DNA Revisited

[SunnieRN]

Gives you a whole new perspective doesnt it Sunnie Girl? I have I told you lately, that I think you rock. Shed on my friend, just dont shed on the wrong person...LOL....

:floorlaugh: And just how would I know who the 'wrong' person is?? lol

Miss Aggie, I admire your patience in continuing to have patience in subjects that have been visited a plethora of times!!

You're not the only one, Sunnie. We SHOULD be afraid of this, especially when it's in the hands of someone as ignorant about forensics as the Boulder DA!

I have been afraid of this since I first heard of it SD. I find that the more information that comes out about it, the more people dig in their heels, thinking it solves cases, whereas it may be quite the opposite. This technology has the potential to implicate INNOCENT individuals. Scary indeed.


Cynic!! Great to see you and I hope to 'see' you again soon. I am about to snip and paste a bit of your dna information on another thread!! TIA!:seeya:

 

[BBB167893]

I have been afraid of this since I first heard of it SD. I find that the more information that comes out about it, the more people dig in their heels, thinking it solves cases, whereas it may be quite the opposite. This technology has the potential to implicate INNOCENT individuals. Scary indeed.

You said it, kid! For all we know, it may have done that already.

 

[SunnieRN]

You said it, kid! For all we know, it may have done that already.

As well as garnering a way to possibly make true DNA findnngs appear to be insignificant. To me that is the scariest part!

 

[SunnieRN]

By the way Roy, in reading your signature paragraph:


The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet


I present your killer. (Cynic, this is great enough to post one more time!! Thanks):

8. The Mixture Theory:

“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

Despite having seen this bit of information before relating to the panty bloodstain, which ultimately was also found to contain a 9 ½ marker “intruder” DNA profile, its full significance never occurred to me.

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits. (By way of explanation: #7 refers to bloodstains from panties. #14L,#14M are right and left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.) (From a lab report held up by Erin Moriarty on "48 Hours Mystery”)
[ame]http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578[/ame]

I always looked at this as saying that there was a mix of JonBenet’s blood and an unknown male DNA minor profile, in other words the mystery “intruder” profile.
While true, I overlooked the other possibility which is clearly spelt out:
If it is not a single contributor then a DNA mix involving two of the following people: John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, and Jeff Ramsey may be what produced the minor profile and not an intruder after all. (At least one of the two people would have to be a male, as there is a Y marker present) This means that the DNA found in the panty blood stain could simply be a mixture of JonBenet’s blood cells and skin cells from JR and PR as one example.
To illustrate, consider the following very simplified 5 marker profile:
JonBenet (5,12), (8,9), (3,3), (6,4), (9,12)
Patsy (5,8), (7,9), (4,3), (6,11), (9,5)
John (3,12), (8,10), (3,6), (8,4), (7,12)

(Note that because I am using JBR’s parents in the example, JBR is receiving one allele from JR and PR at every marker)

The mixed profile from this example found in the bloodstain would be:
(3,5,8,12), (7,8,9,10), (3,4,6), (4,6,8,11), (5,7,9,12)

You then remove the victim profile and are left with the following alleles to explain:
(3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)

The lab is saying that there are two possibilities:
There is an unidentified male with the following profile responsible for DNA found in the blood stain: (3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)
Or, it was from a mixture involving family members.
Clearly it appears that the DA chose to believe that it was an intruder rather than a Ramsey family member.
The following is one possible explanation of how the mixture happened:
John Ramsey breaks a paint brush previously used by Patsy and containing her DNA. The portion of handle now containing both his and Patsy’s DNA (skin cells) is inserted into JBR’s vagina causing a small amount of bleeding. The size 12 panties are put on, and JBR’s blood mixed with JR’s and PR’s DNA is deposited. JR pulls up the long johns which PR admittedly handled earlier and once again a mixture of their DNA is left behind.
The Bode lab simply found and declared a match to the same mixed profile found in the panty underwear sample.

