IDI: Whats your problem?

[Roy23]

My understanding is....the was so little, mixed and degraded DNA they had to use PCR...they used the entire sample up while amplifying it. Even after PCR...there wasn't really enough markers to enter it into CODIS. The panty and the fingernail samples didn't even match each other.

So.....my thinking is...garbage in, garbage out........

IMO The only conclusion that I can reach is...the "new" touch DNA sorta, maybe appears similar. That's not a match by any stretch of the imagination.

That would not even be possible. When an organization such as Bode or Cell Mark use the word match what it means is identical. In other words, the DNA would be not exact in comparison with maybe 1 to 2 million from 1 to 10 million approximately.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That would not even be possible. When an organization such as Bode or Cell Mark use the word match what it means is identical. In other words, the DNA would be not exact in comparison with maybe 1 to 2 million from 1 to 10 million approximately.

The 'unusable' and 'degraded' characterizations come from the RDI camp. There is no automatic connection between 'unusable' or 'degraded' and the CODIS DNA beyond what RDI would like you to believe.

IOW it can be just as easily sourced that the CODIS DNA came from intact undegraded usable DNA with over-the-minimum markers from another swab or part of the swab taken from the blood. The unusable degraded DNA was a characterization of another deposit that was never processed further. RDI wants to perpertuate these characterizations as a carry-over beyond its original usage to not just the CODIS DNA but also the legging DNA. And for obvious reasons!

 

[BBB167893]

IOW it can be just as easily sourced that the CODIS DNA came from intact undegraded usable DNA with over-the-minimum markers from another swab or part of the swab taken from the blood.

Then source it.

 

[MurriFlower]

Then source it.

Boulder County HomeLongs PeakBoulder County Colorado Government Online
Boulder County Home Services DA Home Departments News Employment Search
Stanley L. Garnett - Boulder District Attorney

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Ramsey Press Release





CONTACT: CAROLYN FRENCH, AT 303-441-4869.



Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Lacy issues the following announcement with regard to the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.



On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.



The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA.



As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.



The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.



In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.



In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as “touch DNA.” One method for sampling for touch DNA is the “scraping method.” In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.



In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.



The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.



On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.



We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.



I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.



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. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.



It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.



DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.



The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.



Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.



It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.



For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology.



We prefer that any tips related to this ongoing investigation be submitted in writing or via electronic mail to BoulderDA.org, but they can also be submitted to our tip line at

(303) 441-1636.



This office will make no further statements. To read the text of the letter to John Ramsey click here.





# # #


Catherine Olguin
303.441.3774



Related Articles:
No Related Content Found



Print Article Send By E-Mail
Search Articles:
Latest News: XML

Bookmark and Share

No news available

BC Home | Services | County Departments | News | Employment | Search
© Copyright 2002-2008 Boulder County. All rights reserved.
Comments email webmaster Privacy Statement

 

[MurriFlower]

“The forensic services we offer in our laboratories including DNA analysis, forensic biology, blood alcohol content testing, fingerprinting, firearms and toolmark analysis, drug chemistry, and fire debris, analyses are performed using processes accredited by American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board.”

Wouldn't it be great to have them look at the autopsy photos to try to determine the 'tool' that made the head wound and if the 'abrasion' on her neck matched??

 

[MurriFlower]

Then source it.

"Touch DNA is Not LCN DNA

Firstly, it is important to establish that Touch DNA is not Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA. LCN DNA profiling allows a very small amount of DNA to be analyzed, from as little as 5 to 20 cells.

According to Bode, Touch DNA samples are processed/amplified exactly the same way as blood, semen, saliva etc, and can stand up to scrutiny in court much better than LCN DNA.


So What is Touch DNA?

Touch DNA has to do with skin cells. Humans shed tens of thousands of skin cells each day, and these cells are transferred to every surface with which human skin comes into contact.

