DNA Revisited

[MurriFlower]

who is JMK?

John Mark Karr the man who confessed to killing JBR.

 

[DeeDee249]

cynic: Thanks, but this only answers part of my question. If for example, BPD sent off 20 samples, 10 were from 'males' and 10 from 'females'. How are these samples labelled to identify the person who provided them? If a sample came from a male but was labelled 'Mrs X', for example, would anyone at the lab notice and remark on it? Or are samples identified only by number?

Cynic is the DNA expert here, but if a sample was mislabeled, it would still be read correctly as soon as it was examined. Any sample can be mislabeled- human error is always a risk. But someone posing as a female, whether they have had treatment to change their gender will still have only XY chromosomes. If the DNA sample is from a male, but is mislabeled when it gets to the lab, any technician who is trained to examine and classify it will know that it has been mislabeled and is actually from a male. Of course, if a man poses as a woman and NO ONE KNOWS IT, they might not be considered or tested against a sample that has been found to be male. But if that person WERE to be tested, their DNA would be male.
Is this what you were asking?

 

[MurriFlower]

Cynic is the DNA expert here, but if a sample was mislabeled, it would still be read correctly as soon as it was examined. Any sample can be mislabeled- human error is always a risk. But someone posing as a female, whether they have had treatment to change their gender will still have only XY chromosomes. If the DNA sample is from a male, but is mislabeled when it gets to the lab, any technician who is trained to examine and classify it will know that it has been mislabeled and is actually from a male. Of course, if a man poses as a woman and NO ONE KNOWS IT, they might not be considered or tested against a sample that has been found to be male. But if that person WERE to be tested, their DNA would be male.
Is this what you were asking?

Yes, basically. If such a person was responsible, could they be overlooked because they were of the wrong 'gender'. There seems to be a lot of 'girly men' mixed up in this. PR commented that McSanta was quite effeminate. FW was "Mr Mom". JMK also was effeminate but has now changed gender. The first time I saw a picture of LHP, I thought, wow, "Mrs Doubtfire".

 

[cynic]

Of course, if a man poses as a woman and NO ONE KNOWS IT, they might not be considered or tested against a sample that has been found to be male. But if that person WERE to be tested, their DNA would be male.

There's not much I could add to that. Once they are tested, all is revealed, but they have to be tested.

 

[MurriFlower]

There's not much I could add to that. Once they are tested, all is revealed, but they have to be tested.

cynic, when samples are taken and sent to the lab, how are they labelled? For example, would yours be Mr. cynic and mine Mrs. MurriFlower?

Let's just say I am really a boy, (but dressing and living as a girl), would it automatically be noticed by the lab and remarked on? Gender, ethnicity, etc might be obvious from the test, but not necessarily noted as being inconsistent with the donor. I suppose I'm thinking there might be things that could slip through without being noticed unless you were specifically looking for them.

Where I'm going with this is, if someone was tested as a routine to exclude their DNA from the investigation, it may not be looked at as a possible match for male DNA when the donor was apparently a 'female'.

 

[cynic]

cynic, when samples are taken and sent to the lab, how are they labelled? For example, would yours be Mr. cynic and mine Mrs. MurriFlower?

Let's just say I am really a boy, (but dressing and living as a girl), would it automatically be noticed by the lab and remarked on? Gender, ethnicity, etc might be obvious from the test, but not necessarily noted as being inconsistent with the donor. I suppose I'm thinking there might be things that could slip through without being noticed unless you were specifically looking for them.

Where I'm going with this is, if someone was tested as a routine to exclude their DNA from the investigation, it may not be looked at as a possible match for male DNA when the donor was apparently a 'female'.