Just to be clear, some may be under the impression that touch DNA from the long johns is the crucial DNA in this case. That is not true. The partial profile in CODIS from the DNA in the panties is the foundation. All other DNA will continue to be compared against that partial profile.
If that profile is wrong because it is merely a blend of alleles from Ramsey family members (probably just PR and JR), then it completely invalidates the “intruder” theory, at least insofar as support from DNA tested to date is concerned.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I admit I am fairly new to this case but I have to say now that the reports about an unknown male's DNA on the longjohns matching DNA from the underwear does prove to me it was not the Ramseys. I've seen nothing in the rest of the evidence that definitively rules out an outside intruder. I suppose the Ramseys could have hired a hitman to do the job, but I doubt that.

I suppose it is also possible there is some problem in the DNA evidence unknown to us (I don't buy this "family mixture" idea at all), but as an outside investigator looking for the truth, that would be an inefficient an ineffective assumption to make, because you could say that for every single case and every piece of evidence, and then left never trusting any evidence report. It would be hyper-skepticism to take that view. I see no good reason to doubt this report. One could make speculations, but nothing founded.

I think the most honest and reasonable assessment to make is that, barring any new contradicting evidence, the reports made public about the DNA does tell me the killer was someone other than Ramseys.

Since I also believe other evidence does tell us the killer knew the Ramseys in some manner, this should still be a solvable case.

 

[BBB167893]

I admit I am fairly new to this case but I have to say now that the reports about an unknown male's DNA on the longjohns matching DNA from the underwear does prove to me it was not the Ramseys. I've seen nothing in the rest of the evidence that definitively rules out an outside intruder. I suppose the Ramseys could have hired a hitman to do the job, but I doubt that.

I suppose it is also possible there is some problem in the DNA evidence unknown to us (I don't buy this "family mixture" idea at all), but as an outside investigator looking for the truth, that would be an inefficient an ineffective assumption to make, because you could say that for every single case and every piece of evidence, and then left never trusting any evidence report. It would be hyper-skepticism to take that view. I see no good reason to doubt this report. One could make speculations, but nothing founded.

I think the most honest and reasonable assessment to make is that, barring any new contradicting evidence, the reports made public about the DNA does tell me the killer was someone other than Ramseys.

Since I also believe other evidence does tell us the killer knew the Ramseys in some manner, this should still be a solvable case.

Well, that's sort of the issue right at hand, Smelly Squirrel: it's not a question of the DNA having problems that we don't know about. Getting past the problems we DO know about is a tall order by itself.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

They said DNA from two clothing items matched. So what problems do you mean?

 

[cynic]

I think the most honest and reasonable assessment to make is that, barring any new contradicting evidence, the reports made public about the DNA does tell me the killer was someone other than Ramseys.

In order to develop a good understanding of the case, I would recommend reading:
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas
The Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey
The Bonita Papers:
http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm
Police and DA’s office interviews of John and Patsy Ramsey:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14"]Transcripts: Ramsey murder case - Forums For Justice[/ame]
I have found that most people find the following helpful as well:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16"]Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case - Forums For Justice[/ame]

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404"]Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note - Forums For Justice[/ame]

With respect to DNA specifically, I have posted extensively on the subject, so rather than repeat the information, have a look at the links below.
I believe that the “unknown” DNA is the result of innocent transfer or contamination and not the result of primary contact from an intruder.
There is simply too much circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys and if we follow sound investigative practice it is the overall forensic context of a case that determines the probative value of DNA evidence. There are documented cases of multiple matching DNA samples in a crime scene involving an unknown donor, and that DNA was found to have no bearing on who the perpetrator of the crime was.
The mere existence of DNA in a crime scene does not automatically make it the driving force of an investigation, or at least it shouldn't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132173&page=4

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187565&postcount=22"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187598&postcount=34"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Thanks, Cynic. I did read your very informative posts at the start of this thread. Excellent DNA primer. The way I see it though, if it is true that the are 3 separate areas with matching DNA markers, then they are very likely from the killer. If there were just the one area with DNA (on the underwear), then the mixture theory could have merit. Three separate locations seems too unlikely to get the same mixture combination at each site. (I don't believe though that we know whether there is more than one DNA source on the long johns, but presumably there could be at least Patsy's DNA there from dressing Jonbenet).

