DNA Revisited

[madeleine]

There is no intruder DNA, just a misinterpretation of scientific results.

That's very interesting actually and I like it more than "innocent transfer from a factory worker".

If I understand correctly ST implies the same thing in his book.


Pg298-299

 

[cynic]

OK then I guess your theory is that the DNA held in CODIS was used as a standard by which Bode simply looked for a minimal match. That is, you believe that Bode did not produce a greater, independent DNA profile with more markers, even though they said they had enough material to process the DNA in the usual way (not LCN). You further believe that the CODIS DNA may represent the DNA profile of a nonexistent person. It is instead a hybrid or composite of two or more people. Is this right?

Let me preface all of this with some presuppositions:
The lab report shown on 48 Hours Mystery formed the basis for the CODIS “intruder” profile.
The report was not amended or that any further testing was done on the bloodstain to clarify or supersede those results and conclusions.


Background:
I am including this section to underscore that if there is a mixture analysis involving family members, the more loci / markers the better. By all accounts there are only 9 ½ markers in the CODIS profile.

“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


And


One question on many people’s minds when they look into paternity testing is how accurate the paternity test results are. No test can ever be 100% accurate but how accurate can you expect your paternity test results to be and what should you expect from a DNA testing lab?

There are two results involved in a paternity test, the first is called exclusion. Exclusive paternity test results exclude a man from being a father of a child. This means that in the paternity test the DNA of the father did not sufficiently correspond to the DNA of the child to consider him as a prospective father. In this case the result should be 100% accurate, if a man is excluded from being a child’s father there should be no way he could possibly be.

Inclusive paternity test results however are different, they refer to the likelihood that someone is the father of the child. Although no test can ever be 100% certain most paternity test results should prove at least 99%, preferably closer to 99.99% that a child is the father.

The accuracy of paternity test results depends on how many loci (or points) are tested on the DNA segments of the alleged father and child; the higher the number of loci, the greater the accuracy that can be obtained.

To get the best results from your paternity test you should choose a laboratory that tests at least 13-16 loci and that excludes fathers who show a difference in two or more DNA patterns on the loci (this is the AABB standard that is used in accredited DNA testing labs).

In conclusion, although paternity test results can never be 100% accurate you should look for at least 99% accuracy and preferably closer to 99.99%. Accuracy is obtained through testing a larger number of loci and good DNA testing labs usually test about 16.
http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Accurate-are-DNA-Paternity-Test-Results&id=444662

The DNA from the bloodstain:

In the JBR case there are no statements that more than 9 ½ markers / loci were ever found in any DNA sample relating to the so called “intruder” profile, including testing by Bode.

The only lab report ever seen by the general public makes it clear that the alleles found in bloodstain sample may be explained by either a lone male “intruder” donor or a mix of two family members, one of whom must be a male.

The bloodstain by nature will contain an overwhelming profile from JBR. I say this as a fact because blood is very DNA “rich”.

Blood = 30,000 ng/mL
stain 1 cm in area = 200 ng
stain 1 mm in area = 2 ng
(Only semen has the potential to produce a “richer” sample.)
This is also confirmed by the lab report:
The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.

As I explained earlier in my thread, there are ratios involved in a mixture. As an example if there are two donors, the amount contributed by the two is almost never equal. There is more commonly a major and minor donor. If there are three, then a major / minor / minor is the usual pattern.
The ratios can be extreme, 10:1 or worse.
We don’t know what the ratios were in this case and are not likely to, but my feeling on the matter is that JBR’s component was quite overwhelming. I say that because they had considerable difficulty getting 9 ½ markers in this case. When alleles and consequently markers are missing it is usually for one of two reasons: degradation and / or low sample quantity.
The next bit is from earlier in my thread:
From a forensic point of view, the interesting feature of an STR locus is that it consists of two alleles, one inherited from the mother and one from the father, and the number of repeats for each allele can vary independently of each other. Each allele has a name that reflects the number of repeats. “Allele 12” would indicate the presence of 12 repeats, “allele 14” would consist of 14 repeats, and so on.
So, at one locus, a person may be designated (12,14) for example - indicating that he/she has one allele of 12 repeats at that locus and another of 14 repeats. It is, of course, possible for a person to inherit an allele with the same number of repeats for a given locus from both parents, so a person who has inherited, for example, the allele with 11 repeats from both parents would have a locus designated (11,11).If the number of STR’s is the same, the person is said to be homozygous at that locus/marker. If the number of STR’s is different, the person is classified as heterozygous at that locus/marker. The possible combinations for children, if the mother is (8,12) and father is (6,12) at a locus/marker are: (6,12), (8,12), (6,8) and (8,8).