According to ACR, DNA samples were obtained from a number of females, including LHP.
So it would seem unlikely, although not impossible, that LE would not obtain a sample from anyone they considered relevant, regardless of gender.
Let’s look at this hypothetical, police have a suspect in the case named Patricia Smith and they proceed to do an oral/buccal swab to obtain a DNA sample. Regardless of the labeling, information from the DNA profile will look like this:

Patricia Smith
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (9, 9.3), (8,8), (11, 11), (X, Y)

If that profile were compared to:

Crime Scene profile
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (X, Y)

The match would be at 10 markers
A “hit” or match at those loci would result in an investigation, and whoever it matched would have some serious explaining to do. It would be at this stage that “Patricia” would be asked why "she" has the genetic makeup of a man, not to mention, why “her” profile matches a crime scene profile.

 

[DeeDee249]

cynic, when samples are taken and sent to the lab, how are they labelled? For example, would yours be Mr. cynic and mine Mrs. MurriFlower?

Let's just say I am really a boy, (but dressing and living as a girl), would it automatically be noticed by the lab and remarked on? Gender, ethnicity, etc might be obvious from the test, but not necessarily noted as being inconsistent with the donor. I suppose I'm thinking there might be things that could slip through without being noticed unless you were specifically looking for them.

Where I'm going with this is, if someone was tested as a routine to exclude their DNA from the investigation, it may not be looked at as a possible match for male DNA when the donor was apparently a 'female'.

I'd say when samples are submitted, the proper way to submit would be gender-blind, with a reference number or something like that, no name. That way, the tester doesn't have any preconceived ideas about what to look for, especially if they are asked to match a sample against a given substance (blood, for example, which can belong to either gender, as opposed to semen, which can only be from a male).
About the "girly-men" thing- an effeminate personality has no bearing on someone's genetic makeup. Effeminate men are still male XY. Even transgender "female" men are still men XY. That is Biology 101, and gender is permanent and absolute as far as DNA is concerned. Nothing can alter a person's DNA.
Those effeminate men would not be excluded (and were not excluded) from giving samples.
The lab would not care whether you were living as a man, boy, woman or kangaroo. They would simply test the sample and report the results.
My comment about a man posing as a woman was in GENERAL and I was not referring to anyone specifically with regard to this case. While people may have thought the men you mentioned were effeminate, they were KNOWN to be MEN. Even if one of the women that was tested was really a man, as Cynic pointed out, "her" sample would test with XY chromosomes and "she'd" have some explaining to do.

 

[MurriFlower]

I'd say when samples are submitted, the proper way to submit would be gender-blind, with a reference number or something like that, no name. That way, the tester doesn't have any preconceived ideas about what to look for, especially if they are asked to match a sample against a given substance (blood, for example, which can belong to either gender, as opposed to semen, which can only be from a male).
About the "girly-men" thing- an effeminate personality has no bearing on someone's genetic makeup. Effeminate men are still male XY. Even transgender "female" men are still men XY. That is Biology 101, and gender is permanent and absolute as far as DNA is concerned. Nothing can alter a person's DNA.
Those effeminate men would not be excluded (and were not excluded) from giving samples.
The lab would not care whether you were living as a man, boy, woman or kangaroo. They would simply test the sample and report the results.
My comment about a man posing as a woman was in GENERAL and I was not referring to anyone specifically with regard to this case. While people may have thought the men you mentioned were effeminate, they were KNOWN to be MEN. Even if one of the women that was tested was really a man, as Cynic pointed out, "her" sample would test with XY chromosomes and "she'd" have some explaining to do.

DD I am not simple as you are trying to imply. I am aware that males are male regardless of how girly they might seem. My point was, that LE MAY have disregarded someone as a suspect, based on their supposed gender. I was asking what checks and balances were in place that would detect such a thing at the lab or at the LE.

Nothing you or cynic has said so far has convinced me that such an event could not occur.

If it were up to the BPD to compare DNA results and match them with donors, then I have no confidence at all. They would likely have been too busy trying to fit up the Rs to give it proper attention.

So, there is every possibility that the owner of the DNA found in incriminating areas on the body is amongst those tested already, but has been either overlooked or disregarded.

