Forensic evidence

[questfortrue]

ST’s book goes into the conflicts between the DA’s office and the BPD. He comments about a block by the DA attorney assigned in the case regards further FBI testing on the hair. (pg. 308, Nook edition)

Kolar does reference FBI testing (Kindle Locations 2977-2982). Was it tested again by the FBI during the GJ period and after St left the force? IDK. So, and this is strictly my opinion, I’m gonna go with otg in that there are varying reports/references out there about the hair – ancillary/axillary – and we don’t have access to the reports. The discussion does not assist a conclusion. mho

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Which makes the hair a straw that IDIs grasp at.

 

[otg]

IDK. Could it be the beaver hair that people are confusing with a pubic hair? Just sayin’...

Anyway, if any hair (regardless of what part of the body it came from) was found that belonged to any family member, its relevance is useless because it could have come from different articles of clothing being washed in the same washing machine as the blanket or countless other sources. If OTOH it belongs to a non-family member, does its DNA profile match any of the other DNA or tDNA profiles developed? (If it did, I’m certain we would have heard about it.) Was it ever even tested for DNA, as Thomas’s account suggests it might not have been? Or was it tested later after Thomas left the investigation? It’s not even counted as one of the six DNA profiles listed as being the basis for Kolar’s theoretical scenario that includes six different individuals who comprise the “foreign faction”. So I rather doubt that a DNA profile was ever even developed. If it had been, it would be seven different individuals -- or it would have to be a match to one of the others (which would be startling news).

ETA: From questfortrue's FF: WRKJB quote here (emphasis mine):

Kindle 2979-2983

The FBI was later able to identify this as an axillary hair (underarm , back, chest) and determined it did not come from the pubic region of the body. Mitochondrial DNA tests were run on this hair, and the FBI technicians determined that the hair shaft did not belong to an unidentified stranger. Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the source of the hair, and it was noted that it could have come from either her or someone else in her maternal lineage.
​

 

[Mama2JML]

RSBM

IDK. Could it be the beaver hair that people are confusing with a pubic hair? Just sayin’...

Whaaa?... :waitasec:

OHHHHHHH. :doh:

:silly:

:floorlaugh:

Great point, otg.

:fireworks:

 

[Mama2JML]

RSBM

Anyway, if any hair (regardless of what part of the body it came from) was found that belonged to any family member, its relevance is useless because it could have come from different articles of clothing being washed in the same washing machine as the blanket or countless other sources. If OTOH it belongs to a non-family member, does its DNA profile match any of the other DNA or tDNA profiles developed? (If it did, I’m certain we would have heard about it.) Was it ever even tested for DNA, as Thomas’s account suggests it might not have been? Or was it tested later after Thomas left the investigation? It’s not even counted as one of the six DNA profiles listed as being the basis for Kolar’s theoretical scenario that includes six different individuals who comprise the “foreign faction”. So I rather doubt that a DNA profile was ever even developed. If it had been, it would be seven different individuals -- or it would have to be a match to one of the others (which would be startling news).

ETA: From questfortrue's IRMI quote here (emphasis mine):
Kindle 2979-2983

The FBI was later able to identify this as an axillary hair (underarm , back, chest) and determined it did not come from the pubic region of the body. Mitochondrial DNA tests were run on this hair, and the FBI technicians determined that the hair shaft did not belong to an unidentified stranger. Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the source of the hair, and it was noted that it could have come from either her or someone else in her maternal lineage.
​

BBM
Source is Kolar, FF: WRKJB, p.226.

 

[otg]

RSBMBBM
Source is Kolar, FF: WRKJB, p.226.

Thanks, Mama. You are correct, and I have edited my post accordingly.

(Also, I was a little hesitant to post my first comment :blushing:, but I couldn't resist. I'm pleased to know though if I can occasionally cause a chuckle :happydance:-- even on such a somber subject as what we discuss here.)

 

[Mama2JML]

Thanks, Mama. You are correct, and I have edited my post accordingly.