Locard's Exchange Principle states that with contact between two items, there will always be an exchange. So, when a crime is committed, if the perpetrator deposits a sufficient number of skin cells on an item at the scene, and that item is collected as possible evidence, Touch DNA analysis may be able to link the perpetrator to the crime scene, by collecting the skin cells and analyzing them.

According to the experts, Touch DNA has been successfully sampled from a variety of items including gun grips, steering wheels, eating utensils, luggage handles, and clothing.

Read more at Suite101: What is Touch DNA?: New Forensics that Cleared JonBenet Ramsey’s Family http://dna-trace-analysis.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_touch_dna#ixzz0uvTeCaA0


The key to obtaining successful Touch DNA results depends on recognizing items which may be suitable for Touch DNA analysis and using the sampling technique or collection method that will recover the highest number of skin cells.

* Swabbing - the surface of the item is rubbed with a cotton swab to collect possible cells. This method is preferred for hard items such as glass or plastic.
* Cutting - may be used for soft items, such as clothing, in which fabric from areas of interest is cut to collect possible cells.

In addition to the commonly used swabbing and cutting methods, Bode Technologies has recently started using the “Scraping” and “Tape Lift” methods, in which the surface of soft items (such as clothing) are either scraped with a blade, or sampled with a small piece of tape, to collect possible cells.
JonBenet Ramsey Case

In this case, the new DNA was recovered by guessing where JonBenet's killer might have handled the long johns she was wearing.

"It's not a stain, you can't see it," said Angela Williamson, director of forensic casework at Bode Technology Group in Lorton, Virginia who led the work on JonBenet's Touch DNA.

DNA from two sites on the long johns matched genetic material from the same unknown male that had previously been recovered from blood in JonBenet's underpants. The matching DNA from three places on two articles of JonBenet's clothing convinced the district attorney that it belonged to the killer, and hadn't been left accidentally by a third party. The DA excluded the parents.

John and Patricia Ramsey found their daughter's body in the basement of the family's home in Boulder, Colorado, on Dec. 26, 1996. The child beauty queen was six and had been strangled."

 

[MurriFlower]

Then source it.

"The new DNA "touch" testing technology from the Bode Lab tests for DNA in cells left behind from the act of touching a person's clothing. (Bode Lab) At the time of JonBenet's death, technology for DNA testing on the child's panties used "swabs" from fluid obtained from skin and clothing to establish DNA identity.

The previous 1997 DNA "swab" testing of the child's panties found DNA in two separate areas. DNA was found mixed with fluid from the little girl. The 1997, DNA contained enough information or DNA markers to be entered into the federal DNA database called CODIS.

The new "touch" DNA from JonBenet Ramsey has been compared with what exists in CODIS, but no match has been found.

CODIS includes strict guidelines for what can be entered into its system. There has to be a minimum of information or DNA markers before CODIS will accept the samples into its system. The original 1997 DNA passed CODIS requirements and is in the federal CODIS data base. It was entered into CODIS in 2002."

 

[Linda7NJ]

Boulder County HomeLongs PeakBoulder County Colorado Government Online
Boulder County Home Services DA Home Departments News Employment Search
Stanley L. Garnett - Boulder District Attorney

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Ramsey Press Release





CONTACT: CAROLYN FRENCH, AT 303-441-4869.



Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Lacy issues the following announcement with regard to the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.



On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.



The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA.



As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.



The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.



In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.



In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as “touch DNA.” One method for sampling for touch DNA is the “scraping method.” In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.



In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.



The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.



On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.



We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.



I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.



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. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.



It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.



DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.



The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.



Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.



It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.



For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology.



We prefer that any tips related to this ongoing investigation be submitted in writing or via electronic mail boulderda.org, but they can also be submitted to our tip line at

(303) 441-1636.



This office will make no further statements. To read the text of the letter to John Ramsey click here.