Now let’s move on to what a lab might see from a sample collected at a crime scene.
If it is a mixture from 2 or more donors, the lab must somehow determine how many and ultimately who the donors were. If the alleles from each donor are distinctive at each marker and they normally are, the task of separation although tedious can certainly be done. However, let’s say that a mother and father killed their child and the DNA sample obtained is as follows: child – major component, mother – minor component, father minor component. For a number of reasons this is a very challenging situation for analysis because this mix will have alleles in common at every locus / marker.
To make it simple we will assume the following sample size and ratio: 10 nanograms at 8:1:1.
An electropherogram has peaks representing the amount of DNA after PCR replication at each of the 13 loci plus the AMEL marker which determines the sex identity.
Now let’s take a look at what might be found from a mixture involving a father, mother and child:
The possible combinations for children, if the mother is (5,8) and father is (6,12) at a just one locus/marker are: (5,12), (6,8), (5,6) and (8,12).
I will pick one for the child – (6,8)
At one locus then, the lab will find (5,6,8,12). As soon as a lab sees 3 or more alleles at a locus they know it is a mix. (We will assume that a determination has been made that a male is present in the mix.)
How would this look on an electropherogram?
If we go with the 8:1:1 mix, we know that there will be two tall peaks from the child as the major donor. To try to keep things simple we will give the peaks a single unit height based on the ratio. We will end up with two peaks 8 units high at the 6 and 8 positions from the child. The mother will “add” 1 to the 8 allele position, bringing it to 9 units in height. She will also show a 1 unit high peak at the 5 allele position. Finally, the father will “add” 1 unit to the 6 allele position, bringing it to 9 units in height. He will also show a 1 unit high peak at the 12 allele position.
The final peak heights are:
At the 5 allele position – 1
At the 6 allele position – 9
At the 8 allele position – 9
At the 12 allele position – 1
On an electropherogram then, we would see two tall peaks and two small blips.
With a reference sample from the child, the lab would “remove” their contribution to the (6,8) allele position
What is that contribution?
Did the child contribute all of those 9 units at (6,8)? If so, this would leave a potential male intruder profile of (8,12)
Or, could it be the child plus the parents?
What would the lab say as a conclusion?
The DNA profile developed from the sample revealed a mixture of which the major component matched the child.
If the minor components were contributed by a single individual then the mother and father would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed.
Sound familiar?

The onus at this point would be on the DA to make a decision.
Do we say the result is inconclusive?
Do we say it potentially implicates the parents?
Do we say it points to a male intruder?
What might a heavily IDI biased DA choose?

With regard to Bode, I was being charitable in granting them a 9 – 9 ½ marker match to the CODIS partial profile.
It may be that they don't have that level of a match.
I find it very hard to believe that if a better profile was found, that an announcement to that effect would not have been made.
If it was just 6 or 7 markers, they could still call it a match – after all, Lin Wood was going around for years saying the two or three marker contaminated fingernail partial “profile” was a match to the panty bloodstain.
Keep in mind that just because it was processed normally (not LCN), that does not mean it was a good sample yielding a full 13 marker profile. Lest we forget the bloodstain was also processed normally and failed to produce a full 13 marker profile.

If all my presuppositions are correct, then yes I believe that due to the bias of the DA that a false profile may have been uploaded to CODIS and that there is no male “intruder”.
This theory does not preclude the validity of any number of other viable alternatives (secondary transfer etc.) which offer an “innocent explanation” to the so called “intruder” DNA.
Your thread HOTYH, provided this forum with several explanations.
[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91175"]...and perhaps an innocent explanation... - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

At the very least, I believe I have shown that if there is a single male “intruder” donor of DNA in this case, that person must have an extraordinary amount of alleles and consequently markers in common with a number of Ramsey family members. Not only is that odd, it would provide much fodder for an epic battle in court over DNA if they ever attempted to prosecute some male “intruder”.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd guess that if the Bode DNA has 13 markers and some of the loci have appropriately low values, then that would increase the likelihood of a valid profile.

We don't know if this did not occur at Bode. Based on the existence and the language of the exhoneration letter, it seems that confidence is high. Remember that ML isn't the only person working at the DA's office and that nobody is contesting the DNA result. If the markers were 9 and fewer on three samples I would doubt the DNA result myself.

But the DNA is not even required to see an intruder did it.

 

[cynic]

...I rather doubt JR handled the waistband on his 6 year old daughter's longjohns. Further, its an assumption that JBR didn't put on the longjohns when her mom requested her to do so. That would be the most normal scenario for a 6 year old.

However I believe I read here somewhere that PR said she put the longjohns on a sleeping JBR. Is this right?

June, 1998, interview, Patsy tells Tom Haney:

TH: Patsy, why the long underwear?

PR: Well, I remember I was digging around for something. I was trying to find the pink ones she wore the night before. I couldn't put my hand on them right quick. And so I went to these drawers looking for the pajamas, and she was just laying there, so I didn't want to raise her up and get everything off of her to put a long nightgown, so looking for pajamas bottoms to put on her. I couldn't find any, and the long underwear pants were in their drawer, so I got those.

(JonBenet: The Police Files"; p.215)

and

“John Ramsey emerged from the basement carrying the body of JonBenet, not cradled close but held away from him, his hands gripping her waist. The child's head was above his, facing him, her arms were raised high, stiffened by rigor mortis, and her lips were blue. The child was obviously dead."

JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas


(We only have PR’s word on all this for what that’s worth, and I believe, of course, that most of the contact would have occurred as JR and PR staged the murder scene.}

 

[Sophie]

Found this while looking for something else on DNA but it's quite interesting:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090104/NEWS/901040380

 

[cynic]

The following is a perfect example of DNA misuse and a lab going on a “no holds barred“ hunt to implicate two people. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been sentenced to 26 and 25 years in prison respectively as a consequence.

DNA evidence in the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Perugia, Italy

Background: This case involves the murder of Meredith Kercher, a British exchange student living in Perugia, Italy. On the night of November 1, 2007 Meredith Kercher was brutally attacked in her residence. She sustained three slash wounds to her throat, one of which was fatal. Her body was found the next day when her housemate, Amanda Knox, called police after noticing blood in their common bathroom, a broken window, and Meredith’s locked door. Before the police arrived, Amanda’s Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, unsuccessfully attempted to force open Meredith’s door. The police were able to open the door and found Meredith’s partially disrobed body under a duvet cover. Police initially theorized that Amanda, Raffaele and Amanda’s boss, Patrick Lumumba, were involved with Meredith in a group sex tryst gone awry. However, during the ensuing forensic investigation, a drifter named Rudy Guede was conclusively linked to the scene by DNA found within the victim’s body, DNA from a bowel movement left unflushed in one bathroom, a bloody handprint under the victim’s body, and other items at the scene. After Lumumba was released based on an airtight alibi, the police theorized that Guede was the fourth participant in an alleged lethal sex game, although the only foreign DNA found on and within Meredith’s body matched Guede. Rudy Guede fled to Germany but was arrested and returned to Italy. He initially told police that he had consensual sex with Meredith and that while he was in the bathroom a stranger came into the room and attacked her. Some months after his arrest he changed his story to identify the stranger as Raffaele and said that Amanda was present outside of the room. Although Rudy Guede has been tried and convicted of Meredith’s murder, the prosecution continues to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are complicit in this crime. As the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito draws to a close, two pieces of DNA evidence presented by the prosecution to link the defendants to the crime stand as most significant. One is a kitchen knife recovered from the kitchen drawer at Raffaele’s apartment. The other is a portion of a bra clasp that was cut away from the bra that Meredith was wearing. This piece of cloth and metal was collected from the bedroom floor 47 days after her murder. The following paragraphs outline the facts and our conclusions about this evidence.

The kitchen knife: The prosecution claims that DNA testing shows the presence of Amanda’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
The following information pertains to the knife:
The knife was selected from among several knives in the kitchen drawer of Raffaele’s apartment. It was the only knife collected from the kitchen, although it had no visible stains or notable characteristics.
Testimony has been given in court that this knife could not have made two of the three slash wounds to the victim’s neck, but that a smaller knife could have made all three wounds. Furthermore, this knife did not match a bloody knife imprint left on the bed. An extremely sensitive chemical test for the presumptive presence of blood, tetramethyl benzidine (TMB, a chemical capable of detecting at least a 1:10,000 dilution of blood), was negative for both the handle and blade. A swabbing of the handle revealed the presence of Amanda’s DNA. This is not unexpected since she had used the kitchen knives to prepare food at Raffaele’s apartment. A swabbing of the center portion of the flat edge of the blade was taken for further analysis. This sample tested negative for blood with TMB. An extremely low level, partial DNA profile was developed for the blade swabbing using the Identifiler kit. The alleles detected were consistent with the DNA of the victim. The highest peak in the electropherogram was approximately 100 relative fluorescence units (rfu), while 21 of the 29 peaks that were detected and labeled as alleles fell between 20 and 50 rfu. This DNA does not originate from blood. A highly sensitive chemical test for blood was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim. Numerous samples were collected from the crime scene that were tested and shown to contain high quantities of the victim’s DNA. There exists the real possibility that the low level, partial profile attributed to the knife blade is a result of unintended transfer in the laboratory during sample handling. Numerous examples of this have been documented by other laboratories. Electronic (.fsa) files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed. Neither the extraction nor amplification of the low template DNA from the kitchen knife blade was duplicated. The test can not be reproduced as the swab and DNA extract were consumed during testing.
Conclusion about the kitchen knife: No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The bra clasp: The prosecution’s DNA testing of a bra clasp that was cut away from the bra that the victim was wearing shows a mixture of DNA from which Raffaele Sollecito was not excluded. The following information pertains to the bra clasp: • DNA testing of this item using the Identifiler kit showed a mixture of DNA, with the majority of DNA consistent with that of the victim. Raffaele Sollecito could not be excluded as a source of a minor component of DNA with peaks of approximately 200 rfu. Y-STR testing confirmed that the male haplotype detected was consistent with the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito. The bra clasp was recovered from the floor of the victim’s bedroom, 47 days after the murder, and 46 days after the initial evidence collection at the crime scene. By the time it was collected, it was in a different location than where it was originally documented by video. It had been moved to a mixed pile of clutter beside a disheveled rug. Neither Raffaele Sollecito’s nor Amanda Knox’s DNA was not found on: the remainder of the bra that was found with the victim, other items of victim’s clothing, objects collected from the room where the victim was found, or in samples from the victim’s body. These evidentiary samples were all collected the day the body was discovered. Raffaele Sollecito had been at the house shared by Amanda and Meredith several times. Furthermore, Amanda, Meredith and their guests shared a bathroom. Transfer of Raffaele’s DNA to the clasp could have occurred through several innocent means as a result of his DNA being in the apartment or via Amanda’s clothing or belongings. DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary. DNA testing cannot determine how long biological material may have been on an item, or whether contamination occurred during collection.
Conclusions about the bra clasp: Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.