Easy error, just thought I'd provide the hardback page number for anyone interested in referencing the source.

You brought up an interesting point in your previous post. Why wouldn't Kolar (&/or Horita) include the Mitochondrial DNA profile in the DNA "recap" provided the task force?...

(Also, I was a little hesitant to post my first comment :blushing:, but I couldn't resist. I'm pleased to know though if I can occasionally cause a chuckle :happydance:-- even on such a somber subject as what we discuss here.)

I always appreciate your humor, and I needed a good giggle, friend. :great:

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

You brought up an interesting point in your previous post. Why wouldn't Kolar (&/or Horita) include the Mitochondrial DNA profile in the DNA "recap" provided the task force?...

I don't know the answer to that. Why is the DNA of the hair never included anywhere (TMK) in any lists of DNA profiles?

:dunno:

 

[Anti-K]

That’s an interesting question. I suspect that it is because mtDNA is “different” than DNA, and hair/fiber evidence is a “different” type of trace evidence than normally associated with DNA.
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

What difference do you mean?

Sorry? AK, I was trying to quote you, this new set up makes me confused some times. :lol:

 

[Tadpole12]

Sorry, this is in reply to otg post #802
Doing this on my phone. Not v well
Well the CBI report in 1997 was pretty unequivocal. It doesn't appear there was any confusion on their part. They identified it as a male Caucasian pubic hair. Besides I just don't see how that could be confused with a female ancillary hair. Well certainly not a beauty queen woman such as Patsy. There is no way she had forearm hairs that remotely resembled a male Caucasian's pubic hairs. And even if it was possible that her underarm hairs bore some remote resemblance to pubic hairs there would have been the tell tale signs of cut ends from shaving which would have been detectable by the CBI microscopes.

Heyya aussiesheila2

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for.../fsc/jan2004/research/2004_01_research01b.htm

"Racial Origin
Key characteristics serve as racial indicators. These indicators are generalities and apply primarily to head hairs. "

"Body Area
Certain features of individual hairs identify the region of the body where it originated. The features listed are generalities and align themselves with racial models derived from known samples. Body area can be made with considerable accuracy; however, variations occur that can make this determination difficult. Hairs that fall into this category include those that are immature, transitional, and fragmentary."


http://www.chymist.com/HAIR ANALYSIS.pdf
both vulvar and axillary hairs may be abraded
(60mm is equal to 2.3622 inches)

 

[Anti-K]

What difference do you mean?

Sorry? AK, I was trying to quote you, this new set up makes me confused some times. :lol:

mtDNA is usually only used when the available DNA is not usable due to issues of quality or quantity. mtDNA is usually taken from hair, or bone (or, teeth iirc). Results from mtDNA are expensive and time consuming to generate. mtDNA can’t be used to identify anyone, but it can provide for a fair-sized pool of potential donors.

In this case the mtDNA came from a hair. So, I think that makes it part of the hair and fiber evidence, and not so much part of the DNA evidence. I could be wrong and must admit that I am pretty much just guessing here!
...

AK

 

[CherCher]

That may well be but I don't think forearms with hairs on them like a male Caucasian's pubic hairs were a desirable trait on the beauty pageant circuits. I would go so far as to say that any beauty with forearms like that would have been eliminated in the first round, certainly not winning any titles as Patsy did.

Which is why those on the "beauty pageant circuits" have always waxed their bodies free from any except the hair on their heads. Do a web search. It's what they do.

 

[CherCher]

mtDNA is usually only used when the available DNA is not usable due to issues of quality or quantity. mtDNA is usually taken from hair, or bone (or, teeth iirc). Results from mtDNA are expensive and time consuming to generate. mtDNA can’t be used to identify anyone, but it can provide for a fair-sized pool of potential donors.

In this case the mtDNA came from a hair. So, I think that makes it part of the hair and fiber evidence, and not so much part of the DNA evidence. I could be wrong and must admit that I am pretty much just guessing here!
...