# # #


Catherine Olguin
303.441.3774



Related Articles:
No Related Content Found



Print Article Send By E-Mail
Search Articles:
Latest News: XML

Bookmark and Share

No news available

BC Home | Services | County Departments | News | Employment | Search
© Copyright 2002-2008 Boulder County. All rights reserved.
Comments email webmaster Privacy Statement

Was there no other touch DNA found on the long johns? No Patsy DNA? Not a speck of Ramsey DNA? What about the waist band of those HUGE panties she was found in? Touch DNA on that? What exactly were the items sent for touch DNA testing and what was found on those? How much touch DNA WAS sourced ?and to who?

It says nothing about her fingernails.

Waistband of her long johns as well as inside her panties...both places you would expect JonBenet & Patsy to have touched. I am not buying secondary transfer can be ruled out.

Sorry, I still have way more questions than answers. If they have the answers as some here claim, then what's the big deal answering the hard questions?

The last paragraph or two sounds like your basic butt covering to me.

IMO No one can be ruled out until that DNA is sourced and the owner of it convicted. For all we know, it could have been secondary transfer from all over the bike she got for Christmas from the guy that assembled it. It could have a perfectly innocent explanation, just because they haven't found one, doesn't mean there isn't one. The owner of that DNA could have worked in concert with a Ramsey. Too many questions.............Too many possibilities!



Patsy didn't even bathe the child the day before, when was her last bath?

If ya ask me, this press release is VERY carefully worded and actually never comes out and states that The Ramseys are factually innocent. It simply says they should be treated as such.

 

[MurriFlower]

Was there no other touch DNA found on the long johns? No Patsy DNA? Not a speck of Ramsey DNA? What about the waist band of those HUGE panties she was found in? Touch DNA on that? What exactly were the items sent for touch DNA testing and what was found on those? How much touch DNA WAS sourced ?and to who?

It says nothing about her fingernails.

Waistband of her long johns as well as inside her panties...both places you would expect JonBenet & Patsy to have touched. I am not buying secondary transfer can be ruled out.

Sorry, I still have way more questions than answers. If they have the answers as some here claim, then what's the big deal answering the hard questions?

The last paragraph or two sounds like your basic butt covering to me.

IMO No one can be ruled out until that DNA is sourced and the owner of it convicted. For all we know, it could have been secondary transfer from all over the bike she got for Christmas from the guy that assembled it. It could have a perfectly innocent explanation, just because they haven't found one, doesn't mean there isn't one. The owner of that DNA could have worked in concert with a Ramsey. Too many questions.............Too many possibilities!



Patsy didn't even bathe the child the day before, when was her last bath?

If ya ask me, this press release is VERY carefully worded and actually never comes out and states that The Ramseys are factually innocent. It simply says they should be treated as such.

Ok, find a credible source for the 'secondary transfer' being mistaken for DNA left by the the IDI identified by Bode's touch DNA method, if it is valid.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Ok, find a credible source for the 'secondary transfer' being mistaken for DNA left by the the IDI identified by Bode's touch DNA method, if it is valid.

" recent study commissioned by a wealthy defendant was used to show that tertiary transfer of DNA could have occurred in a manner that falsely incriminated the defendant. Dr. Dirk Greineder, a prominent physician and adjunct Harvard Professor, was accused of killing his wife. A DNA pro?le similar to Greineder's was found, mixed with his wife's profile, on gloves and a knife found near the crime scene. Greineder denied touching these items, which appeared to have been used by the killer. But how did his DNA get on them?

Greineder offered a two-pronged defense. First, he challenged the conclusion that his DNA matched that on the gloves, noting inconsistencies between his profile and the profile on the gloves. The crime laboratory had shifted its threshold for scoring alleles in a manner that allowed it to count alleles that matched with Greineder, while ignoring some that did not. And the lab had to evoke the theory of "allelic drop out" to explain why some of Greineder's alleles were not found.

