confuse the issue???? John as well as 30% of the population? Since when does JR share dna with 30% of the population? How in this world could people actually pay any attention to this woman? I'm out of words now, so I'll just shut up, which is what she should have done years ago!!!!!

 

[madeleine]

Re 30% ...I guess she meant there were not enough markers maybe?

Whatever........this hit me right in the face cause I've always wondered whose semen or dna they actually found at the scene OR on the blanket in the suitcase....was it really JAR's?maybe not.

How hard is it anyway to switch some lab samples..........after everything I've seen in this case.....

they thought it was semen but it turned out to be blood....and so many other confusing issues..........makes you wonder.........

 

[wonderllama]

Sorry to bump an older thread, but I spent a while reading it this arvo and it is filled with great debate, great information and considerations by both sides of the argument.

HUZZAH!

 

[qtc]

It took the Ramseys 1 year to give the police their clothing. That looks guilty.

Can someone expand on this? I'm sure it has been discussed before, but I cannot use the search (Ive tried and can never find what I am looking for).


It seems that I have heard that the police didnt ask for the clothing for testing...

and that the Ramsey's could even remember what they had worn that day a year later?

 

[UKGuy]

Can someone expand on this? I'm sure it has been discussed before, but I cannot use the search (Ive tried and can never find what I am looking for).


It seems that I have heard that the police didnt ask for the clothing for testing...

and that the Ramsey's could even remember what they had worn that day a year later?

qtc,
Its just what it says. The Ramseys took one year to hand over the clothing they wore that day.

And nobody can prove one way or the other if what was handed in was the actual clothing or new purchases from Bloomingdales or wherever?


.

 

[SunnieRN]

If I remember correctly, they were not asked for their clothing for almost a year. After the request, it took them 4 months to actually turn the items in. When BPD got the items, there was suspicion, to say the least, that they were not the actual items of clothing. The sweater that was supposed to be Patsys was too small for her to wear. I think it is interesting that they never asked for Burkes clothing.

 

[DeeDee249]

If I remember correctly, they were not asked for their clothing for almost a year. After the request, it took them 4 months to actually turn the items in. When BPD got the items, there was suspicion, to say the least, that they were not the actual items of clothing. The sweater that was supposed to be Patsys was too small for her to wear. I think it is interesting that they never asked for Burkes clothing.

I have to say I blame the BRD completely for this one. They claimed that some of the clothing they were sent seemed new, or much-laundered. How could they possibly think they'd get it in the same condition it was in that night? The only way to do that would have been to have the Rs turn it over as they left the house for the last time that night, and once the BPD got the photos of the White's party, if the clothing they were given seemed different, they could have gotten a warrant (hopefully) to get it.
I can't fault the Rs for turning over the wrong clothes. It is exactly what guilty people would do, as as the PBD suspected them, they should have expected nothing less.
BR shouldn't have been allowed to leave at all, IMO. Even though it was not known to be a murder at that point, he was right down the hall from JB's room, and if she was supposed to have been taken from her bedroom, he was an important witness. Had the PBD wanted him to stay, and the Rs fought it, that in and of itself lends credence to their guilt. They should have INSISTED the BPD try to find out what their son saw or heard.

 

[madeleine]

http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm

J. RAMSEY: There is unidentified DNA that was found under her fingernails and on her underwear.

KING: It could have been there from five day ago.

P. RAMSEY: Oh, please.

THOMAS: No, there are other sources other than the killer for this DNA report.
P. RAMSEY: Why would it be under her fingernails and her underwear?

J. RAMSEY: If there are other sources, then tell me who it is? But until we know who it is, I'm hopeful that that DNA belongs to the killer.


---------------

so the unknown dna is not the only dna they found.....interesting
and JR is eager to find out to whom it belongs...

 

[Agatha_C]

If I remember correctly, they were not asked for their clothing for almost a year. After the request, it took them 4 months to actually turn the items in. When BPD got the items, there was suspicion, to say the least, that they were not the actual items of clothing. The sweater that was supposed to be Patsys was too small for her to wear. I think it is interesting that they never asked for Burkes clothing.

Sunnie,

What makes this all the more strange, is that Linda Arndt was made to go home that same day and change her clothing, then she was to hand them over to LE, being that she had carried the body to the Christmas tree (which in his book JR claims to have placed her under the tree). Why did the Detective have to turn over her clothing but the family didnt? Hmmmmm, can we say cover up on a grand scale.