Summary: DNA testing results described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Respectfully submitted on November 19, 2009 by:

Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ph.D. Forensic Biology/DNA expert Thousand Oaks, California
Amanda Knox Sollecito DNA Petition

 

[Tadpole12]

Found this while looking for something else on DNA but it's quite interesting:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090104/NEWS/901040380

Hi Sophie.

fascinating that GB must destroy all that dna.

 

[cynic]

Nationally, the story of Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to "clear" the Ramsey family in the 1996 death of six-year-old JonBenét is playing out as a complete vindication of John Ramsey and his late wife, Patsy. (And vindication of Lou "Intruder Alert" Smit, Michael "Let's Make a Documentary" Tracey and Mary Lacy herself, but that's another story.) Journalists unfamiliar with the messy ambiguities of the case have simply rubber-stamped Lacy's unusual move, which is based on "touch" DNA sampling that indicates the presence of unidentified male DNA on JonBenet's long johns, matching a previous sample from the girl's underwear. After all, DNA is pretty conclusive stuff, right?
Unfortunately, Lacy's office has tried to spin the case in so many ways, sometimes even outright misrepresenting the evidence (as in the case of bogus confessor John Mark Karr, whose story fell a few leagues short of plausible even before the DNA "cleared" him), that it would be good to pose a few questions before jumping on the bandwagon. Is this DNA sample of any better quality than the one found in the underwear? Could it have been transferred from the underwear to the long johns as a result of the widespread evidence contamination that resulted from a botched investigation? Could it be an "artifact" not belonging to the killer at all, as Lacy herself suggested once upon a time?
And how does this sample, even if it holds up to scrutiny, eliminate the Ramseys from any possible involvement given the other bits of evidence -- the, um, ransom note comes to mind -- that cast suspicion on them in the first place? After all, this is the same Mary Lacy who once said (about Karr, no less!), "No one is really cleared of a homicide until there's a conviction… I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2008/07/plenty_of_unsolved_ramsey_ques.php

 

[cynic]

JonBenet Ramsey Case Re-Opened

The Boulder Police have been given back the JonBenet Ramsey "cold case" from the D.A.'s office, and are said to be forming a multi-agency task force "including some of the region's most experienced investigators" from the federal and state level to take a fresh new look at this case.
I am so happy to hear this.
Last year, many of you will remember the previous district attorney, Mary Lacy, got back Touch DNA evidence from JonBenet's leggings that matched DNA from her underwear found at the crime scene. With that, Lacy cleared the entire Ramsey family of any involvement because they did not match the DNA.
Lacy automatically assumed that whoever touched JonBenet, in two places, had to be the killer. And for those of you who followed this case, I felt (along with many others) that this was a reckless move. Until the case is solved, no one can conclusively be cleared.
While I don't know what the truth is, or what happened that night, I just have to ask this:

How can we be certain that JonBenet wasn't molested that night by a family friend or relative at that Christmas party, before they arrived home? DNA doesn't give us the timing of events, or tell us when things occurred. With that, can we can conclusively say that the person who molested JonBenet is the same person who killed her?

Furthermore, is it possible, and I don't know, that JonBenet played with some children that night, scratched them, and contaminated herself on her leggings and underwear when going to the bathroom? Or that one child touched her on her leggings, while playing, and she then scratched them, and contaminated her underwear? Is that a possibility? Or can that be ruled out?

Can we be certain there was no DNA cross-contamination at the crime scene or by the lab?

Since Touch DNA is new, can we be certain it is foolproof? There have been other forensic evidence techniques developed in the past and used by the FBI that were later found to be flawed. Remember Touch DNA is new. We may not know all the pitfalls of using Touch DNA. The above referenced link talks about how a 40-year-old forensic technique was found to be flawed. Touch DNA was only used for 8 years prior to the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Last, there are people who can be an accessory to a crime. That is, they know what happened, and keep it quiet in an attempt to protect others. How do we know that this is not the case in this situation? How can we conclusively say that John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey could not be accessory?
I think each of these things are plausible reasons why no one should be excluded from this investigation, including the Ramseys.
​

Do I think John Ramsey killed his daughter? I don't know. I just know I personally don't trust what John Ramsey says. Something isn't right. In every interview I have seen of John Ramsey over the years, I have seen red flags.

http://www.***********.blogspot.com/2009/02/jonbenet-ramsey-case-re-opened.html

 

[Sophie]

The following is a perfect example of DNA misuse and a lab going on a “no holds barred“ hunt to implicate two people. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been sentenced to 26 and 25 years in prison respectively as a consequence.