Greineder's second line of defense is our focus here. He argued that his DNA could have gotten onto the glove through tertiary transfer. He and his wife had shared a towel the morning of the murder-perhaps his DNA was transferred from his face to the towel, and from the towel to his wife's face. His wife was later attacked by a glove-wearing stranger who struck her on the face, strangled her, and stabbed her, in the process transferring Greineder's DNA from his wife's face to the gloves and the knife. According to this theory, the tell-tale extra alleles on the gloves and knife that matched neither Greineder nor his wife were those of the killer.

To support the theory that his DNA could have been transferred innocently to the instruments of murder, Greineder commissioned a study. Forensic scientists Marc Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson, of Technical Associates (an independent laboratory in Ventura, California) simulated the sequence of events posited by the defense theory: a man wiped his face with a towel, then a woman wiped her face with the towel, then gloves and a knife like those used in the murder were rubbed against the woman's face. DNA tests on the gloves and knife revealed a mixture of DNA from the man and woman-exactly what was found in the Greineder case. Taylor was allowed to present his findings to the jury. Although the jury ultimately convicted Greineder (there was other incriminating evidence besides the DNA), the case is a good example of how the amazing sensitivity of contemporary DNA profiling methods facilitate a plausible explanation for what might at first seem to be a damning DNA test result. "

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...y+transfer+touch+dna&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[MurriFlower]

" recent study commissioned by a wealthy defendant was used to show that tertiary transfer of DNA could have occurred in a manner that falsely incriminated the defendant. Dr. Dirk Greineder, a prominent physician and adjunct Harvard Professor, was accused of killing his wife. A DNA pro?le similar to Greineder's was found, mixed with his wife's profile, on gloves and a knife found near the crime scene. Greineder denied touching these items, which appeared to have been used by the killer. But how did his DNA get on them?

Greineder offered a two-pronged defense. First, he challenged the conclusion that his DNA matched that on the gloves, noting inconsistencies between his profile and the profile on the gloves. The crime laboratory had shifted its threshold for scoring alleles in a manner that allowed it to count alleles that matched with Greineder, while ignoring some that did not. And the lab had to evoke the theory of "allelic drop out" to explain why some of Greineder's alleles were not found.

Greineder's second line of defense is our focus here. He argued that his DNA could have gotten onto the glove through tertiary transfer. He and his wife had shared a towel the morning of the murder-perhaps his DNA was transferred from his face to the towel, and from the towel to his wife's face. His wife was later attacked by a glove-wearing stranger who struck her on the face, strangled her, and stabbed her, in the process transferring Greineder's DNA from his wife's face to the gloves and the knife. According to this theory, the tell-tale extra alleles on the gloves and knife that matched neither Greineder nor his wife were those of the killer.

To support the theory that his DNA could have been transferred innocently to the instruments of murder, Greineder commissioned a study. Forensic scientists Marc Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson, of Technical Associates (an independent laboratory in Ventura, California) simulated the sequence of events posited by the defense theory: a man wiped his face with a towel, then a woman wiped her face with the towel, then gloves and a knife like those used in the murder were rubbed against the woman's face. DNA tests on the gloves and knife revealed a mixture of DNA from the man and woman-exactly what was found in the Greineder case. Taylor was allowed to present his findings to the jury. Although the jury ultimately convicted Greineder (there was other incriminating evidence besides the DNA), the case is a good example of how the amazing sensitivity of contemporary DNA profiling methods facilitate a plausible explanation for what might at first seem to be a damning DNA test result. "

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...y+transfer+touch+dna&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I think you will find that this method CAN yield some DNA, but not sufficient for CODIS as was the case with the touch DNA discovered by Bode from JBR's longjohns.

C. Ladd, M.S. Adamowicz, M.T. Bourke, C.A. Scherczinger, and H.C. Lee. (1999). ``A systematic analysis of secondary DNA transfer.'' J. Forensic Sci., 44(6).

E. Kafarowski, A. Lyon, and M. Sloan. (1996).

(refer to your link above for the subsequent study).

