DNA Revisited

[MurriFlower]

I wonder how reliable her memory is.

I don't think she lied about that. Both PR and LHP agreed on this anyway.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Maybe that was inevitable. I'll be honest, Fang; I don't think you did me justice because I don't think it was as LS categorizes. He has a habit of coming up with things on his own that aren't supported by expert opinion (and believe me, that's the nicest way I can put that)

.

I think I lost you there, Supe.

Something like that, yeah. In fact, I'm somewhat grateful to you for putting it like that.

I don't quite like how you characterized that, Fang. I'm not asking anyone to "just accept" what I believe. Far from it. I'm asking people to understand WHY I believe it and I'm confident that they'll accept it on their own. Why? Because that's what happened to me. I didn't go from hardline IDI to hardline RDI for nothing.

I meant a willingness to accept a course of action-staging the death of one's child by applying a cord/noose around her neck-as a key to reach the truth in this case. I can't concede that.

The WW II Battle of Stalingrad exposed the depths of human savagery where cannibalism involving one's family became a not uncommon means of survival. The point you have been driving home, that each of us is capable of unimaginable horrific behavior depending on the nature of the circumstances we encounter has value. Frankly, no one can say for sure, I suppose, what he would do. The fact that most of us who hold an opinion about the Ramsey's guilt or innocence believe they were involved, by itself tends to refute the very premise you embrace; that rich, educated, white people are incapable of such heinous behavior. All we can do is our best.

What is that supposed to mean?

Just that I cannot join you.

An experienced crime scene investigator and FBI profiler spent time just talking to the Ramseys, getting to know them some, listening to them. He made a statement afterwords that he didn't find them capable of committing this crime. You found his conclusion less than acceptable (poisonous). You thought he'd been had. Yet, maybe, just perhaps, he employed a "technique" out of favor these days, but, one with timeless value.

 

[BBB167893]

I think I lost you there, Supe.

You may have at that.

I meant a willingness to accept a course of action-staging the death of one's child by applying a cord/noose around her neck-as a key to reach the truth in this case. I can't concede that.

Let's be perfectly honest with each other, Fang. Can't? Or don't want to? Either way, I understand it. Maybe I was wrong to ask other people to take on the burden that I grapple with day after day. I'll admit that.

The WW II Battle of Stalingrad exposed the depths of human savagery where cannibalism involving one's family became a not uncommon means of survival. The point you have been driving home, that each of us is capable of unimaginable horrific behavior depending on the nature of the circumstances we encounter has value. Frankly, no one can say for sure, I suppose, what he would do. The fact that most of us who hold an opinion about the Ramsey's guilt or innocence believe they were involved, by itself tends to refute the very premise you embrace; that rich, educated, white people are incapable of such heinous behavior. All we can do is our best.

You are a very understanding man, Fang. I couldn't have said it better myself.
There's just one thing that bothers me. Since WHEN do I embrace the premise that rich, educated white people are incapable of such heinous behavior? Last I knew, I was one of the big detractors of that idea.

Just that I cannot join you.

Maybe I'm wrong to ask, Fang. The burden that I bear, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I forgot that it's my cross, and I have to carry it alone. No problem. I'm used to that.

An experienced crime scene investigator and FBI profiler spent time just talking to the Ramseys, getting to know them some, listening to them. He made a statement afterwords that he didn't find them capable of committing this crime.

Yeah, and if memory serves, he was absolutely HAMMERED for it by his own colleagues for being credulous and unprofessional.

You found his conclusion less than acceptable (poisonous). You thought he'd been had.

I'm not the only one! Hell, no! It's quite a list.

Yet, maybe, just perhaps, he employed a "technique" out of favor these days, but, one with timeless value.

Okay, I'll bite. Which technique?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Let's be perfectly honest with each other, Fang. Can't? Or don't want to? Either way, I understand it. Maybe I was wrong to ask other people to take on the burden that I grapple with day after day. I'll admit that.

You are a very understanding man, Fang. I couldn't have said it better myself.

There's just one thing that bothers me. Since WHEN do I embrace the premise that rich, educated white people are incapable of such heinous behavior? Last I knew, I was one of the big detractors of that idea.

"I meant the premise that you support that most people find it impossible to accept wealthy, educated, white people could do this."

Maybe I'm wrong to ask, Fang. The burden that I bear, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I forgot that it's my cross, and I have to carry it alone. No problem. I'm used to that.