DNA evidence in the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Perugia, Italy

Background: This case involves the murder of Meredith Kercher, a British exchange student living in Perugia, Italy. On the night of November 1, 2007 Meredith Kercher was brutally attacked in her residence. She sustained three slash wounds to her throat, one of which was fatal. Her body was found the next day when her housemate, Amanda Knox, called police after noticing blood in their common bathroom, a broken window, and Meredith’s locked door. Before the police arrived, Amanda’s Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, unsuccessfully attempted to force open Meredith’s door. The police were able to open the door and found Meredith’s partially disrobed body under a duvet cover. Police initially theorized that Amanda, Raffaele and Amanda’s boss, Patrick Lumumba, were involved with Meredith in a group sex tryst gone awry. However, during the ensuing forensic investigation, a drifter named Rudy Guede was conclusively linked to the scene by DNA found within the victim’s body, DNA from a bowel movement left unflushed in one bathroom, a bloody handprint under the victim’s body, and other items at the scene. After Lumumba was released based on an airtight alibi, the police theorized that Guede was the fourth participant in an alleged lethal sex game, although the only foreign DNA found on and within Meredith’s body matched Guede. Rudy Guede fled to Germany but was arrested and returned to Italy. He initially told police that he had consensual sex with Meredith and that while he was in the bathroom a stranger came into the room and attacked her. Some months after his arrest he changed his story to identify the stranger as Raffaele and said that Amanda was present outside of the room. Although Rudy Guede has been tried and convicted of Meredith’s murder, the prosecution continues to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are complicit in this crime. As the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito draws to a close, two pieces of DNA evidence presented by the prosecution to link the defendants to the crime stand as most significant. One is a kitchen knife recovered from the kitchen drawer at Raffaele’s apartment. The other is a portion of a bra clasp that was cut away from the bra that Meredith was wearing. This piece of cloth and metal was collected from the bedroom floor 47 days after her murder. The following paragraphs outline the facts and our conclusions about this evidence.

The kitchen knife: The prosecution claims that DNA testing shows the presence of Amanda’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
The following information pertains to the knife:
The knife was selected from among several knives in the kitchen drawer of Raffaele’s apartment. It was the only knife collected from the kitchen, although it had no visible stains or notable characteristics.
Testimony has been given in court that this knife could not have made two of the three slash wounds to the victim’s neck, but that a smaller knife could have made all three wounds. Furthermore, this knife did not match a bloody knife imprint left on the bed. An extremely sensitive chemical test for the presumptive presence of blood, tetramethyl benzidine (TMB, a chemical capable of detecting at least a 1:10,000 dilution of blood), was negative for both the handle and blade. A swabbing of the handle revealed the presence of Amanda’s DNA. This is not unexpected since she had used the kitchen knives to prepare food at Raffaele’s apartment. A swabbing of the center portion of the flat edge of the blade was taken for further analysis. This sample tested negative for blood with TMB. An extremely low level, partial DNA profile was developed for the blade swabbing using the Identifiler kit. The alleles detected were consistent with the DNA of the victim. The highest peak in the electropherogram was approximately 100 relative fluorescence units (rfu), while 21 of the 29 peaks that were detected and labeled as alleles fell between 20 and 50 rfu. This DNA does not originate from blood. A highly sensitive chemical test for blood was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim. Numerous samples were collected from the crime scene that were tested and shown to contain high quantities of the victim’s DNA. There exists the real possibility that the low level, partial profile attributed to the knife blade is a result of unintended transfer in the laboratory during sample handling. Numerous examples of this have been documented by other laboratories. Electronic (.fsa) files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed. Neither the extraction nor amplification of the low template DNA from the kitchen knife blade was duplicated. The test can not be reproduced as the swab and DNA extract were consumed during testing.
Conclusion about the kitchen knife: No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The bra clasp: The prosecution’s DNA testing of a bra clasp that was cut away from the bra that the victim was wearing shows a mixture of DNA from which Raffaele Sollecito was not excluded. The following information pertains to the bra clasp: • DNA testing of this item using the Identifiler kit showed a mixture of DNA, with the majority of DNA consistent with that of the victim. Raffaele Sollecito could not be excluded as a source of a minor component of DNA with peaks of approximately 200 rfu. Y-STR testing confirmed that the male haplotype detected was consistent with the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito. The bra clasp was recovered from the floor of the victim’s bedroom, 47 days after the murder, and 46 days after the initial evidence collection at the crime scene. By the time it was collected, it was in a different location than where it was originally documented by video. It had been moved to a mixed pile of clutter beside a disheveled rug. Neither Raffaele Sollecito’s nor Amanda Knox’s DNA was not found on: the remainder of the bra that was found with the victim, other items of victim’s clothing, objects collected from the room where the victim was found, or in samples from the victim’s body. These evidentiary samples were all collected the day the body was discovered. Raffaele Sollecito had been at the house shared by Amanda and Meredith several times. Furthermore, Amanda, Meredith and their guests shared a bathroom. Transfer of Raffaele’s DNA to the clasp could have occurred through several innocent means as a result of his DNA being in the apartment or via Amanda’s clothing or belongings. DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary. DNA testing cannot determine how long biological material may have been on an item, or whether contamination occurred during collection.
Conclusions about the bra clasp: Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.

