IDI: Whats your problem?

[DeeDee249]

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!

I am not so sure those people were all tested. There used to be a page on that on ACR, I'll try to find it if it still there.
One thing I am sure of- no male CHILDREN who were there were ever tested.
And they should be tested now. None of them can be compelled to do this, and I doubt any would volunteer. But I can't stress enough how erroneous it is to look at the male DNA as being exclusively ADULT male. JB was around male children all day.

 

[MurriFlower]

I am not so sure those people were all tested. There used to be a page on that on ACR, I'll try to find it if it still there.
One thing I am sure of- no male CHILDREN who were there were ever tested.
And they should be tested now. None of them can be compelled to do this, and I doubt any would volunteer. But I can't stress enough how erroneous it is to look at the male DNA as being exclusively ADULT male. JB was around male children all day.

Ok, let's presume (just for a moment) that male children could have been the source, and these male children were not DNA tested.

UkGuy was talking about PR having touched something that someone else had touched previously then transferred this to her daughter's clothes. This TERTIARY transfer would have needed to have happened in the Rs home and as I said, the researchers could not even get this result in a lab. Otherwise, we are talking about SECONDARY transfer that occurred when PR was at one of her friends houses and her hands came in contact with a male child's and then there was still enough DNA when she arrived home to transfer to her daughters clothes in several places.

 

[cynic]

This TERTIARY transfer would have needed to have happened in the Rs home and as I said, the researchers could not even get this result in a lab.

Not true, the study by Marc Taylor, (posted a few times before,) shows it’s possible. Most studies have concentrated on secondary transfer.
In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels and in none of the experiments with the other towel. In each of these sets of experiments the towel was exposed to the individuals DNA from only one face washing and drying. Larger quantities of DNA would be expected to be deposited on the towel from multiple uses of the towel.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not true, the study by Marc Taylor, (posted a few times before,) shows it’s possible. Most studies have concentrated on secondary transfer.
In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels and in none of the experiments with the other towel. In each of these sets of experiments the towel was exposed to the individuals DNA from only one face washing and drying. Larger quantities of DNA would be expected to be deposited on the towel from multiple uses of the towel.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf

Worth noting that this experiment provided a specific sequence of events or a context. Then DNA was easily located within the context. Mouth-->Face-->Glove was known beforehand. Also Face-->Towel-->Face-->Glove. Of course they didn't have problems finding DNA transfer, they knew right where to look!

The DNA found mixed with blood in JBR's inside crotch area, the matching DNA on two places on the waistband had a context--it got there somehow. RDI disagrees with the criminal context for obvious reasons but RDI is obviously unable to rule it out. In fact, RDI has not provided with specificity a plausible context that would provide these results. The whole basis for the exhoneration is the context in which they discovered the DNA. Of course they didn't have problems finding DNA transfer, they knew right where to look!

 

[cynic]

The underwear DNA is in CODIS. The touch DNA matches it. This we can assume. If we can't assume this much, we can’t assume JBR was ever murdered.

You are missing the point, 2 markers can’t match anything. At one time they said that the fingernail DNA “matched” the panty DNA. Matching 2 markers (fingernail DNA) to 9 or 10 markers (panty DNA) is not “matching” at all.
Because this was done in the past and we have never heard how many markers are in the touch DNA sample you can’t draw any conclusions on the level of “match.”

Since when is underneath fingernails consistent with parent handling?

Since when is anything that produces a 2 marker DNA “profile” worthy of any consideration?
As I said previously, you may very well have that “profile.”

Where is the parental DNA on the waistband? It would've shown up also.

Bode not finding any parental DNA pretty much discounts this secondary transfer idea.

The idea that PR or JR transmitted third party DNA to JBR without also depositing their own, or that Bode ignored positive PR or JR DNA, is absurd.

Bode may have simply been asked if there was evidence that the CODIS profile was present on the waistband of the long johns.
We don’t know what they were asked to find.
We don’t know if they revealed to the public all that they found.
We don’t know how many markers were consistent with the CODIS profile.