Yeah, and if memory serves, he was absolutely HAMMERED for it by his own colleagues for being credulous and unprofessional.

"Which makes him your kind of guy! Can't you see? He did what you do. He relied on his gut. He approached the crime and them with an open mind. It didn't matter to him in the least what the conventional wisdom was or what the experts believed. And even he paid the price, too."

I'm not the only one! Hell, no! It's quite a list.

Okay, I'll bite. Which technique?

"He listened to them."

 

[BBB167893]

"I meant the premise that you support that most people find it impossible to accept wealthy, educated, white people could do this."

Got it. Okay, let's reframe the dialogue:

The WW II Battle of Stalingrad exposed the depths of human savagery where cannibalism involving one's family became a not uncommon means of survival. The point you have been driving home, that each of us is capable of unimaginable horrific behavior depending on the nature of the circumstances we encounter has value. Frankly, no one can say for sure, I suppose, what he would do. The fact that most of us who hold an opinion about the Ramsey's guilt or innocence believe they were involved, by itself tends to refute the very premise that you support that most people find it impossible to accept wealthy, educated, white people could do this. All we can do is our best.

I still couldn't have said it better myself.

Which makes him your kind of guy! Can't you see? He did what you do. He relied on his gut. He approached the crime and them with an open mind. It didn't matter to him in the least what the conventional wisdom was or what the experts believed. And even he paid the price, too."

EXCUSE ME??? Let's take this one step at a time.

--He did what you do. He relied on his gut.

Two big differences. One, I'm a layperson; I'm not the one breaking all the rules that I myself laid down for future generations to learn from. Two, I use my gut to bridge the gaps between the facts as I know them. I don't blindly let it lead me by the nose with my eyes and ears closed. When he came on (hired by them, if memory serves) there were not a whole lot of facts available.

--He approached the crime and them with an open mind.

Well, I thank you. Not many people around here would give me that kind of praise. But as my dear, departed father never tired of telling me, always keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

--It didn't matter to him in the least what the conventional wisdom was or what the experts believed.

I don't like where this is headed.

--And even he paid the price, too.

Exactly what "price" have I paid?

Listening to them.

Okay. I can see where that would have merit. Sometimes people in a spot like that will tell more to an ally than an enemy. My point is he seems to have forgotten his own rules for how to listen.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Supe,
I didn't mean he didn't have other important, vital qualities when I said he listened to his gut and compared you to him. That's not where I was coming from, at all. In fact, I was trying to express the exact opposite point of view. He and you stand for something, apart from what others may do or think. In addition to Douglas doing his homework and having years of experience in the field, he was willing to give them a fair shot at explaining what happened. By "hearing" them, by really trying to be impartial, like you have done, he paid a price. He was roundly criticized.

You had just stated that you had a cross to bear. Douglas, too. But, you and he have stuck to your guns. You have maintained your integrity. See what I'm trying to say?

 

[cynic]

Your statement contradicts the Bode website, where they explain that skin cell DNA has to be present in sufficient quantity to produce a profile.

Humans shed tens of thousands of skin cells each day, and these cells are transferred to every surface our skin contacts. When a crime is committed, if the perpetrator deposits a sufficient number of skin cells on an item at the scene, and that item is collected as possible evidence, touch DNA analysis may be able to link the perpetrator to the crime scene.
-Bode website

Actually humans shed 400,000 skin cells per day, (more by many estimates) and I have said that it takes 30 cells to provide a profile using standard (not LCN) amplification.

JBR, PR, or JR would have to actually touch the waistband to create a touch DNA profile. You seem to be simply assuming that JBR, PR, or JR touched the waistband and produced a profile that was then ignored.

(The following paragraph assumes IDI, and truthfulness of Ramsey statements.)
JBR was wearing the long johns, presumably for at least 1 ½ - 2 hours prior to being assaulted by an intruder. Dead skin cells sloughing off from her skin, in addition to friction contact with her white top, (which would have been loaded with skin cells from being worn for 6+ hours) would produce a profile.
Also, she may have gone to the washroom prior to the assault and therefore made contact as she pulled down her long johns.
With respect to PR, she has fully admitted to putting the long johns on JBR, she would have unquestionably made contact with JBR in precisely the area that was razor scraped for trace DNA.
And finally JR’s profile may be there, but it would completely depend on where precisely where he held JBR as he was carrying her upstairs.
You seem to think that there can only be one DNA profile at a time found with trace DNA collection techniques. That is completely false. The goal is to try and minimize the potential of a mixed profile by targeting very specific and limited areas on an item of evidence, but mixed profiles are certainly not uncommon.