Summary: DNA testing results described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Respectfully submitted on November 19, 2009 by:

Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ph.D. Forensic Biology/DNA expert Thousand Oaks, California
Amanda Knox Sollecito DNA Petition

That decision worries me, Cynic. I am not at all sure that Knox is guilty. There was an excellent documentary on here last week about it and the papers have largely decided that it was a miscarriage of justice. I think it's available on 'watchagain' so I'll send you the link if I find it.

I think Knox's demeanour was unfortunate and worked to her disadvantage.


One thing I must say, though, is that it was interesting to see a judge refusing a retrial on the basis of the DNA evidence being flawed. His statement that the DNA wasn't the only bit of evidence and that the rest of the evidence was adequate for the trial to continue was something that I would not expect to see in an American or English court.

 

[Sophie]

JonBenet Ramsey Case Re-Opened

The Boulder Police have been given back the JonBenet Ramsey "cold case" from the D.A.'s office, and are said to be forming a multi-agency task force "including some of the region's most experienced investigators" from the federal and state level to take a fresh new look at this case.
I am so happy to hear this.
Last year, many of you will remember the previous district attorney, Mary Lacy, got back Touch DNA evidence from JonBenet's leggings that matched DNA from her underwear found at the crime scene. With that, Lacy cleared the entire Ramsey family of any involvement because they did not match the DNA.
Lacy automatically assumed that whoever touched JonBenet, in two places, had to be the killer. And for those of you who followed this case, I felt (along with many others) that this was a reckless move. Until the case is solved, no one can conclusively be cleared.
While I don't know what the truth is, or what happened that night, I just have to ask this:

How can we be certain that JonBenet wasn't molested that night by a family friend or relative at that Christmas party, before they arrived home? DNA doesn't give us the timing of events, or tell us when things occurred. With that, can we can conclusively say that the person who molested JonBenet is the same person who killed her?

Furthermore, is it possible, and I don't know, that JonBenet played with some children that night, scratched them, and contaminated herself on her leggings and underwear when going to the bathroom? Or that one child touched her on her leggings, while playing, and she then scratched them, and contaminated her underwear? Is that a possibility? Or can that be ruled out?

Can we be certain there was no DNA cross-contamination at the crime scene or by the lab?

Since Touch DNA is new, can we be certain it is foolproof? There have been other forensic evidence techniques developed in the past and used by the FBI that were later found to be flawed. Remember Touch DNA is new. We may not know all the pitfalls of using Touch DNA. The above referenced link talks about how a 40-year-old forensic technique was found to be flawed. Touch DNA was only used for 8 years prior to the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Last, there are people who can be an accessory to a crime. That is, they know what happened, and keep it quiet in an attempt to protect others. How do we know that this is not the case in this situation? How can we conclusively say that John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey could not be accessory?
I think each of these things are plausible reasons why no one should be excluded from this investigation, including the Ramseys.
​

Do I think John Ramsey killed his daughter? I don't know. I just know I personally don't trust what John Ramsey says. Something isn't right. In every interview I have seen of John Ramsey over the years, I have seen red flags.

http://www.***********.blogspot.com/2009/02/jonbenet-ramsey-case-re-opened.html

What an excellent blog, Cynic: says it all!

 

[Sophie]

Hi Sophie.

fascinating that GB must destroy all that dna.

Actually, Tadpole, it's being done erratically with some police forces categorically refusing to do it. It has become a bit of an election point since the Tories are calling it typical of Labour's creeping erosion of our civil liberties. The Tories, however, are promising to remove criminal justice from the EU's control and also claim that Scotland Yard and the Met are working to their agenda in anticipation of their winning the election so there is the suggestion of a double standard. The irony, of course, is that about 80% of people would voluntarily give their DNA. You'd have to assume that the same issues will arise in most jurisdictions which I think is another excellent reason for investigators not just waiting for a Codis match in the JBR case.

 

[Sophie]

Cynic, this is the link to the Amanda Knox documentary. I assume it's available outside the UK. I'm not sure whether it's one of the items C4 for which C4 takes a small payment.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-trials-of-amanda-knox

 

[cynic]

Cynic, this is the link to the Amanda Knox documentary. I assume it's available outside the UK. I'm not sure whether it's one of the items C4 for which C4 takes a small payment.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-trials-of-amanda-knox

Thanks for the link Sophie, unfortunately, like many video streaming websites, Channel 4 limits its content to citizens from that country. I was able to track it down using other means, however.
I followed the case reasonably closely and went back and forth regading the guilt or innocence of Knox and Sollecito.
My final conclusion is that they are most likely innocent. What troubled me the most was definitely the bizarre behavior of Amanda following the murder. Somehow I can't see myself doing cartwheels at the police station following the murder of someone I know.
What is clear to me is that the police had no credible DNA evidence whatsoever against them. They used touch DNA of the worst kind against them - LCN touch DNA. According to reports, the knife whch allegedly had both Knox and Kercher DNA on it contained less than 100 picograms in sample size. This means that there were less than 15 cells present and the test consummed all of the sample preventing further analysis.
An extremely sensitive chemical test for the presumptive presence of blood, tetramethyl benzidine (TMB, a chemical capable of detecting at least a 1:10,000 dilution of blood), was negative for both the handle and blade. meaning that the source of DNA found was most likely skin cells.
This is completely irresponsible behavior by law enforcement and the lab involved in testing.