AK

If it's mtDNA evidence, it's DNA evidence. Although not as highly regarded as personal DNA, it does point to a specific group of people. Who knows why Kolar didn't exploit that fact in his book.

 

[bettybaby00]

mtDNA is usually only used when the available DNA is not usable due to issues of quality or quantity. mtDNA is usually taken from hair, or bone (or, teeth iirc). Results from mtDNA are expensive and time consuming to generate. mtDNA can’t be used to identify anyone, but it can provide for a fair-sized pool of potential donors.

In this case the mtDNA came from a hair. So, I think that makes it part of the hair and fiber evidence, and not so much part of the DNA evidence. I could be wrong and must admit that I am pretty much just guessing here!
...

AK

Ah thank you.

 

[bettybaby00]

Heyya aussiesheila2

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for.../fsc/jan2004/research/2004_01_research01b.htm

"Racial Origin
Key characteristics serve as racial indicators. These indicators are generalities and apply primarily to head hairs. "

"Body Area
Certain features of individual hairs identify the region of the body where it originated. The features listed are generalities and align themselves with racial models derived from known samples. Body area can be made with considerable accuracy; however, variations occur that can make this determination difficult. Hairs that fall into this category include those that are immature, transitional, and fragmentary."


http://www.chymist.com/HAIR ANALYSIS.pdf
both vulvar and axillary hairs may be abraded
(60mm is equal to 2.3622 inches)

Oh boy, a detailed analysis of pubic hair and my morning coffee is certainly a combo I didn't expect this morning :lol:

 

[bettybaby00]

If it's mtDNA evidence, it's DNA evidence. Although not as highly regarded as personal DNA, it does point to a specific group of people. Who knows why Kolar didn't exploit that fact in his book.

I think he does. In some instances he speaks directly about BR, in others he merely makes subtle suggestions, i.e., making note of 'fire starting' comment.

As for the mtDNA, OTG previously posted this from Kolar...

The FBI was later able to identify this as an axillary hair (underarm , back, chest) and determined it did not come from the pubic region of the body. Mitochondrial DNA tests were run on this hair, and the FBI technicians determined that the hair shaft did not belong to an unidentified stranger. Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the source of the hair, and it was noted that it could have come from either her or someone else in her maternal lineage.

Emphasis mine.

 

[The Night Owl]

That may well be but I don't think forearms with hairs on them like a male Caucasian's pubic hairs were a desirable trait on the beauty pageant circuits. I would go so far as to say that any beauty with forearms like that would have been eliminated in the first round, certainly not winning any titles as Patsy did.

Possible but who's to say she didn't wax her arms or whatever for pageants.Those pageant girls have some quirky beauty rituals

 

[DeeDee249]

The hair in question may simply have been a small, dark hair that was at first thought to be a pubic hair because that would be what you'd expect when there had been a sexual assault. Further testing showed it to be an ancillary hair (not an axillary hair) from Patsy Ramsey. I am sure Patsy shaved her armpits, so it is unlikely it was an axillary (underarm) hair. It doesn't mean that Patsy's arms were covered with coarse pubic-type hairs. She doesn't look that hirstue.

 

[The Night Owl]

So you also believe that a woman who won numerous female beauty contests did so in spite of having forearms with hairs on them that resembled hairs in a Caucasian male's pubic area? You must because that is where the hair was originally stated by CBI as having come from. It is only since 2000 when it was found not to have matched John Ramsey that it morphed into an 'ancillary' hair and therefore likely to have come from Patsy. It appears that BPD lost interest in checking out exactly who it came from and just passed it off as one of Patsy's hairs IMO[

U don't think its possible she waxed or shaved or had laser hair removal? Ive known a ton of pageant contestants and they have the weirdest beauty rituals. They do anything to gain an edge or upper hand over their competion. Some take it far to serious and go overboard and into the deep end. U'd be amazed at what they do. Pure craziness I tell ya. Lol=)
l