DNA Revisited

[KariKae]

THE CRIMES OF CRIME LABS
J. Herbie DiFonzo

If you put God on the witness stand . . . and God’s testimony conflicted with the DNA evidence, everyone would automatically say, “Why is God lying like this?”

DNA’s reputation for scientific precision is in fact unwarranted. The record is littered with slapdash forensic analyses often performed by untrained, underpaid, overworked forensic technicians operating in crime labs whose workings reflect gross incompetence or rampant corruption.
Why does this matter? It matters because the average jury is not exposed to the track record of forensic science in the courtroom. The jury foreman in the 2005 rape trial expressed the common wisdom:
“Everybody agreed that the DNA evidence was so strong . . . that’s why everybody voted guilty in this case.” The scientific basis of DNA testing can mislead the unsuspecting into believing that the introduction of DNA evidence in court not only ensures procedural regularity, but also washes away the need to examine any corroborating or contradictory evidence. One prime example of the cultural sway is seen in the “CSI Effect,” popularly defined as “the perception of the near-infallibility of forensic science in response to the TV show.” CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and its forensic cousins have led juries to worship forensic testimony. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have begun to voir dire potential jurors on their CSI viewing habits. In the world portrayed on CSI, forensic technicians are always above reproach:
“You never see a case where the sample is degraded or the lab work is faulty or the test results don’t solve the crime.” But how carefully is DNA analyzed and preserved in real labs, in cases not dreamed up by screenwriters? DNA matching is regarded as well-nigh infallible, so long as the sometimes microscopic quantity of DNA is handled with the utmost care in order to achieve its vaunted accuracy in identification. But “DNA samples recovered from crime scenes are often so small and in such disintegrated condition that they are easy to mishandle or manipulate.” In fact, the criminal justice system “does a poor job of distinguishing unassailably powerful DNA evidence from weak, misleading DNA evidence.” A recent Chicago Tribune examination of 200 DNA and death row exoneration cases since 1986 found that more than a quarter involved faulty crime lab work or testimony.
As forensic expert William C. Thompson has concluded:
“The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible.”

http://www.thejusticeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/crimes-of-crime-labs-hofstra.pdf

And let's not forget how young DNA technology was at the time. I would guess labs were not as careful about cross contamination and other factors as they are today.

Does anybody know if the re-tested sample was a "new" sample of DNA, or a re-test of an old sample? If a re-test of an old sample, I would suspect some cross contamination.

 

[KariKae]

IIRC, the police wanted additional DNA tests run at the FBI lab, but the DAs office wouldn't allow it unless the Ramsey's could have their own experts present. I don't think it ever happened, did it?

 

[DeeDee249]

IIRC, the police wanted additional DNA tests run at the FBI lab, but the DAs office wouldn't allow it unless the Ramsey's could have their own experts present. I don't think it ever happened, did it?

No, I don't think so.

 

[cynic]

And let's not forget how young DNA technology was at the time. I would guess labs were not as careful about cross contamination and other factors as they are today.

Definitely. Even today, it's a bit frightening to see what goes on in terms of evidence handling and collection.
Take a look at what was done with a crucial piece of DNA evidence (bra clasp) in the Amanda Knox case.
The gloved hand of a second investigator touches the clasp.
The gloved hand that held the flashlight (sterile?) touches the clasp.
The bra clasp is dropped on the floor.
The mask of one of the investigators has slipped down below his nose.
Good job guys.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMaTI0SiuLw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMaTI0SiuLw[/ame]
How is Bode Technology at handling evidence?
Prosecutors acknowledge more errors in Levy case
Attorneys in the Chandra Levy murder trial acknowledged another error in the processing of evidence against Ingmar Guandique, the man police and prosecutors says killed the former intern.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Fernando Campoamor-Sanchez said his office sent an envelope to Guandique’s defense attorneys containing a hair from a skull found in Rock Creek Park at the time Levy’s body was found. But Guandique’s attorney, Maria Hawilo of the District’s Public Defender Service, said that when her office opened the envelope, the hair was missing.
The hair mishap was at least the third such error involving the handling of evidence in the case. During hearings last year, prosecutors acknowledged that a female lab technician for BODE Technology Group, used by the government to process the Levy evidence, got some of her DNA on Levy’s red bra.
Also, DNA from an unknown male, possibly a male police officer or lab technician, was found on a pair of Levy’s tights. Campoamor said it was unclear whose DNA was found on the tights, but that it was not Guandique’s or that of Gary Condit, the former California congressman who had an affair with Levy and who fell under suspicion when Levy disappeared in May 2001. Her body was found a year later.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/from-the-courthouse/chandra-levys-accused-killer-i.html