In essence, the result was:

"Our data indicate that the primary transfer of DNA by handling is possible, but detecting an interpretable genotype is not assured. Secondary transfer was not observed under our experimental conditions. Therefore, our data do not support the inference that the interpretation of DNA profiles from case samples could be compromised by secondary transfer"

I think this aces your previous article.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Then source it.

<<<OK>>>

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/27/jonbenet.dna/index.html



Once experts process Karr's sample, they will compare 13 loci, or regions, with the existing profile from the blood drops. Even if only some of the regions match Karr's sample, prosecutors still could proceed with a case. A 13-for-13 match is "essentially an absolute identification, even though it's presented as a probability," said Kobilinsky. "If they match 10 loci on the underwear, the significance is still overwhelming, astronomical."

http://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/ci_4223176




1997 &#8212; DNA collected from a blood spot on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear described as contaminated.
1999 &#8212; FBI releases new technology called Short Tandem Repeat to profile DNA. It uses 13 markers to raise the probability that a randomly selected individual would match it is one in 1 quintillion.



2001 &#8212; The new testing is allowed after a legal battle in Colorado's courts, and JonBenet's underwear is analyzed again resulting in between one and two markers out of 13 being defined.

2003 &#8212; Second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear tested resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined. That genetic fingerprint meets the threshold to be placed into a national database, Combined DNA Indexing System or CODIS, which holds DNA profiles of those convicted in most states of certain crimes. No match has been made.​

Read more: http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_13062285#ixzz0uway9dNi
Coloradodaily.com ​

The DNA Evidence​

by Marilyn Bardsley
It took a mere seven years for the Boulder law enforcement community to send the FBI the DNA sample that was found in JonBenet's underpants. It was determined a long time ago that this DNA sample did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.
Boulder Police Department explained that the quality of the DNA had not been of sufficient quality to have been put into the law enforcement data banks. However, in late December of 2003, the Ramseys' attorney indicated that one part of the sample, taken from blood on JonBenet's undergarments, was determined by the FBI to be of sufficient quality to be put into the DNA Index System.​

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/19.html


It only took seven years, but unidentified DNA from JonBenet Ramsey's underwear has finally been submitted to the FBI for comparison with persons in its national databank.
Previous tests showed the DNA did not match members of the Ramsey family. Why wasn't it submitted earlier? The police say it was because the sample wasn't good enough. Miraculously, after being in storage for seven years, now it's just fine.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/12/26/908/82395


Earlier DNA tests on the blood indicated it was from a male who was not a member of the Ramsey family. At the time, the DNA sample wasn't of a high enough quality to compare against a national databank of DNA, the attorney said.
Within the last few months, the Boulder District Attorney's office was able to get a high quality sample of DNA from the garment to send to the FBI, Wood said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-27-jonbenet-murder_x.htm



The Bode Lab recovered DNA from the top portion of the leggings, on both the right and left legs, where the perpetrator would have put his hands to move the leggings. Those new DNA "touch" samples from the leggings match the DNA that was found in 1997 on the underwear of the child.
The new DNA "touch" testing technology from the Bode Lab tests for DNA in cells left behind from the act of touching a person's clothing. (Bode Lab) At the time of JonBenet's death, technology for DNA testing on the child's underwear used "swabs" from fluid obtained from skin and clothing to establish DNA identity.
The previous 1997 DNA "swab" testing of the child's underwear found DNA in two separate areas. DNA was found mixed with fluid from the little girl. The 1997, DNA contained enough information or DNA markers to be entered into the federal DNA database called CODIS.
The new "touch" DNA from JonBenet Ramsey has been compared with what exists in CODIS, but no match has been found.
CODIS includes strict guidelines for what can be entered into its system. There has to be a minimum of information or DNA markers before CODIS will accept the samples into its system. The original 1997 DNA passed CODIS requirements and is in the federal CODIS data base. It was entered into CODIS in 2002.
CODIS contains DNA from local, state and national databases of DNA profiles from convicted offenders, unsolved crime scene evidence and missing persons.
Mandatory DNA testing varies widely from state to state. In Colorado, legislation was introduced mandating any felon arrested of a crime to be tested for DNA, so it can be entered into the CODIS data base. (Mandatory DNA testing laws in Colorado)
Both the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and Denver Police were involved in the analysis of the new DNA.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=95421&catid=339