 

[MurriFlower]

According to ACR, DNA samples were obtained from a number of females, including LHP.
So it would seem unlikely, although not impossible, that LE would not obtain a sample from anyone they considered relevant, regardless of gender.
Let’s look at this hypothetical, police have a suspect in the case named Patricia Smith and they proceed to do an oral/buccal swab to obtain a DNA sample. Regardless of the labeling, information from the DNA profile will look like this:

Patricia Smith
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (9, 9.3), (8,8), (11, 11), (X, Y)

If that profile were compared to:

Crime Scene profile
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (X, Y)

The match would be at 10 markers
A “hit” or match at those loci would result in an investigation, and whoever it matched would have some serious explaining to do. It would be at this stage that “Patricia” would be asked why "she" has the genetic makeup of a man, not to mention, why “her” profile matches a crime scene profile.

I still see possibilities for errors. Patricia Smith's DNA would have to have been compared with the "unknown male DNA" for this to be discovered. If there was a computer system that matched DNA with no human involvement, that might be more reliable. BUT my understanding is that CODIS (although computer based) only contains the DNA of SOME criminals, not all suspects DNA tested in EVERY investigation.

 

[DeeDee249]

DD I am not simple as you are trying to imply. I am aware that males are male regardless of how girly they might seem. My point was, that LE MAY have disregarded someone as a suspect, based on their supposed gender. I was asking what checks and balances were in place that would detect such a thing at the lab or at the LE.

Nothing you or cynic has said so far has convinced me that such an event could not occur.

If it were up to the BPD to compare DNA results and match them with donors, then I have no confidence at all. They would likely have been too busy trying to fit up the Rs to give it proper attention.

So, there is every possibility that the owner of the DNA found in incriminating areas on the body is amongst those tested already, but has been either overlooked or disregarded.

I don't know why you thought I was implying you were "simple". I was not. The question was confusing, as is the subject matter. Many people might not know that men who have gone through any kind of gender reassignment would still test male. Could someone posing as a woman be overlooked because no one knew they were male? Certainly, as long as they kept their "secret" . :truce:

 

[cynic]

For the record, I used to be a firm RDI, now I just don't know. I am into genetics and science and regard DNA as a HUGELY important piece of evidence in any case. So, now I lean towards IDI.

All evidence in a circumstantial case such as this is important. DNA is a piece of the puzzle but its weight is determined by the context of the remainder of the evidence and by the source of the DNA, with sources such as blood and semen carrying significant weight.
I have brought up the Janelle Patton case in the past on a number of occasions as an example where the DNA evidence, although seemingly important, was completely unrelated to the conclusion of the case.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1
The Noura Jackson case is another example.
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=9853461
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml
The Casey Anthony case also has unexplained DNA in a very incriminating location.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmBoNzsRp0s[/ame]
In these cases, the evidence as a whole was evaluated and a decision made as to whether the DNA was an important piece of the puzzle or whether it was there as a result of adventitious transfer.
In the JBR case, there is too much evidence pointing in the direction of the Ramseys to be set aside by the weak DNA evidence. IMO

What if it was tampered with? This "touch" DNA, how accurate is it? The results have been fiddled with to put it into CODIS. Now exactly how did they do that and come up with the markers? Was it just guesswork?

The touch DNA (from the long johns) in this case has been used as corroborating evidence. We don’t know how many markers it has and therefore it’s difficult to characterize its importance.
The profile in CODIS is from the minor profile in the mixed profile derived from the DNA in JBR’s panties. According to one of the Ramsey attorneys the profile originally was determined to have 9 ½ markers. Later after they made a judgment call on the area in dispute it was deemed to have 10 markers and consequently submitted to CODIS by virtue of meeting the minimum standard.
Mixed profiles can be difficult to analyze, and when dealing with a weak or degraded sample, it can be extremely problematic and indeed involve some educated “guesswork.”

“If you show 10 colleagues a mixture, you will probably end up with 10 different answers”
– Peter Gill, Human Identification E-Symposium, April 14, 2005
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/pub_pres/AAFS2006_mixtures.pdf
The above details some of the issues involving mixture analysis.
Below is some more information that may interest you.