Does anybody know if the re-tested sample was a "new" sample of DNA, or a re-test of an old sample? If a re-test of an old sample, I would suspect some cross contamination.

If I read your post correctly, I assume you are referring to the second blood spot from which the CODIS profile was eventually developed?
Unfortunately there is too much conflicting information with regard to this. It appears that it was a fresh swab of the blood spot, but I really don’t know.
2003 — Second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear tested resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined. http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13062285#axzz0jFstBG4g

IIRC, the police wanted additional DNA tests run at the FBI lab, but the DAs office wouldn't allow it unless the Ramsey's could have their own experts present. I don't think it ever happened, did it?

Initial DNA testing was done in two labs; CBI and Orchid Cellmark (formerly Cellmark Diagnostics,)
The BPD was getting all of their work done at CBI, and presumably would have continued to do so. The CBI was firm in its stance to not allow anyone from the Ramsey camp to be involved. If the DA’s office charged the Ramseys, defense representatives would be allowed to observe. The Ramsey defense team, however, continued to pressure the DA’s office and that resulted in a switch to Cellmark, which would have no problem allowing defense DNA experts to observe.

The DA’s office decided that future DNA tests would be conducted by Cellmark Diagnostics in Maryland, the largest independent testing lab in the country. In my opinion, the main reason was to placate Team Ramsey.
The reason was painfully obvious. CBI director Carl Whiteside had banned Ramsey experts from observing the testing procedures, so they simply opened a new line of attack, and Trip DeMuth cleared the way for them. DeMuth gave Cellmark orders not to begin testing without prior authorization from the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office. “The reason for this restriction is that arrangements must be made for a representative from the Ramsey family to be present,” he wrote.
JonBenet, Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation – Steve Thomas, pg. 164

Though the Ramsey defense team initially wanted to observe the DNA testing, there was later a change of strategy as outlined below:
Moses Schanfield, a DNA expert and forensic scientist was now consulting with the Ramseys’ attorneys who notified Cellmark Diagnostics that they no longer required one of their experts to be present during the DNA testing procedures. Cellmark’s work could proceed without them as far as the Ramseys were concerned. Presumably, the lawyers had decided that if the test results implicated their clients while their own representative was present, it would be extremely difficult for them to challenge the Cellmark methods. Better to position themselves so that a legal challenge could be made against both the science and Cellmark’s findings.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town – Lawrence Schiller, pg 243.

 

[madeleine]

More and more I believe that this new technology is not in the victim's favor....I want the Sherlock Holmes times back.....

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/mar/28/ferguson-makes-dna-plea/

The defense would fund the testing and expenses for the procedure, Bill Ferguson said Friday. He believes the analysis would prove his son was not present at the Nov. 1, 2001, murder when Heitholt was strangled and beaten.


Experts say the technique can help develop fresh leads in unsolved cases and is most widely known for clearing the family of JonBenet Ramsey in the 1996 murder of the 6-year-old Colorado girl.

Gregory J. Davis, professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, told USA Today in 2008 that, “In select cases, this has the potential to find a person’s DNA when it couldn’t be found before. It has great potential for prosecutors who may be able to confirm a suspect’s location at the time of the crime and for defense attorneys who may argue that their client was nowhere near the scene of the crime.”

Errrrrrrrrrr......nope,it doesn't prove that he wasn't present FGS,maybe he was but he left no DNA.

I am afraid that Lacy's actions are used as a bad example and this won't stop....