The sources I read stated clearly that the sample was of high quality, acceptable to CODIS

Acceptable as a partial profile that meets the minimum standard.

"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation” (2002)
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

But Lacy, in announcing why Karr was being freed, admitted what several other investigators connected to the case had been saying for years: It might not even be the killer's DNA.
It is possible that the unidentified male DNA might have been left there through secondary contact, or even when the underwear was manufactured.
"The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/dec/23/miss-steps/

The DNA evidence could be significant, or, it could be contamination, there’s a debate about that.
Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy DA
-February 3, 2009

Grant said he still sees evidence, and "unanswered questions" that would support either inside or outside involvement in JonBenet's murder - but that Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.
"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-former...,2592897.story

On July 9, 2008, Cyril Wecht addressed the new findings, “The fact that this other DNA was found at this time matches previous DNA that was thought to be a contaminant does not alter the picture.” Of course not. This did not call for the public exoneration the DA rushed to give; it called for investigation. There was no way to know whether it belonged to the killer
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 131

Your 9 1/2 marker 'negotiation' is a claim.

Yes, it is a claim from Lin Wood, who I’ve accused of many things, but downplaying something favorable to Ramseys would not be one of them.
In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...11/lkl.00.html

 

[claudicici]

I believe JAR was never tested.Does anyone know if this is correct?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Bode may have simply been asked if there was evidence that the CODIS profile was present on the waistband of the long johns.
We don’t know what they were asked to find.
We don’t know if they revealed to the public all that they found.
We don’t know how many markers were consistent with the CODIS profile.
Acceptable as a partial profile that meets the minimum standard.

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. 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.

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.

 

[UKGuy]

Critical reflection? I accuse noone of killing JBR while RDI goes on and on presenting myth, hype, and opinion as facts on how a specific person had a role in child murder. And I lack critical reflection?

What a joke that is. Especially now with evidence of an intruder smeared all over JBR's clothing.

Bode website clearly describes the touch DNA as NOT LCN (low copy number) DNA. There has to be a sufficient quantity of skin cells present to produce a profile. If there is more than one profile, it shows up also. The idea that PR or JR transmitted third party DNA to JBR without also depositing their own, or that Bode ignored positive PR or JR DNA, is absurd.

If anyone needs some critical reflection...

Holdontoyourhat,

Just because there is touch dna on JonBenet's clothing in two different locations does not mean that it follows it belongs to her killer. It might, it might not, just like some of the fibers.

If it was semen dna then it would be evidence of foreign dna, but it is not and not discounting the lack of correlation between samples e.g. 2 marker versus 10 markers etc, it is not possible to state that the touch dna belongs exclusively to an Intruder. It may, it may not.

By stating that you think the touch dna is exclusive to an intruder you make a mistake, its that simple, everyone else except paid up members of IDI can see this!


.

 

[madeleine]

Holdontoyourhat,

Just because there is touch dna on JonBenet's clothing in two different locations does not mean that it follows it belongs to her killer. It might, it might not, just like some of the fibers.

If it was semen dna then it would be evidence of foreign dna, but it is not and not discounting the lack of correlation between samples e.g. 2 marker versus 10 markers etc, it is not possible to state that the touch dna belongs exclusively to an Intruder. It may, it may not.

By stating that you think the touch dna is exclusive to an intruder you make a mistake, its that simple, everyone else except paid up members of IDI can see this!


.

But RDI makes it sound exclusive "it DOESN'T belong to the killer","there was NO intruder","the DNA is NOT related to the crime".
And why is it that every time someone has a totally different opinion (even if an extreme one) you bring the payroll up or wonder whether that IDI is a Ramsey relative.Not very fair.

 

[madeleine]

I believe JAR was never tested.Does anyone know if this is correct?

IIRC he was.They matched his DNA with the one found on the blanket (in the suitcase).

 

[Roy23]

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. 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.

But, go ahead, and keep carrying on as if this is not the case.