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Its clear that there was 'degraded' DNA for some 7 years. At 3 or 4 markers, RDI developed a very friendly and comfortable relationship with the term 'degraded' and 'unusable'. Many still do, but its obviously no longer applicable, not since 2003.

It seems then ML showed up and all hell broke loose. They discovered another DNA sample that was of acceptable quality as determined by the FBI

Since 2003 a DNA profile of 10 markers has been sitting in CODIS.

A 13-for-13 match is "essentially an absolute identification, even though it's presented as a probability," said Kobilinsky. "If they match 10 loci on the underwear, the significance is still overwhelming, astronomical."

Five years later and all hell breaks loose again. New testing ordered by the DA reveals two deposits on the leggings that each match the 10 CODIS markers!

The case is turned upside down. An intruder probably did it.

Ad hominem arguments against ML and LW are really an embarrassment because several LE agencies and labs have been involved throughout the process.

Its a lot better when knowledge leads the way instead of fiction or idle speculation.

 

[madeleine]

That would not even be possible. When an organization such as Bode or Cell Mark use the word match what it means is identical. In other words, the DNA would be not exact in comparison with maybe 1 to 2 million from 1 to 10 million approximately.

You are right because this wasn't a court of law where experts are spinning the results in their clients favour.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not lately. Look, if you want to get into an argument over whether or not the media reflects public opinion, just in general, I'm just the man to give you one. Indeed, in this particular case, it resembles the North Korean media a little too closely for my liking.

Please provide just one example of DPRK media resembling our media on reflecting public opinion. Or is this just empty talk?

 

[Mysteeri]

Guys,am I the only one having trouble accessing the LE interviews/depos on acandyrose site?

Same problem here, as well as at "jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com". I was able to read cached copies of some interviews.

 

[madeleine]

Same problem here, as well as at "jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com". I was able to read cached copies of some interviews.

Yep it seems that everything what's hosted on jonbenetindexguide.com is down.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks, MurriFlower, but that's not what I was referring to.

I meant, give me a source regarding a full profile being developed from the panty DNA. And just for the tally books, make it a source that is an official source, not some media release that couldn't be bothered to do any research.

Thank you in advance.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

AHEM!

Once experts process Karr's sample, they will compare 13 loci, or regions, with the existing profile from the blood drops. Even if only some of the regions match Karr's sample, prosecutors still could proceed with a case. A 13-for-13 match is "essentially an absolute identification, even though it's presented as a probability," said Kobilinsky. "If they match 10 loci on the underwear, the significance is still overwhelming, astronomical."

2003 —Second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear tested resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined.[/QUOTE]

I could swear somebody around here already said that. I can't remember who it was, just now. Maybe it will come to me...

That genetic fingerprint meets the threshold to be placed into a national database, Combined DNA Indexing System or CODIS, which holds DNA profiles of those convicted in most states of certain crimes. No match has been made.

By the skin of its teeth, it made it.


Boulder Police Department explained that the quality of the DNA had not been of sufficient quality to have been put into the law enforcement data banks. However, in late December of 2003, the Ramseys' attorney indicated that one part of the sample, taken from blood on JonBenet's undergarments, was determined by the FBI to be of sufficient quality to be put into the DNA Index System.[/COLOR][/LEFT]

AHEM, again! Would it be asking too much for an objective, TRUSTWORTHY source?

Previous tests showed the DNA did not match members of the Ramsey family. Why wasn't it submitted earlier? The police say it was because the sample wasn't good enough.