 

[madeleine]

LOL so this is how we set killers free these days......if the suspect's touch DNA is not found on the victim's clothes this means the suspect wasn't around...........YEAH RIGHT.Great tool for defence lawyers but what about all the VICTIMS?Disgusting..........

 

[BOESP]

... I am afraid that Lacy's actions are used as a bad example and this won't stop....

Makes one wonder doesn't it.

I wonder why Lacy did not exonerate others along with the Ramseys.

I wonder why no mention was made about whether or not Ramsey DNA was found on the long-johns or panty.

I wonder how Lacy explains the ransom note looking remarkably like Patsy's exemplars, especially since Patsy could not be excluded as the writer of the ransom note based on professional analysis.

I wonder a lot of things about this case.

 

[DeeDee249]

Makes one wonder doesn't it.

I wonder why Lacy did not exonerate others along with the Ramseys.

I wonder why no mention was made about whether or not Ramsey DNA was found on the long-johns or panty.

I wonder how Lacy explains the ransom note looking remarkably like Patsy's exemplars, especially since Patsy could not be excluded as the writer of the ransom note based on professional analysis.

I wonder a lot of things about this case.

Me, too.

 

[BBB167893]

Me, three.

 

[cynic]

Errrrrrrrrrr......nope,it doesn't prove that he wasn't present FGS,maybe he was but he left no DNA.

Exactly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I am afraid that Lacy's actions are used as a bad example and this won't stop...

Sadly true, that’s why she was widely criticized by many in the legal field who knew immediately the ramifications of her actions.
I often wonder how different things could have been with a competent and unbiased DA in office during the early going, someone such as Bob Grant for example.

Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence.

"My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant.

"I think she has long been convinced, if not from the very beginning, that the Ramseys were not involved in the death of JonBenet," Grant said of Lacy. "That was clear to me on a couple of meetings that we had early on in 1997, and I don't think anything has changed her opinion in the last 12 years. It was clear that she didn't feel that this was an inside job, (and) that she was buying into the intruder theory much more so than most other folks at an early stage."

Grant said he still sees evidence, and "unanswered questions" that would support either inside or outside involvement in JonBenet's murder - but that Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.

"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-formerdaletterclearingr-6959085,0,2592897.story

 

[madeleine]

I don't recall now,were the Ramsey's ever asked where they usually kept JAR's blanket that was found in the suitcase with his DNA on it?Could be the item that was used to wipe JB down,right?

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe that there was a conversation about that blanket somewhere. I seem to recall either Patsy or JR as saying that it was a blanket that JAR used in his college dorm room. As we know, JAR's semen was found on that blanket. Not unusual for a college boy. What was unusual was the Dr. Seuss book also found in the suitcase. NOT so usual for a college boy.
Unfortunately, it can't be determined when that semen was left. I'd have loved to see that blanket (which was described as black or dark) tested against the dark fibers found on JB. I'd have loved to see them tested against JR's dark blue terrycloth robe also. Sadly, that will never happen, because the robe and probably the blanket, are long gone.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

By now we have a matching DNA profile from possibly as many as five (5) samples recovered at the crime scene. RDI or IDI, is this DNA really important to solving the case? Personally I don't think so.

Imagine a war torn plundered town with a young female victim found dead. DNA from an unknown male can be found in many places on the victim.

Does this help locate a suspect? No.

It only helps to prosecute a suspect who has already been located. In the example above, what is the probability of locating a suspect in the first place? Nearly none, right?

This is likely and unfortunately the case with JBR.

 

[BBB167893]

By now we have a matching DNA profile from possibly as many as five (5) samples recovered at the crime scene. RDI or IDI, is this DNA really important to solving the case? Personally I don't think so.

Imagine a war torn plundered town with a young female victim found dead. DNA from an unknown male can be found in many places on the victim.

Does this help locate a suspect? No.

It only helps to prosecute a suspect who has already been located. In the example above, what is the probability of locating a suspect in the first place? Nearly none, right?

This is likely and unfortunately the case with JBR.

An exceptional post, HOTYH.

 

[DeeDee249]

An exceptional post, HOTYH.

