IDI: Whats your problem?

[Roy23]

"City of Boulder's Chief of Police, Mark Beckner and Boulder’s current District Attorney, Stan Garnett both had the opportunity at a press conference to endorse the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not.
Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared?
Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don’t want to answer that question"

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cynic]

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’m glad you’re impressed.
ML went well out of her way to exonerate the Ramseys. All Beckner had to do here if he was convinced would be to simply say one word, yes.

 

[cynic]

You're missing the point...or you don't understand the technology. Touch DNA doesn't require a reference specimen i.e. "here's your reference specimen now look for it".

Touch DNA identifies everybody who has come in contact with a particular object, but only if they deposited enough skin cells during that contact. The Bode website doesn't even mention secondary or tertiary transfer as a possibility.

Secondary transfer is closely related to contamination issues and other forms of non-criminal transfer, sometimes broadly lumped into the category of adventitious transfer.
There is no mention on the site of anything to do with contamination or adventitious transfer.
Are you seriously suggesting it’s untrue?
You appear to have Bode on some sort of pedestal as the sole purveyor of DNA information.


I guess all the other DNA experts should either work for Bode or remain silent?

• First of all, I hope I’m not shattering your world by showing that they are not perfect:

Prosecutors also acknowledged that a Bode Technology Group lab worker inadvertently contaminated one of the samples while testing Chandra Levy's bra.
http://www.sacbee.com/2009/10/23/2278335/judge-denies-broad-dna-request.html

The Illinois State Police canceled its contract for DNA analysis with the Bode Technology Group after finding that it failed to recognize semen on evidence in 22 percent of cases that were checked again by forensic scientists who work for the police.
Out of a random sample of 51 cases that were re-analyzed for quality assurance, the police said 11 tested positive for the existence of semen. They plan to test all 1,200 cases that Bode Technology said tested negative for semen and are asking the state attorney general for permission to sue the company.
''The work provided by Bode was imprecise and we can't tolerate that type of work in this business,'' Larry Trent, the state police director, said at a news conference on Friday. ''I'm outraged that a company with their reputation would conduct business in this manner, and we're not going to let them get away with it.''
Mr. Trent sent letters to the Justice Department and to top law enforcement officials in every state on Friday to notify them of the findings. He said the Justice Department and at least 10 states had contracted with Bode for forensic analysis.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E0DB103EF933A1575BC0A9639C8B63

• Secondly, they are most certainly aware of secondary transfer as they made a presentation on it at a symposium:

BODE EAST COAST ADVANCED DNA TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP
Sponsored by:
The Bode Technology Group, Inc.
May 30 – June 2, 2006

The Recovery of DNA Deposited on Weapons through Secondary Transfer
http://www.bodetech.com/documents/South_Seas_Brochure.pdf

• Thirdly, they are not pioneers in the field of contact trace DNA recovery.

A number of labs, including IFF in Holland were doing this type of work for a number of years prior to Bode. I will give Bode credit, however, for good marketing of their services.

• Fourthly, the DNA experts that I frequently quote are not only immanently qualified, in most cases they have devoted years of research to the area of DNA transfer.

Bode on the other hand is a business. They are a private lab and the owners are selling a service. I’m not suggesting any impropriety, that’s just a fact.

With respect to Bode simply looking for a match to whatever degree to an established CODIS profile, this could have happened, because it happens all the time.
Labs are routinely given “suspect” profiles to look for; additionally they often screen out reference samples to make mixture analysis easier.
There is even software in place to facilitate the process.
So when I suggest that a profile such as PR’s or JBR’s was filtered, once again, I am not suggesting any impropriety, just a routine part of the job.
Understand that the alleles of all persons who may have contacted and deposited DNA will be in the data on the file created from the analysis.
What people often don’t understand is that DNA mixture analysis can be extraordinarily difficult and consequently reference samples and an established profile simplify the work greatly.

The laboratory should prepare guidelines for formulating conclusions resulting from comparisons of single source samples and mixtures with known reference samples.
…
In some cases, when one of the contributors (e.g., the victim) is known, the genetic profile of the unknown contributor may be inferred. Depending on the profiles in the specific instance, this can be accomplished by subtracting the contribution of the known donor from the mixed profile.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/strig.htm

Evidence that was collected as well as reference samples from Reaves, Randolf, and Mr. Curtis (Latrese’s husband) were submitted to the SBI (State Bureau of Investigations) Laboratory for examination and analysis.
http://www.hgexperts.com/article.asp?id=7339

Analysis of DNA Mixtures in GeneMarker® HID Software: with or without single source reference samples
In the absence of a suspect reference sample, submit single source suspect profile based on deconvolution of mixture sample
…
All profiles can be used to screen the database for matches and potential close relatives
http://www.softgenetics.com/MixtureAnalysis_AppNote.pdf

Only RDI does that and for obvious reasons! It used to be factory worker DNA but now that its in three locations on two separate articles of clothing that idea got the boot. Now its a bit more than a head-scratcher for those of us who deal in reality. That is, DNA found in multiple locations all of which are squarely in the context of the crime could only be disregarded by some very obvious and circumventive reasoning to say the least.