Touch DNA:
Analysis MAY be difficult
Often low level samples or mixtures of DNA due to the nature of the sample
May need elimination standards before any information can be put into CODIS
Swab of a steering wheel from a stolen car
The owner of the car would be expected to also have DNA on the steering wheel
Owner would need to be eliminated as a source of any results
http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/presentations/BioScreening_Current_Trends_BEO_JMS_083109.pdf

Also:

These samples may constitute fabric samples from clothing worn by the offender or swabs taken from items touched or handled during the course of the crime. Such samples can often be expected to yield low amounts of DNA and, for car or household crimes, contain mixtures of the offender’s DNA with that of other individuals (ie., the legitimate owners or users of the vehicle, of residents or visitors at the crime scene.)
http://marketing.appliedbiosystems.com/images/Product_Microsites/NGM/downloads/NextGen_SS_v2.pdf

and produced a profile that was then ignored.

Also

The idea that Bode would knowingly allow the DA to draw an incorrect conclusion from the test results...

And

Still it would be interesting to hear their take on PR, JR, and JBR DNA. Based on their web site, the only way DNA from these three would be detected is if they touched the fabric in the areas that were tested.

No, I wouldn’t characterize it as “ignoring,” but rather that there was a presumption that profiles from JR or PR would be present due to innocent activity.

I doubt this to be the case, as JR or PR touch DNA found in these locations would add to the case against them

Yes and no, it would be somewhat analogous to hair and fiber evidence being found there. The waistband of her long johns would be something that PR would have touched as she readied her daughter for bed, and JR may have touched the area as he carried her upstairs from the basement.
For those very reasons, I find it bewildering that they would test that region. Testing areas of items in evidence that were presumably not touched by the parents would be the most logical and be of the highest probative value.
If the ligature was not tested, it would amount to incompetence of the highest degree.

 

[cynic]

Unsourced stories are junk. The 'filtering out of assumed-to-be-innocent DNA' is a myth.

Touch DNA present in quantities enough to produce a profile will produce a profile. There was no 'filtering of friendlies'.

And

I think the idea that they plugged in a DNA value and then searched for it, filtering out 'innocent' DNA, is bogus propaganda.

That is untrue, whether through the usage of software or simply elimination by a forensic analyst, reference or other profiles deemed to be unrelated/innocent are routinely used to zero in on a suspect’s profile in mixture analysis. An example of software that aids in mixture interpretation is below.

GeneMapper ID-X Software mixture analysis tool assists the forensic analyst with the analysis and interpretation of mixed DNA samples.
…
Cases involving sexual assault, homicide, and touch DNA often have mixtures of two or more DNA profiles…
When both contributors are unknown, deconvoluting the mixture becomes much more complex.
…
GMID-X allows the user to define one contributor to the mixture, e.g., a victim’s profile.
http://forensics.marshall.edu/NEST/PDFs-NEST/Posters/PromegaGMIDXPoster10-09.pdf

 

[cynic]

Touching something doesn't automatically leave DNA material on it.

Just to be clear, all contact by an ungloved hand will deposit some DNA.
At issue is whether enough is transferred to produce a profile.
You do need about 30 – 35 cells to produce a profile using conventional DNA techniques.
As few as 5 cells can be analyzed by using LCN DNA techniques, but the method has a number of issues that would prove extremely problematic in court.
Studies have shown that typical DNA transfer from hands is anywhere from 20 – 1000 cells.

 

[cynic]

However, if DNA is present in sufficient quantity to produce a profile using touch DNA methods, its very likely because it was touched by the DNA owner.

The idea that someone can transfer someone else's DNA in sufficient quantity to produce a separate profile, and yet without depositing their own DNA, is no less than what RDI proposes. RDI bogus propaganda at best. I hope that by now that calmer cooler reasoning prevails within LE, and this idea isn't seriously considered even for a minute.

You can deposit more of someone else’s DNA than your own. That may or may not have been the case here. As I suggested, it is also possible that familial DNA profiles may have been ignored because they may have been deemed to be likely in this area as a result of innocent contact.