Yes, it is. Outstanding.

 

[WHITEFANG]

An exceptional post, HOTYH.

Was she brutally bludgeoned?
"I don't know." Work on this one. Over 8" crack plus the rectangular shaped bone detached from the skull.

By now we have a matching DNA profile from possibly as many as five (5) samples recovered at the crime scene. RDI or IDI, is this DNA really important to solving the case? Personally I don't think so.

Imagine a war torn plundered town with a young female victim found dead. DNA from an unknown male can be found in many places on the victim.

Does this help locate a suspect? No.

It only helps to prosecute a suspect who has already been located. In the example above, what is the probability of locating a suspect in the first place? Nearly none, right?

This is likely and unfortunately the case with JBR

Same scenario but add an intact lab in town, which has the DNA fingerprint of everyone in the world, except 3 people. Does this help locate the suspect?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Same scenario but add an intact lab in town, which has the DNA fingerprint of everyone in the world, except 3 people. Does this help locate the suspect?

OK but this is a fantastic scenario. In the real world, we have 7 billion people. How many of those are in a searchable DNA database? The DNA owner is in seclusion in a foreign country mixed with about 30 million people. They don't even test for DNA and don't share criminal investigations with the US.

Its going to be a long wait.

I think what this DNA does is rules out PR and JR involvement in the crime, to everybody except those with some sort of vested interest in the outcome.

The DNA tipped the scale of justice, and this is reflected in the media coverage and the behavior of LE as a whole. About the only thing they haven't done is given JR the key to the city (which they probably should've done).

The DNA is most likely deposited criminally. This is attested to by the absense of a more probable, concise, realistic, and complete scenario that places this exact DNA in these exact locations innocently.

So far, any scenario attempted by RDI has been nothing more than a vague high handed wave. Even if a plausible innocent DNA transfer scenario existed, no matter what the scenario was, the criminal scenario is still going to be more likely.

 

[BBB167893]

Work on this one. Over 8" crack plus the rectangular shaped bone detached from the skull.

Fang, I didn't just waltz in here from the coal mine. I've BEEN working on it. When I say "I don't know if she was brutally bludgeoned," that's exactly what I mean. She COULD have been bludgeoned, but she could just as easily have been slammed or thrown into something.

 

[BBB167893]

I think what this DNA does is rules out PR and JR involvement in the crime, to everybody except those with some sort of vested interest in the outcome.

That's a matter of opinion. As I see it, it only rules out PR and JR to those with a vested interest in the outcome.

The DNA tipped the scale of justice, and this is reflected in the media coverage and the behavior of LE as a whole.

I wonder if Chief Beckner would agree.

About the only thing they haven't done is given JR the key to the city.

You're right, that IS about the only thing they haven't done. That's pretty much the problem.

The DNA is most likely deposited criminally. This is attested to by the absense of a more probable, concise, realistic, and complete scenario that places this exact DNA in these exact locations innocently.

I'd agree that there is an absence of one SO FAR, but only because there are so many possibilities that it's hard to know where to begin. Your scenario, on the other hand, is very clearly defined. As for the issues of more probable and realistic, I find the idea of an innocent transfer in and of itself more probable and realistic based on what we know so far.

So far, any scenario attempted by RDI has been nothing more than a vague high handed wave.

Rome wasn't built in a day, you know.

Even if a plausible innocent DNA transfer scenario existed, no matter what the scenario was, the criminal scenario is still going to be more likely.

In a vacuum. If you didn't have anything else going against it, I mean.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd agree that there is an absence of one SO FAR, but only because there are so many possibilities that it's hard to know where to begin. Your scenario, on the other hand, is very clearly defined. As for the issues of more probable and realistic, I find the idea of an innocent transfer in and of itself more probable and realistic based on what we know so far.

Simply stating that innocent transfer is more probable and realistic 'based on what we know so far' doesn't make it valid. Where's your argument?

Please feel free to begin describing an innocent scenario, because as it is now, the criminal scenario is the only existing scenario that places this exact DNA in these exact locations.

You yourself have admitted that.