Dan Krane speaks to the issue of DNA transfer:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU-MmAeH-gs[/ame]

Further regarding touch DNA, these are the comments of an experienced Crime Scene Investigator:

"Touch DNA?" My understanding is that this is no different than DNA taken from a swab of a door handle, the trigger of a handgun, the handle of a knife, and on and on. It is DNA analysis from skin cells, which has been a primary venue, to my knowledge, since 1996. At least that is the first forensic case I had in which a profile was gotten from skin cells from an object. If this is the case, there is nothing new and the article is sensationalizing the analysis. I noticed that the news article stated that the "touch DNA" produced the same profile as the previous DNA analysis of the panties. Hence, there is no new information corroborated by the news release. Why now, does the analysis exonerate any family member, and it didn't in 1996. Wouldn't one expect to find additional sources from skin cells consistent with those from the crotch on the underwear?

It is a common phenomenon that there are unidentified DNA profiles, particularly mixed profiles, in many DNA analyses. As an example, the steering wheel of an automobile often produces mixtures. I have seen mixtures from the underwear, often, of sexual assault victims. It is further not uncommon to not be able to identify some of the profiles. I currently have four "John Doe" sexual assault warrants active with full 16 value DNA profiles in CODIS. They have been there for about 5 years. I have yet to receive a hit on any of those profiles. These are all from the underwear of sexual assault victims. Thus, unidentified DNA on underwear is not uncommon.

The third fallacy in the reasoning is that lack of DNA of a family member and an unidentified DNA profile does not exonerate any one person. DNA, standing alone, does not prove nor disprove involvement in a crime. It only can lead to a reasonable inference that a given persons DNA was not on a given object or was on a given object. It is the other information in a consilient relationship that leads to the probable cause of the involvement of a given person(s) in a crime.

As a final note. I know of four cases from my limited case work in which nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA did not match. How did this happen. In two cases there was a link between probable lab cross contamination. This was verified by a DNA lab analyst statement (a very mature and professional position, by the way by the analysts). The third case was a suspected intentional switch of samples by a disgruntled lab analyst. This case was never resolved by legal mitigation, but the lab analyst left for another position. The fourth case is in the unknown bin. Within the last five years I worked a case in which a substrate had been examined by a state forensic lab with the results that the object contained no DNA and no blood source. The same object, a piece of clothing, was sent to the FBI and the result from the FBI analysis was that there was not blood and no source for DNA. As a result of cold case funds, the item was dug out of storage and treated with fluorescein. A few small spots reacted. These spots were swabbed and sent in for DNA analysis. A full DNA profile was obtained from these swabs. Further, a CODIS match was obtained from these swabs. The CODIS match was from a totally unknown source to the original investigation. The point is that DNA is a very powerful investigative technique, but there are many issues with DNA. Primarily, as we are coming to find out, the primarily issues have to do with the origin of the DNA which at the very minimum requires additional corroboration of the probability of the source contributing as an actor in a given criminal event.

It can be inferred that the recent press release is an effort to manipulate the investigation towards a specific insinuated conclusion. I see it as the effort of a prosecutorial office to conspire to wipe egg from the messy faces of past feedings on uncorroborated information.

Respectfully,

Larry Barksdale
Adjunct Associate Professor of Practice of Forensic Science
http://forensic-training-network.com/hub/showthread.php?p=239

Crime lab officials here and elsewhere don't like to talk about the fact that the same test that can link someone to a crime scene with a few minuscule cells left on a doorknob can also be contaminated by a passing sneeze. Or that DNA tests are only as reliable as the humans doing them -- a troubling prospect when dealing with evidence that has the power to exonerate suspects or imprison them for life.
"The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible," said William C. Thompson, a forensic expert and professor of criminology and law at the University of California-Irvine, who reviewed the incidents at the request of the P-I.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

Highly sensitive tests require a great deal of care in evidence collection, handling and storage.
What precautions were taken in the Ramsey case, or any case in the 90’s, when the potential for contamination and cross-contamination involving skin cells was not known?
This is from a recent interview between Evidence Technology Magazine and Joe Minor-Technical DNA Manager & Special Agent-Forensic Scientist Supervisor, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation:

EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: When you teach classes for crime-scene investigators, what are some of the key points in DNA collection that you cover?
MINOR: I talk to them about basic concepts, like proper recognition and preservation of the evidence. We discuss the fundamentals of packaging biological evidence and how that should be packaged in breathable containers. And everything needs to be packaged separately. Even if they think that it is the victim’s clothes and it is all the victim’s blood and it wouldn’t hurt to package a few of those similar items together… I say: Stop and think about that. Don’t do it. Package everything separately so there is no cross-transfer.
…
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: The technology you are using is getting very sensitive, isn’t it?
MINOR: Yes—which brings up another thing that I tell folks about changing their gloves frequently to prevent cross-contamination. It is pretty well understood that when you are at a scene collecting bloody items, you don’t want to touch something, get blood on the gloves, and then handle another item. Everybody knows that. But now we need to start thinking about skin cells. If you are wearing a glove and you handle something that may have been handled by somebody else, you may need to think about changing gloves before you touch the next item. As a matter of fact, if you put on a pair of clean gloves and you inadvertently bring your finger up and scratch your face or nose, then your skin cells are going to be on that glove, and that can go to the next item you touch, as well.
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: How about fingerprint brushes? Can they cause cross-contamination of DNA?
MINOR: Well, that’s a very good question. As a matter of fact, one point in our laboratory’s policy states that items that have been processed for latent prints will not be examined for touch DNA. Most people are not using disposable brushes, from what we understand. The problem with that is going to be if you dust with a brush that has dusted blood samples from a previous case and it gets transferred to an item. If you are lucky enough to get a DNA profile from that item, it could be very problematic because then you have a profile that might not match the suspect because it really came from another crime.
http://www.evidencemagazine.com/inde...d=160&Itemid=9

and…

Trace DNA Precautions
By The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratories

Have you ever thought about what happens to objects when you breathe on them, cough or sneeze near them, talk over them, or even adjust your glasses or wipe your brow while wearing gloves? All of these offer the potential to deposit your DNA on surfaces, usually unknowingly!
Remember when we used to wear gloves and masks to avoid getting something from a body or scene? Technology has changed the way we need to do our business.
Our intent is to provide a brief overview of what can happen at scenes, in a lab, morgue or autopsy room, and what information can be obtained from DNA as analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
What are some precautions we can all take to minimize this “trace DNA” from ourselves? This is the classic two-edged sword. We have the sensitivity to get identifiable DNA from someone’s finger touching a light switch or doorknob (such as a perpetrator); however, this same sensitivity can allow our own DNA to be found during an analysis!
Since we are analyzing small amounts of DNA (125 cells may be adequate to get a full profile), there is also the potential of removing DNA from an item that may have significance to the case.
Let’s address DNA concerns at the scene, in the lab, morgue or autopsy room and finally the information we can obtain from DNA analysis.

Scene:
The weapon such as the grip of a firearm, the trigger of a firearm, or the handle of a knife may have DNA from the person who handled that weapon.
The body of the deceased may have DNA from someone who has manually strangled the victim. A ligature used to bind or strangle may contain DNA.
Clothing items may contain DNA of someone who has handled the clothing of the deceased.
Skin touched in the process of moving a victim in some fashion or dressing or undressing a victim may have foreign DNA.
A suspect (or anyone) may also leave DNA if they happen to cough sneeze, or spit accidentally (while talking) over or on the deceased. The doorknob used to enter and exit the room or other objects that may be present in the path from the entry way to the body.