Once again, the case of Janelle Patton has DNA in multiple locations all of which are squarely in the context of the crime. As you are aware, the profiles of two unidentified females proved to be completely unrelated to the crime:
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

 

[cynic]

It would be less of a farce if RDI stated "yes its probably criminal but maybe not" and "an R could still be involved." As it is, RDI high-handedly casting the DNA aside as unrelated seems arrogant and foolhardy. It causes more attention toward the parents and less toward the real child killer.

Really?

I will make a few substitutions in your statement and see what you think.

It would be less of a farce if Mary Lacy stated "yes it’s probably criminal but maybe not" and "an R could still be involved." As it is, Mary Lacy high-handedly elevating the DNA and suggesting there can be “no innocent explanation” seems arrogant and foolhardy. It causes more attention toward an intruder and less toward the real child killer.

 

[cynic]

Keep fighting the good fight. You keep quoting those guys and I will put my faith in Bode.

I guess in the Janelle Patton case you would be scouring the country side, or dare I suggest Thailand, for the real perpetrators of the crime?
How about the Caylee Anthony case? Would you abandon the trial of Casey, perhaps exonerate her, and begin the search for the owner of the unidentified DNA on the duct tape?

 

[Roy23]

I guess in the Janelle Patton case you would be scouring the country side, or dare I suggest Thailand, for the real perpetrators of the crime?
How about the Caylee Anthony case? Would you abandon the trial of Casey, perhaps exonerate her, and begin the search for the owner of the unidentified DNA on the duct tape?

As I have told you many many times before, foreign DNA in the panties of a grown woman versus a foreign DNA in the panties of a young child are two different animals. Especially when the police have tested everyone that was known to be around that little girl.

What you can't accept Cynic is that the BPD has tried and tried to prove that this DNA was insignificant and unimportant. They failed and failed to do so. Not one case you have mentioned is even remotely like this case.

 

[cynic]

As I have told you many many times before, foreign DNA in the panties of a grown woman versus a foreign DNA in the panties of a young child are two different animals. Especially when the police have tested everyone that was known to be around that little girl.

What you can't accept Cynic is that the BPD has tried and tried to prove that this DNA was insignificant and unimportant. They failed and failed to do so. Not one case you have mentioned is even remotely like this case.

There were two unidentified female profiles found in three matching locations, including her fingernails. She was heterosexual, and there was a very extensive search for the DNA donors.
What you can't accept is that ML, not the BPD has done the searching.

 

[Roy23]

There were two unidentified female profiles found in three matching locations, including her fingernails. She was heterosexual, and there was a very extensive search for the DNA donors.
What you can't accept is that ML, not the BPD has done the searching.

Not true. Beckner himself says in my signature line that they have tested over 200 people. He specifically names the BPD in doing these searches. Heterosexual or not, she was sexually active. Jonbenet Ramsey was a little girl who had a man's DNA in her panties. It is an enormous difference, especially since they admit that they have used their resources to try and prove it was an innocent transfer. They have failed and subsequently over the recent years have found a lot more to indicate why an intruder unknown to the Ramsey's is probably to blame here. I understand why someone would think that ML was premature to exonerate the Ramsey family. I believe it was done because of how unprofessionally they were treated. But in reality, a Ramsey could have been an accompliss so Beckner keeps his mouth shut. Like I told someone else today, if a Ramsey was never put through the ringer, we may never have even been told about some of the new DNA evidence.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Really?

I will make a few substitutions in your statement and see what you think.

It would be less of a farce if Mary Lacy stated "yes it’s probably criminal but maybe not" and "an R could still be involved." As it is, Mary Lacy high-handedly elevating the DNA and suggesting there can be “no innocent explanation” seems arrogant and foolhardy. It causes more attention toward an intruder and less toward the real child killer.

But that IS exactly what she stated, cynic!!!