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method]
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification
…
While the DNA of the last person to touch the item may, or may not, be on the item, the DNA of others who may or who may not have touched the item may also be present.
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That is untrue, whether through the usage of software or simply elimination by a forensic analyst, reference or other profiles deemed to be unrelated/innocent are routinely used to zero in on a suspect’s profile in mixture analysis. An example of software that aids in mixture interpretation is below.

GeneMapper ID-X Software mixture analysis tool assists the forensic analyst with the analysis and interpretation of mixed DNA samples.
…
Cases involving sexual assault, homicide, and touch DNA often have mixtures of two or more DNA profiles…
When both contributors are unknown, deconvoluting the mixture becomes much more complex.
…
GMID-X allows the user to define one contributor to the mixture, e.g., a victim’s profile.
[URL]http://forensics.marshall.edu/NEST/PDFs-NEST/Posters/PromegaGMIDXPoster10-09.pdf[/URL]

One of us should ask Bode, hey did you filter out JR, PR, and JBR DNA or was this unknown DNA on the waistband a standalone in that scraping. In the latter case, you'd be back to your argument that JBR could deposit unknown male DNA without deposting her own. Far as I'm concerned, this is obviously a rationalization. I mean, it might happen once but not three times.

I figure no matter what the circumstances, you'll have an RDI argument for it. Of course, you're not alone because thats the same circular reasoning hogwash that has contaminated this case since day one.

Just remember, unknown male DNA on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear is BAD for RDI. There's no good way for RDI to look at it. It doesn't add to RDI's argument. Now, consider that more matching DNA was found in two places on the leggings. That takes it from bad to what?

Also note that the DNA had to come from somewhere, and answering 'wherever' isn't acceptable anymore, not since the discovery of the legging DNA. At least not if you're interested in credibility, because the deposts in three (3) locations suggests a nonrandom event. Where did this DNA come from? If it was from someone she recently came in contact with, why is it 'unknown male' DNA? Wouldn't it be more likely owned by a DNA tested person, if they tested most of the people with which JBR recently came in contact?

Finally, we KNOW that a criminal handled JBR's underwear and leggings DURING a sexual assault.

 

[MurriFlower]

That is untrue, whether through the usage of software or simply elimination by a forensic analyst, reference or other profiles deemed to be unrelated/innocent are routinely used to zero in on a suspect’s profile in mixture analysis. An example of software that aids in mixture interpretation is below.

GeneMapper ID-X Software mixture analysis tool assists the forensic analyst with the analysis and interpretation of mixed DNA samples.
…
Cases involving sexual assault, homicide, and touch DNA often have mixtures of two or more DNA profiles…
When both contributors are unknown, deconvoluting the mixture becomes much more complex.
…
GMID-X allows the user to define one contributor to the mixture, e.g., a victim’s profile.
http://forensics.marshall.edu/NEST/PDFs-NEST/Posters/PromegaGMIDXPoster10-09.pdf

Just wondering though, if the parents are suspects (as parents always are in such cases according to RDI), why then would their DNA be filtered out? Wouldn't it have been defeating the purpose to only look for unknown DNA? AND if DNA from known persons WAS filtered out, how about other potential suspects whose DNA may have been dismissed as innocently placed?

 

[cynic]

Just wondering though, if the parents are suspects (as parents always are in such cases according to RDI), why then would their DNA be filtered out? Wouldn't it have been defeating the purpose to only look for unknown DNA? AND if DNA from known persons WAS filtered out, how about other potential suspects whose DNA may have been dismissed as innocently placed?

The parents by their statements said that they likely had contact with JBR's waist area. No one else would have had innocent contact with that area.
The mission may have been only to find corroborating DNA evidence, in other words can you find the CODIS profile in this area?

 

[DeeDee249]

Just wondering though, if the parents are suspects (as parents always are in such cases according to RDI), why then would their DNA be filtered out? Wouldn't it have been defeating the purpose to only look for unknown DNA? AND if DNA from known persons WAS filtered out, how about other potential suspects whose DNA may have been dismissed as innocently placed?