Morgue, autopsy room, or lab:
The items mentioned above need to be handled with caution if they do end up in one of these places, especially the clothing items. Remember the removal of DNA is as significant as the addition of your DNA to an object.
We need to think about the potential for contamination from previous deceased, autopsies, or evidence; even scissors that are used to cut clothing from one body may transfer DNA to a second body or object if not cleaned.
http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf


The DNA vs. Fingerprints Debate

This raises the question, which of the two types is the stronger evidence? Answer: Fingerprints - and I say this as a DNA expert.
…
We also consider the nature of the transfer of evidence. If I were to touch a smooth surface such as a wall, I would deposit DNA and leave some fingerprints behind on the wall. This is called ‘direct’ or ‘primary’ transfer. However, if someone was to come along and wipe that wall with a cloth, it would remove my DNA onto the cloth and wipe the fingerprint off. If that person then uses that cloth to wipe the door handle, my DNA can then be transferred on to that door handle. Therefore, my DNA could be recovered from that handle without me ever coming into contact with it. This is referred to as ‘indirect’ or ‘secondary’ transfer. In this example, my DNA is transferred, but my fingerprint is not. This means that if my fingerprint is found on a surface, then I must have touched that surface; whereas, if my DNA is found on a surface, then I may have come into contact with that surface or it got there by secondary transfer.
-Graham Williams
http://www2.hud.ac.uk/sas/comment/gw260609.php

 

[tragco]

TY for bumping this thread, Cynic. Lots of hours of research ahead.

I found an interesting DNA article that explains different types of DNA testing, their results, and possible errors. It bills itself as an introduction for non-scientists but IMO you do need quite a bit of biology background to catch everything the article goes over.

mea culpa if this link has been posted already, I have not gone through the entire thread YET.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

Since I also think the author of any article is important to examine, here's info on that:

http://depts.washington.edu/uroweb/directory/bios/riley.html

This was an interesting tidbit:

Partial Profiles

Use of "partial profiles" is a newly emerging and fairly disturbing trend. A partial profile is one in which not all of the loci targeted show up in the sample. For example, if 13 loci were targeted, and only 9 could be reported, that would be termed, a partial profile. Failure of all targeted loci to show up demonstrates a serious deficiency in the sample. Normally, all human cells (except red blood cells and cells called "platelets") have all 13 loci. Therefore, a partial profile represents the equivalent of less than a single human cell. This presents some important problems:

1. A partial profile essentially proves that one is operating outside of well-characterized and recommended limits.

2. Contaminating DNA usually presents as a partial profile, although not always. For this reason, the risk that the result is a contaminant is greater than for samples that present as full profiles.

3. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading. The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed. There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.

Most forensic laboratories will try to obtain full profiles. Unfortunately, in an important case, it may be tempting to use a partial profile, especially if that is all that one has. However, such profiles should be viewed skeptically. Over-interpretation of partial profiles can probably lead to serious mistakes. Such mistakes could include false inclusions and false exclusions, alike. It could be said that, compared to the first PCR-based tests introduced into the courts, use of partial profiles represents a decline in standards. This is because those earlier tests, while less discriminating, had controls (known as "control dots") that helped prevent the use of partial profiles. The earlier tests will be discussed below, primarily for historic reasons, but also because they do still appear on occasion.

 

[cynic]

TY for bumping this thread, Cynic. Lots of hours of research ahead.

I found an interesting DNA article that explains different types of DNA testing, their results, and possible errors. It bills itself as an introduction for non-scientists but IMO you do need quite a bit of biology background to catch everything the article goes over.

mea culpa if this link has been posted already, I have not gone through the entire thread YET.

I posted that link a while ago, but not on this thread.
Still, well worthy of re-posting.
Here is another very good introductory article which is reasonably non-technical.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyPubsPDF.php?facID=5705&pubID=10

 

[madeleine]

Hey cynic,
wanted to ask ,what do you think of JAR's DNA found on the blanket in the suitcase
and
do you think it's possible that JB was wiped off with that blanket?

 

[DeeDee249]

Hey cynic,
wanted to ask ,what do you think of JAR's DNA found on the blanket in the suitcase
and
do you think it's possible that JB was wiped off with that blanket?

That blanket WAS dark (reported as black or dark blue) and dark fibers were found on JB's thighs and pubic area, also reported as black or dark blue. Pity they weren't tested against that blanket. So many questions would be answered that way. Is the blanket in evidence? The fibers should still be. How about it, new Boulder DA? Let's run a test.