Far as I know, they were right.

Miraculously, after being in storage for seven years, now it's just fine.

Yeah, it IS a miracle! That's kind of my point!

Incidentally, I wouldn't be so quick to take information from Talkleft, an organization of far-left William Kuntsler-types who regularly trash police officers as fascist bulldogs.

Earlier DNA tests on the blood indicated it was from a male who was not a member of the Ramsey family. At the time, the DNA sample wasn't of a high enough quality to compare against a national databank of DNA, the attorney said.

That much is correct.

Within the last few months, the Boulder District Attorney's office was able to get a high quality sample of DNA from the garment to send to the FBI, Wood said.

AHEM, yet again! You're only proving my point!

Its clear that there was 'degraded' DNA for some 7 years. At 3 or 4 markers, RDI developed a very friendly and comfortable relationship with the term 'degraded' and 'unusable'.

Seems to be the case.

Many still do, but its obviously no longer applicable, not since 2003.

According to LW, anyway.

It seems then ML showed up and all hell broke loose.

No argument here!

Since 2003 a DNA profile of 10 markers has been sitting in CODIS.

Isn't that what I said?

Five years later and all hell breaks loose again. New testing ordered by the DA reveals two deposits on the leggings that each match the 10 CODIS markers!

YES! Thank you, HOTYH. They match a partial profile. We actually agree on something.

Ad hominem arguments against ML and LW are really an embarrassment

I would rephrase that:

ML and LW are really an embarrassment Yes, that fits a lot better.

Its a lot better when knowledge leads the way instead of fiction or idle speculation.

I couldn't agree with you more, my friend.

 

[BBB167893]

Please provide just one example of DPRK media resembling our media on reflecting public opinion. Or is this just empty talk?

Oh, it's far from empty. Although, much of it would be better posted on the political threads. As to how it applies to this case, I'll lay this on you. The NK media is dedicated to suppressing any viewpoint that does not glorify the Dear Leader Kim as a living, in-the-flesh god. The media in this country consistently take people like Lin Wood at their word with no attempt at any research or gathering any opposing viewpoints. But there's no evidence that the public at large believes what Mr. Wood is selling. And that's the claim that you're making. In fact, if you were to take a poll, I'd be willing to bet that at least 60% of those polled would be RDI at least to a degree.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Oh, it's far from empty. Although, much of it would be better posted on the political threads. As to how it applies to this case, I'll lay this on you. The NK media is dedicated to suppressing any viewpoint that does not glorify the Dear Leader Kim as a living, in-the-flesh god. The media in this country consistently take people like Lin Wood at their word with no attempt at any research or gathering any opposing viewpoints. But there's no evidence that the public at large believes what Mr. Wood is selling. And that's the claim that you're making. In fact, if you were to take a poll, I'd be willing to bet that at least 60% of those polled would be RDI at least to a degree.

If you only knew...I can only hope that posterity will smile on our little exchange.

Although I don't think the comparison between Lin and Jong-il is really fair. Has he ordered any kidnappings, on-the-spot executions, or plane bombings lately?

If I am to understand your posts, it seems that you would like to say that LW himself paid to have partial degraded 9 marker DNA placed into a minimum 10 marker CODIS system. Having bought his way in with this partial degraded unusable profile. Who was the paid off FBI agent?

Didn't you read the part about 10 markers being significant? Wasn't that a DNA expert who said that? Why aren't you impressed that the 10 markers they placed in CODIS (right or wrong) exactly matched the DNA found on the leggings? Are you aware that the probability the CODIS DNA and the legging DNA are owned by different people is astronomically remote? This is a serious question that requires an intelligent response. There's no shortage of sources, I've shown them, and it seems you want to simply 'blame it all' on LW and ML. What about everyone else that is involved?

AHEM!

I never knew that the response 'AHEM!' made statements go away or become impotent. Maybe it does for your friends...