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder.

http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/templates/bocoda.aspx?articleid=1256&zoneid=13

The only farce I'm aware of is the instantaneous reaction by RDI to DNA evidence, whereby RDI would like everyone to believe a whole set of ideas relating to the DNA discoveries:

1. The underwear DNA is degraded.
2. The CODIS DNA is substandard.
3. The fingernail DNA is unusable.
4. The touch DNA is a substandard, partial profile.
5. These DNA samples do not match
6. The DNA is unrelated to the crime.
7. The DNA is mixed profiles from more than one person.

Would you like me to believe all these ideas?

Who cares if any of the DNA is partial, degraded, mixed, or unusable if its unrelated to the crime? Who cares if its related to the crime if the DNA is so degraded, unusable, mixed, or incomplete as to not provide a unique identification of a person? See what I mean?

RDI wants to have cake and eat it too, I guess.

I just don't see the argument you believe to exist that shows the DNA found on two separate articles of clothing are so degraded, mixed, unmatching, or incomplete as to not identify a unique person. This opinion isn't reflected in any news report at all. You're alone on Mars with it. This volley of counterclaims seems like RDI just throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks, insofar as the quality of the DNA is concerned.

The claim that the DNA is not related to the crime simply ignores the context within which all of the DNA has been discovered: underneath nails, in the inside crotch blood spot, and two places on the waistband. There has been no other DNA discussed anywhere.

Once again, the case of Janelle Patton has DNA in multiple locations all of which are squarely in the context of the crime. As you are aware, the profiles of two unidentified females proved to be completely unrelated to the crime:
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

Just curious: How was it proven the DNA owners weren't involved. Did they locate the DNA owners? What was their alibi?

 

[cynic]

Heterosexual or not, she was sexually active.

Are you suggesting that not one but two females had their hands in JP’s panties before noon on the day she was found dead? Really?

He specifically names the BPD in doing these searches.

The DA was in charge of the case since the establishment of the CODIS profile and would have directed the BPD with regard to who was tested.

Especially when the police have tested everyone that was known to be around that little girl.

And there is no question, whatsoever, that every male, including children were tested?
You have a lot of faith.

They have failed and subsequently over the recent years have found a lot more to indicate why an intruder unknown to the Ramsey's is probably to blame here.

Such as???

 

[cynic]

But that IS exactly what she stated, cynic!!!

In the official letter to the Ramseys, she said
Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder."
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-formerdaletterclearingr-6959085,0,2592897.story

 

[cynic]

Just curious: How was it proven the DNA owners weren't involved. Did they locate the DNA owners? What was their alibi?

No, they did not locate the DNA donors.
It was proven that the profiles were spurious, because of other forensic evidence, including a fingerprint, as well as a confession by the male who was convicted.

 

[cynic]

The only farce I'm aware of is the instantaneous reaction by RDI to DNA evidence, whereby RDI would like everyone to believe a whole set of ideas relating to the DNA discoveries:

You are free to believe whatever you wish. There is nothing untrue about what I am saying, it is all sourced.

The underwear DNA is degraded. True, otherwise there would be 13 markers.
The CODIS DNA is substandard. There are 9 clear markers, according to Lin Wood. They had to “work” the 10th marker.
The fingernail DNA is unusable. Most definitely, it only has 2 markers. No one gives it credence.
The touch DNA is a substandard, partial profile. Maybe, maybe not. If I knew how many markers it had, I would be able to make a judgment.
These DNA samples do not match. They “match” to some degree, again, since we do not know how many markers are present in the touch DNA sample, we can’t say. Certainly 2 markers can’t match anything.
The DNA is unrelated to the crime. It may be be.
The DNA is mixed profiles from more than one person. The DNA in the panties is, and has been reported widely. The touch DNA sample should be, because JBR was wearing them and PR put the long johns on JBR according to her statements.

The claim that the DNA is not related to the crime simply ignores the context within which all of the DNA has been discovered: underneath nails, in the inside crotch blood spot, and two places on the waistband. There has been no other DNA discussed anywhere.

As I have said repeatedly, the context also allows for innocent transfer

 

[Mysteeri]

cynic:

My view on the DNA obtained by Bode from the long johns is that it is 10 markers or less, because if it was more than 10 markers, they would have, in all likelihood, announced that they were upgrading the CODIS profile.
That being said, it could just as easily be 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9 markers, who knows?
All I am saying is that given the history of the phrase “matching DNA,” we can’t assume much.

Umm, what does it mean thet they have not found a match for the touch DNA in the DNA database? Perhaps it is not just a few markers or if it is, wouldn`t that mean it`s difficult to find a match even for a few markers, which would then again increase the significance of the "matching" degraded DNA`s on JB.

I`m not even interested in the degraded DNA under her fingernails, but the significance of the 10 markers in the panty DNA and it matching the touch DNA. It is a match in practice, it is too unlikely, that it comes from different individuals.