Well, one reason would be because the parents' skin cells would be expected to be there. Patsy admitted putting the longjohns on her daughter, and JR carried her up with his hands around her waist. Both parents may have helped her in the bathroom as well, while she was wearing them. And JB wore pajamas more than once before washing. Patsy said she had been looking for the pink pajamas (seen in the Christmas morning photos) from the day before and when she couldn't find the bottoms (the top was on the bed) she found the longjohns. Patsy said that she looked under the pillow for the pink pajamas (lots of kids keep their pj's there) and only found the top. This is a perfect explanation for why the pillow on JB's bed is seen at the foot of her bed instead of the usual place.

 

[MurriFlower]

The parents by their statements said that they likely had contact with JBR's waist area. No one else would have had innocent contact with that area.
The mission may have been only to find corroborating DNA evidence, in other words can you find the CODIS profile in this area?

Well, the reason I asked about this is that RDI seem to take the absence as well as the presence of the R's fingerprints/DNA as evidence of their guilt, as and when required.

For example, the batteries in the flashlight that supposedly belonged to them did not have fingerprints, so this is suspicious. We do not know if there were any fingerprints or other evidence on the exterior of the flashlight though, just lack of it on the batteries.

However, the presence of PR's fingerprint on a bowl that she owned, but states she did not fill with pineapple and put on the table, is taken as suspicious also. I would not have thought the bowl could get into the kitchen cabinet without someone putting it there, so it would have to have someone's fingerprints on it.

So for this reason, I was wondering if the Rs DNA was actually present on JBRs clothing? And if so, is it possible that other DNA, that might have been dismissed as 'innocent', was also present?

 

[MurriFlower]

Well, one reason would be because the parents' skin cells would be expected to be there. Patsy admitted putting the longjohns on her daughter, and JR carried her up with his hands around her waist. Both parents may have helped her in the bathroom as well, while she was wearing them. And JB wore pajamas more than once before washing. Patsy said she had been looking for the pink pajamas (seen in the Christmas morning photos) from the day before and when she couldn't find the bottoms (the top was on the bed) she found the longjohns. Patsy said that she looked under the pillow for the pink pajamas (lots of kids keep their pj's there) and only found the top. This is a perfect explanation for why the pillow on JB's bed is seen at the foot of her bed instead of the usual place.

That's a bit odd don't you think? Wouldn't a parent replace the pillow under the sleeping child's head?

 

[cynic]

Well, the reason I asked about this is that RDI seem to take the absence as well as the presence of the R's fingerprints/DNA as evidence of their guilt, as and when required.

I was wondering if the Rs DNA was actually present on JBRs clothing? And if so, is it possible that other DNA, that might have been dismissed as 'innocent', was also present?

I believe PR's and JBR's DNA was present, JR's possibly.
I couldn't begin to imagine why any other profiles would be dismissed.

 

[MurriFlower]

I believe PR's and JBR's DNA was present, JR's possibly.
I couldn't begin to imagine why any other profiles would be dismissed.

The housekeeper perhaps, who washed and replaced the clothes in JBR's bedroom?

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, the reason I asked about this is that RDI seem to take the absence as well as the presence of the R's fingerprints/DNA as evidence of their guilt, as and when required.

For example, the batteries in the flashlight that supposedly belonged to them did not have fingerprints, so this is suspicious. We do not know if there were any fingerprints or other evidence on the exterior of the flashlight though, just lack of it on the batteries.

However, the presence of PR's fingerprint on a bowl that she owned, but states she did not fill with pineapple and put on the table, is taken as suspicious also. I would not have thought the bowl could get into the kitchen cabinet without someone putting it there, so it would have to have someone's fingerprints on it.

So for this reason, I was wondering if the Rs DNA was actually present on JBRs clothing? And if so, is it possible that other DNA, that might have been dismissed as 'innocent', was also present?

It was also found that the outside of the flashlight had been wiped down as well as the batteries, so the flashlight yielded no prints.
Patsy's prints on the bowl that she owned are NOT suspicious. the fact that she lied about putting it there are suspicious. Hers were the only prints on the bowl. Just as it didn't get into a cabinet without someone putting it there, it didn't get filled with pineapple and onto the table without someone putting it there, and it wasn't JB or BR.

 

[DeeDee249]

That's a bit odd don't you think? Wouldn't a parent replace the pillow under the sleeping child's head?

If the child was sleeping there. I believe JB never went to bed that night. I believe Patsy DID get JB ready for bed, just as she said, but at that point I think the events of the night began. I believe BR was telling the truth when he told LE that his sister was awake and walked into the house that night when they returned from the White's.