Here is a bit more regarding the DNA side of the case from http://freeaman.001webs.com/main.htm (This site has a great deal of intersting info on the forensics of the case)

Conventional DNA testing is done with a microscopic, but still significant size sample of DNA, on the order of 1 nanogram (1 billionth of a gram). This quantity provides enough material to ensure that it is physically associated with the actual evidence at a crime scene; a smear of blood, a patch of hair, a cigarette butt. You extract a sample from the specimen, and profile it. And you still have the specimen. You can extract a second sample, and test it again. Or pass it to the defense for their comparative analysis. The experiment is reproducible because there is enough material present to do the test more than once.
LCN DNA profiling is usually defined as either testing with a very small amount of starting material, say 100 picograms, or as profiling with results that fall below the normal stochastic limits of the technique. “Stochastic” means that an element of chance is involved, so that the system is not deterministic. It contains a significant amount of random noise. As a result, repeating the same LCN DNA tests on identical starting samples of material does not produce nearly identical profiles, unlike conventional DNA
testing.
Stefanoni’s technique shares another problem with LCN. If the sample size is small enough, there is nothing left after the replication and analysis to repeat the experiment. It cannot be reproduced. In scientific work, an irreproducible result is automatically suspect because there is no way of confirming it.
LCN DNA profiling can be an irreproducible technique for two distinct reasons. First, because the sample is too small for conventional testing in the first place, it is usually consumed and destroyed in the course of performing the LCN test. No sample, no reproducibility. Second, the test results that are produced contain this strong, random variability. If you perform LCN DNA profiling on ten identical samples, you can get ten different profiles, each differing from the others because of amplification of statistical flukes.
Now let’s think about what all this means for civil liberties. How would you like to live in a world in which any person can be convicted of any crime, anywhere, any time, on the basis of unassailable, “scientific” evidence? The evidence will be unassailable, because there will be nothing left of it by the time the analysis is through. They will be able to swab an object at a crime scene, LCN DNA profile it, and present it in court with no risk of contradiction. It will be their word against yours, and they will have a bunch of apparent, “scientific proof” backing them up. This is a recipe for a police state.
What does it mean for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? The DNA profile from the knife blade in Raffaele’s kitchen drawer that supposedly matches that of Meredith Kercher was performed by an inferior version of LCN DNA testing. It can never be reproduced. The “any crime, anywhere, any time” danger expressed in the previous paragraph is not hypothetical, it is actually happening to Amanda and Raffaele. This form of evidence amounts to, simply, “The defendant is guilty because we say so.” Yet it is even worse. It is an un-testable assertion backed up by a bunch of impressive charts and statistics and the magic words, “science” and “DNA.” It has all of the appearance of scientific certainty with none of the substance. It is not scientific, and it is anything but certain.

 

[Sophie]

Thanks for the link Sophie, unfortunately, like many video streaming websites, Channel 4 limits its content to citizens from that country. I was able to track it down using other means, however.
I followed the case reasonably closely and went back and forth regading the guilt or innocence of Knox and Sollecito.
My final conclusion is that they are most likely innocent. What troubled me the most was definitely the bizarre behavior of Amanda following the murder. Somehow I can't see myself doing cartwheels at the police station following the murder of someone I know.
What is clear to me is that the police had no credible DNA evidence whatsoever against them. They used touch DNA of the worst kind against them - LCN touch DNA. According to reports, the knife whch allegedly had both Knox and Kercher DNA on it contained less than 100 picograms in sample size. This means that there were less than 15 cells present and the test consummed all of the sample preventing further analysis.
An extremely sensitive chemical test for the presumptive presence of blood, tetramethyl benzidine (TMB, a chemical capable of detecting at least a 1:10,000 dilution of blood), was negative for both the handle and blade. meaning that the source of DNA found was most likely skin cells.
This is completely irresponsible behavior by law enforcement and the lab involved in testing.