 

[cynic]

cynic:



Umm, what does it mean thet they have not found a match for the touch DNA in the DNA database? Perhaps it is not just a few markers or if it is, wouldn`t that mean it`s difficult to find a match even for a few markers, which would then again increase the significance of the "matching" degraded DNA`s on JB.

I`m not even interested in the degraded DNA under her fingernails, but the significance of the 10 markers in the panty DNA and it matching the touch DNA. It is a match in practice, it is too unlikely, that it comes from different individuals.

You are referring to the statement that was repeated in a number of press releases:
“The new touch DNA from JonBenet has been compared with what exists in CODIS, but no match has been found.”
That is basically an awkwardly worded sentence.
They were trying to say that since the profile from the DNA in JBR’s panties was submitted to the CODIS database in 2003, there have been no matches, or the more common term, “hits.”
That is, no DNA has been collected from any individual that matches that profile.
The touch DNA has been compared to the CODIS profile.

The point in my discussion with HOTYH, is that the word “match” with respect to DNA in the JBR case has been misused in the past, and until we find out how many markers are present in the touch DNA we cannot assume that it is a true match of 10 markers matching 10 markers.
The example I used was the fingernail DNA ( 2 markers) being called a "match" to the 10 marker CODIS profile.
"The DNA under her fingernails and on her underwear matched," says Osborn. "They belong to the same person. They don't belong to a member of her family or any of their friends, anybody that they've been able to identify yet. An intruder easily could have gotten into the house."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/...ain42058.shtml

Just an FYI, labs that do paternity testing seek to match 16 markers, some as high as 23.

 

[Mysteeri]

cynic, are you saying that the touch DNA has been compared only to the CODIS panty DNA? Where did you find this information? "That is, no DNA has been collected from any individual that matches that profile." The CODIS DNA is unique, then.

And yes, to make a definite match, you need more than even 13 markers (depends also on the markers and their uniqueness). The point here is, that the DNA`s were found on JB, and what that means for the significance of them matching, even partially.

Edit. Here`s an interesting little article on touch DNA:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-touch-dna-jonbenet-ramsey

Well, I`m done with this subject, thanks again HOTYH for the information that you posted.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Confused on touch DNA method?

Here’s how it works: Investigators recover cells from the scene, then use a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to make lots of copies of the genes. Next, scientists mix in fluorescent compounds that attach themselves to 13 specific locations on the DNA and give a highly specific genetic portrait of that person. The whole process takes a few days, and forensic labs are often backed up analyzing data from other cases.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-touch-dna-jonbenet-ramsey

 

[BBB167893]

I believe that when a person takes DNA from an object that someone else has touched and then deposits it onto a third surface then this is not 'secondary' but 'tertiary' transfer. This is what you are suggesting. Secondary transfer would be a hand shake etc then deposit onto another surface. Tertiary transfer is someone touches a door handle, then another person touches the same door handle and then deposits some of the DNA onto another surface they touch subsequently. In laboratory conditions, it was not considered a viable way to contaminate DNA, but here you are suggesting that PR went from the Whites (who were all DNA tested I believe) to the Walkers and the Steins (again we assume all these were DNA tested) and at some time she touched a surface that an unknown person had also touched, came home and when putting longjohns on her daughter, deposited this foreign DNA from her hands onto several places on her daughter's clothing and underwear? Hmmmm a likely story!

The question being: given the context of everything else, is it more likely than any other scenario?

 

[BBB167893]

I guess RDI will forever think that they are more informed or smarter than highly skilled professionals that are trained to evaluate the evidence based on the scenarios of this case.

That's a rather ironic condemnation, isn't it? For YEARS, IDI acted (and still does to an extent--witness HOTYH's "bigger they are") as if they had a stranglehold on the case and that all of the "highly skilled professionals who were trained to evaluate the evidence based on the scenarios" that worked the initial investigation were a bunch of morons or hacks out to make money or names for themselves, or both.

Roy, I like talking to you. But this is a bit beneath us, don't you think?

Secondary transfer has been considered in this case from early on. It is the basis for which additional testing has been done and it seems that these professionals, along with the new technological improvements, have satisfied themselves enough to say that the DNA is not only important but crucial to this case.

Problem is, they seemed to have satisfied themselves to that extent (and believe me, in this instance, the phrase "satisfied themselves" has a dual meaning) already.

 

[BBB167893]

When I read between the lines I see that that a long-standing ally of the Ramseys came through for them before leaving office.

You don't HAVE to read between any lines to see that. They've made a point to rub our faces in it.