 

[cynic]

Hey cynic,
wanted to ask ,what do you think of JAR's DNA found on the blanket in the suitcase
and
do you think it's possible that JB was wiped off with that blanket?

Well, a 20 year old college student’s semen found most anywhere wouldn’t be all that surprising.
I would find it quite a bit more suspicious if he didn’t have such a seemingly good alibi (from the out-of-town ATM transaction.)
I don’t think the blanket was used to wipe JBR, although I certainly don’t know what was used.
The UV light examination of JBR showed the presence of smeared body fluid which turned out to be smeared blood.
This would then have to be on the blanket if it was used to wipe her.
Whatever was used to wipe JBR should have blood from JBR on it and be consistent with the fiber evidence that was found.
As DeeDee has suggested, it's entirely possible that the only forensic test on the blanket was the DNA test on the semen stain.
If no further fiber or DNA testing was done, that would be unfortunate.
JR's robe was also considered a possibility by many in the past, although, once again, we have no idea what tests, if any, were done on that item.

 

[madeleine]

Re the alibi,I think I agree with those who find it a bit suspicious that he kept the ATM ticket and if I recall correctly was it a movie ticket too?Who keeps that?
Sometimes I wonder why his ex wife and JAR needed an extra lawyer but this could have an innocent explanation,to stop bothering them with questions about JR.But who knows.

 

[MurriFlower]

Well, a 20 year old college student’s semen found most anywhere wouldn’t be all that surprising.
I would find it quite a bit more suspicious if he didn’t have such a seemingly good alibi (from the out-of-town ATM transaction.)
I don’t think the blanket was used to wipe JBR, although I certainly don’t know what was used.
The UV light examination of JBR showed the presence of smeared body fluid which turned out to be smeared blood.
This would then have to be on the blanket if it was used to wipe her.
Whatever was used to wipe JBR should have blood from JBR on it and be consistent with the fiber evidence that was found.
As DeeDee has suggested, it's entirely possible that the only forensic test on the blanket was the DNA test on the semen stain.
If no further fiber or DNA testing was done, that would be unfortunate.
JR's robe was also considered a possibility by many in the past, although, once again, we have no idea what tests, if any, were done on that item.

I wonder why no comment has ever been made (except by me as far as I know) about the blue cloth on the floor next to the toilet in the basement? Someone commented that she had blue fibers on her, so I'm guessing that this is where it's from. Is this another piece of evidence that has been withheld?

http://www.acandyrose.com/bathroom-toilet-x.gif

see it circled in red on the RHS.

 

[DeeDee249]

Re the alibi,I think I agree with those who find it a bit suspicious that he kept the ATM ticket and if I recall correctly was it a movie ticket too?Who keeps that?
Sometimes I wonder why his ex wife and JAR needed an extra lawyer but this could have an innocent explanation,to stop bothering them with questions about JR.But who knows.

If MY 6-year-old daughter had been killed, I wouldn't consider the police questioning my relatives "bothering them". And neither would my relatives feel they were being bothered. Hey, 'ya want the killer found or not? Let the police talk to whoever they want to. UNLESS, of course, you have something to HIDE. To me, the only reason those two (JAR and his mother) needed lawyers was so that police WOULDN'T question them. The lawyers were hired solely to prevent that from happening. Especially for the ex-wife. As someone who was not present in Boulder and not ever considered a suspect, she had no good reason NOT to talk to police. Her lawyer was to stop police from asking questions she didn't want to answer, and that could only have been about her son.
I am wondering whether she was called before the GJ, where lawyers would not have been able to prevent her from being asked to answer or provide photo proof if possible, of JAR's presence in Atlanta on Christmas.

 

[tragco]

I've finally completed my research on the DNA in this case and am ready to make some observations and even a theory. It's a long post but I did a lot of research. Thank you to all the posters that provided links and information. I would appreciate it if anyone would point out inaccuracies, flaws, etc., and please provide a link if you can. If it's just theory with no link, that would be great too!

Goodbye fingernail DNA. As I said on another thread, it was contaminated.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html

snip: Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.