If there were evidence otherwise that definitively shows it couldn't be an outside intruder, then I would have to reconsider, but I don't think there is. jmo

 

[mtwentz]

Thanks, Cynic. I did read your very informative posts at the start of this thread. Excellent DNA primer. The way I see it though, if it is true that the are 3 separate areas with matching DNA markers, then they are very likely from the killer. If there were just the one area with DNA (on the underwear), then the mixture theory could have merit. Three separate locations seems too unlikely to get the same mixture combination at each site. (I don't believe though that we know whether there is more than one DNA source on the long johns, but presumably there could be at least Patsy's DNA there from dressing Jonbenet).

If there were evidence otherwise that definitively shows it couldn't be an outside intruder, then I would have to reconsider, but I don't think there is. jmo

My thoughts exactly, though we still can't rule out PR as the author of the RN.

 

[BBB167893]

They said DNA from two clothing items matched. So what problems do you mean?

Well, most notably, the lack of a full DNA profile in order to GET a match.

"They" tried to claim the nail DNA was a "match" as well. Question of credibility, you know.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Ah, so you mean you know other evidence has problems, not this evidence.

 

[mtwentz]

In order to develop a good understanding of the case, I would recommend reading:
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas
The Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey
The Bonita Papers:
http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm
Police and DA’s office interviews of John and Patsy Ramsey:
Transcripts: Ramsey murder case - Forums For Justice
I have found that most people find the following helpful as well:
Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case - Forums For Justice

Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note - Forums For Justice

With respect to DNA specifically, I have posted extensively on the subject, so rather than repeat the information, have a look at the links below.
I believe that the “unknown” DNA is the result of innocent transfer or contamination and not the result of primary contact from an intruder.
There is simply too much circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys and if we follow sound investigative practice it is the overall forensic context of a case that determines the probative value of DNA evidence. There are documented cases of multiple matching DNA samples in a crime scene involving an unknown donor, and that DNA was found to have no bearing on who the perpetrator of the crime was.
The mere existence of DNA in a crime scene does not automatically make it the driving force of an investigation, or at least it shouldn't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132173&page=4

Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA

Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA

Cynic, thanks for the links. I think I understand why the DNA evidence doesn't convince you of the intruder theory...and I'm starting to lean once again to someone in the house being responsible.

 

[BBB167893]

Ah, so you mean you know other evidence has problems, not this evidence.

WHAT??

Where did we go off the track here? The DNA was degraded, as in OLD. That's a problem!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

WHAT??

Where did we go off the track here? The DNA was degraded, as in OLD. That's a problem!

I guess we're talking past each other. You said the DNA had problems and I asked what was the problems with the long johns and the underwear DNA. Then you brought up the nail DNA. So are you now saying the long johns/underwear matching DNA is degraded? If so, according to who?

 

[mtwentz]

I guess we're talking past each other. You said the DNA had problems and I asked what was the problems with the long johns and the underwear DNA. Then you brought up the nail DNA. So are you now saying the long johns/underwear matching DNA is degraded? If so, according to who?

I think SuperDave was saying that the DNA found mixed with JB's blood was incomplete as Cynic cited:
"One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.
"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yes, but the second spot is what is being matched to the long johns.

 

[BBB167893]

I think SuperDave was saying that the DNA found mixed with JB's blood was incomplete as Cynic cited:
"One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.
"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.

Yeah, that's it, all right.

Also, it should be pointed out that the DNA itself did not get better. The testing methods just have gotten more sensitive.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yes, it's good that they have gotten better.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, it's good that they have gotten better.

Smelly Squirrel,

And as per the diligent DA, what you have not been told is, was there any Ramsey DNA on the size-12's. If so what type?

Fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were found on the size-12's, and because John went out of his way to say he only removed JonBenet's shoes, and neither parent admits to dressing JonBenet for the White's. How did the fibers magic themselves onto her size-12's beneath her longjohns?


.