Here is a bit more regarding the DNA side of the case from http://freeaman.001webs.com/main.htm (This site has a great deal of intersting info on the forensics of the case)

Conventional DNA testing is done with a microscopic, but still significant size sample of DNA, on the order of 1 nanogram (1 billionth of a gram). This quantity provides enough material to ensure that it is physically associated with the actual evidence at a crime scene; a smear of blood, a patch of hair, a cigarette butt. You extract a sample from the specimen, and profile it. And you still have the specimen. You can extract a second sample, and test it again. Or pass it to the defense for their comparative analysis. The experiment is reproducible because there is enough material present to do the test more than once.
LCN DNA profiling is usually defined as either testing with a very small amount of starting material, say 100 picograms, or as profiling with results that fall below the normal stochastic limits of the technique. “Stochastic” means that an element of chance is involved, so that the system is not deterministic. It contains a significant amount of random noise. As a result, repeating the same LCN DNA tests on identical starting samples of material does not produce nearly identical profiles, unlike conventional DNA
testing.
Stefanoni’s technique shares another problem with LCN. If the sample size is small enough, there is nothing left after the replication and analysis to repeat the experiment. It cannot be reproduced. In scientific work, an irreproducible result is automatically suspect because there is no way of confirming it.
LCN DNA profiling can be an irreproducible technique for two distinct reasons. First, because the sample is too small for conventional testing in the first place, it is usually consumed and destroyed in the course of performing the LCN test. No sample, no reproducibility. Second, the test results that are produced contain this strong, random variability. If you perform LCN DNA profiling on ten identical samples, you can get ten different profiles, each differing from the others because of amplification of statistical flukes.
Now let’s think about what all this means for civil liberties. How would you like to live in a world in which any person can be convicted of any crime, anywhere, any time, on the basis of unassailable, “scientific” evidence? The evidence will be unassailable, because there will be nothing left of it by the time the analysis is through. They will be able to swab an object at a crime scene, LCN DNA profile it, and present it in court with no risk of contradiction. It will be their word against yours, and they will have a bunch of apparent, “scientific proof” backing them up. This is a recipe for a police state.
What does it mean for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? The DNA profile from the knife blade in Raffaele’s kitchen drawer that supposedly matches that of Meredith Kercher was performed by an inferior version of LCN DNA testing. It can never be reproduced. The “any crime, anywhere, any time” danger expressed in the previous paragraph is not hypothetical, it is actually happening to Amanda and Raffaele. This form of evidence amounts to, simply, “The defendant is guilty because we say so.” Yet it is even worse. It is an un-testable assertion backed up by a bunch of impressive charts and statistics and the magic words, “science” and “DNA.” It has all of the appearance of scientific certainty with none of the substance. It is not scientific, and it is anything but certain.

I agree with this, Cynic.

There was a video clip of Amanda and Raffaele where they exchanged a look that was positively sinister. Other than demeanour, though, it seems that there is very little tangible evidence against them. I hope they will appeal the conviction.


I do feel sorry for Meredith's parents, though. They have been very dignified.

 

[madeleine]

Okay,this entire conversation between Wood and Beckner re DNA is pretty interesting but there's something that I never heard of before:

MR. WOOD: Maybe it's just my own

9 inability to frame the question correctly, Bob.

10 But I've got Chris Wolf here who has been

11 taken out from under the umbrella of suspicion. It

12 appears at a subsequent time that there is another

13 sample of DNA found foreign to JonBent somewhere on

14 the crime scene other than on her body or her

15 clothing. I'm trying to find out whether Chris Wolf

16 who has not been cleared, whether his DNA would have

17 been expected to be compared to the DNAX. I just

18 think that's --





http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm


I thought that maybe he means the DNA found on the blanket that was inside the suitcase,we know that DNA belongs to JAR.But Maybe he is talking about something else??What can it be?Other DNA at the scene but not on JB's body or clothes..... :waitasec:

 

[BOESP]

... DNA found foreign to JonBent somewhere on

14 the crime scene other than on her body or her

15 clothing. .... :waitasec:

That's an interesting phrase, especially coming from an attorney (Wood) whose every spoken word should have been very well-planned. It is quite open-ended to call the entire house "the crime scene." Someone must know where in the house JonBenet was killed since Wood worded his statement that way.

 

[CanManEh]

what about the paint brush handle or the rope for the garrot and rope if touched with your hands like sliding through your fingers on a closed hand scrapes off tons of dna .No idea really just a thought.

 

[BOESP]

CanManEh, I guess it could be an object but Wood used the word "scene" if the above is correctly quoted. I'd classify the objects as "physical evidence" instead of "scene," but who knows. I sure don't!

 

[cynic]

I thought that maybe he means the DNA found on the blanket that was inside the suitcase,we know that DNA belongs to JAR.But Maybe he is talking about something else??What can it be?Other DNA at the scene but not on JB's body or clothes..... :waitasec:

DNA collection through the 1990’s almost exclusively consisted of swabbing or using a moistened swatch to transfer a visible stain from a crime scene. Hard-surfaced objects were tested for fingerprints rather than friction swabbed for DNA from skin cells.
Given that background I would say that the most likely source of "DNAX" would have been a visible stain from some bodily fluid found on blankets or sheets, but I am just speculating.
It is interesting that no further mention has made of this by anyone in LE or the DA’s office.
This could be because it is too weak in relation to the other DNA evidence or has been matched to an innocent source.
As I said previously:
“There has never been a claim that it matched any other DNA in this case.
No information has ever been released relating to the strength of the profile (number of markers).
For all we know it may the same “quality” as the fingernail DNA”