With DNA testing and especially with only partial markers, it is very easy to exclude someone but not as easy to include someone. This is, of course, with the understanding that the testing is done absolutely correctly with no errors. If that is the case, you could exclude someone based only on ONE marker. In real life DNA profiling, the more profiles in a sample, the harder it is to be accurate. Even with only two profiles, studies show that valid markers are missed and invalid ones can be invented. The fewer cells one gets from a sample, the easier it is to contaminate them. Also, the less DNA in the sample of a second minor contributor, the more likely an error will occur.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

There is no way in this case that the DNA testing in three different places can be shown to be proof of a third party intruder. It's possible, maybe even likely; but anyone stating that it's clear proof is uninformed IMO. Below is why:

Initial 1997 DNA was conducted on a contaminated blood spot.

SIX years later, in 2003, a second blood spot was examined- a blood spot with the major contributor being JonBenet, and an unknown minor contributor on the panties ruling out the parents. A 9 1/2 point marker was obtained. Pretty good data, IF accurate to find someone. However, at this time, the minor contributor DNA was easily ruled out as any definitive profile of any supposed intruder. Why? Because it was not a complete profile, because of the above mentioned possibility of error, and because of a test that was done:
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

snip: Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture. In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.

ELEVEN years later, a revelation. Touch DNA is obtained from two places on the long johns, and it MATCHES the DNA profile from 5 years ago. This is huge. This is major. I was convinced. Well, I'm not anymore. Here's why:
There was some back and forth about whether or not the itsy bitsy sample (more likely to be contaminated when examined) eleven years old (that's a long time, degradation is inevitable) was from a single person or from two or more. I haven't found any article that tells me just how many but I am certain there are at the very least two.

See post 39. This was captured as a screenshot on a 48 hours special. This was enlarged and doctored though, so I'm not providing it as definitive proof:
[ame="http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578"]http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578[/ame]


IMO, there are at the very least two and possibly more. My theory is based on interviews and also on experiments showing how incredibly easy it is to pass touch DNA from person to person, and even one person touching them coud easily have touch DNA from someone that shook their hand earlier, sneezed near them, et.al.

I have not been able to find anyone who has obtained this information. Why not? Also, I have seen nothing showing how many markers from this touch DNA match the original partial 9 1/2 marker profile. Is it 1? 2? only 3? How many? If this information isn't given to us, again I ask: Why not?

This information was brought forth, grandly, on a gold platter to prove innocence. SO WHY AREN'T WE GIVEN THESE BASIC ANSWERS NECESSARY TO CORRECTLY ANALYZE THE RESULTS?

SuperDave tried. He posted their answer: We ain't tellin, its none of your business. (OK I admit thats not what they said. But the answers were refused).

Couple more observations, one copied from a thread poster I just thought was great: "Not testing the ligature in a strangulation case is the same as not testing a gun in a shooting case. Incredible." I am pretty sure that was Cynic and it's important to my theory just because that one statement shows and encompasses all the horrible errors and incomplete testing done.

The second observation is that I do not believe this statement from Wood prior to the touch DNA discovery:
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

snip: Wood...contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails.

I cannot find any actual analysis of the nails, but there are tons of articles that refer to only two, maybe three, markers being found. I also think he knew that evidence was contaminated.

Here is my theory: Remember that six years had passed before the first "unknown" DNA profile was revealed. Five years after that, touch DNA is found. I think that this was such a highly public case, and there were so many people who wanted to solve it and examine the evidence. In 1997, there was an understanding that DNA would only be coming from a stain like blood and semen. The other item would be fingerprints, and I hope I'm correct in assuming none were found. That means an intruder wore gloves. He did not have sex with JonBenet, why take his gloves off?

IMO, the touch DNA is from some police officer or person involved with the case that picked up and handled the evidence. Even with gloves. Wipe your nose, rub your chin thinking, sneeze. He put the DNA there. He's never been tested to see if his DNA is a match. It was eleven years ago and they never even tested basic evidence, you think they'd test for this kind of contamination??

I am not sure it was an intruder anymore. I am back to 80% convinced RDI.