 

[claudicici]

...but no one ever said the DNA belongs to JB's killer.It IS crucial to find this person to see how the DNA got there and to see if whether or not he was involved.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Just because there is touch dna on JonBenet's clothing in two different locations does not mean that it follows it belongs to her killer. It might, it might not, just like some of the fibers.

If it was semen dna then it would be evidence of foreign dna, but it is not and not discounting the lack of correlation between samples e.g. 2 marker versus 10 markers etc, it is not possible to state that the touch dna belongs exclusively to an Intruder. It may, it may not.

By stating that you think the touch dna is exclusive to an intruder you make a mistake, its that simple, everyone else except paid up members of IDI can see this!


.

Stating the touch DNA is exclusive to an intruder may be accurate. Its not what I say its what the experts involved in the investigation said. Its safe to say, even for yourself, that the touch DNA was found in a criminal context. So was the matching DNA found in JBR's blood, and the DNA underneath her fingernails which, despite its few markers, doesn't match anyone in the family...

Its compelling evidence of an intruder. To treat it as anything else exposes a slant so steep you could fall off.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But RDI makes it sound exclusive "it DOESN'T belong to the killer","there was NO intruder","the DNA is NOT related to the crime".
And why is it that every time someone has a totally different opinion (even if an extreme one) you bring the payroll up or wonder whether that IDI is a Ramsey relative.Not very fair.

I'm pretty sure if BPD or the DA stated 'we found touch DNA in two places matching original underwear DNA, but its not only degraded and partial but its also innocent secondary transfer' there'd be no argument from RDI camp. LOL. This despite the obvious and glaring assumptions. It seems winning is more important that reasoning or justice.

 

[Roy23]

...but no one ever said the DNA belongs to JB's killer.It IS crucial to find this person to see how the DNA got there and to see if whether or not he was involved.

Whether one wants to agree with it or not, there was one reason and one reason only that you even know about the touch DNA findings. And it was what they did after Bode's completion of the test. I think it had to do with an apology to certain persons. So read between the lines.

 

[cynic]

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.
But, go ahead, and keep carrying on as if this is not the case.

Plenty of people are skeptical.

On July 9, 2008, Cyril Wecht addressed the new findings, “The fact that this other DNA was found at this time matches previous DNA that was thought to be a contaminant does not alter the picture.” Of course not. This did not call for the public exoneration the DA rushed to give; it called for investigation. There was no way to know whether it belonged to the killer
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 131

The DNA evidence could be significant, or, it could be contamination, there’s a debate about that.
Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy DA
-February 3, 2009

…whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”
…
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
-Henry Lee
Daily Camera, Vanessa Miller, July 10, 2008

Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer.
…

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9839651

Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence.
"My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant.
…
Grant said he still sees evidence, and "unanswered questions" that would support either inside or outside involvement in JonBenet's murder - but that Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.
"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-former...,2592897.story

GRACE: To Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author of "And Justice for Some." Wendy, are you convinced that the discovery of this DNA, which matches DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear -- that DNA, a male DNA was found within blood of JonBenet Ramsey`s in her underwear. Does this really clear the Ramseys?
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: No. In my opinion, Mary Lacy has issues in terms of her judgments. She was the one who, after all, charged John Mark Karr, a completely innocent man, with the crime despite the fact that he had never even been in Boulder, Colorado. We all seemed to know that before she did. Let`s just say I`m not having a lot of faith in this woman`s judgment at all. Plus, she`s a lame duck politician. No.
And you know what, Nancy? I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../09/ng.01.html

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.

I have no doubt that Lacy was satisfied that there could be no alternative explanation. I only wish that that meant something.

 

[cynic]

Whether one wants to agree with it or not, there was one reason and one reason only that you even know about the touch DNA findings. And it was what they did after Bode's completion of the test. I think it had to do with an apology to certain persons. So read between the lines.

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

Shortly after the case was moved from the BPD to Lacy, Lin Wood made the following statement:
Wood said. "And, from the lawyer's perspective, the days of anyone accusing my clients of murder are also over."
Rocky Mountain News, Owen S. Good, Apr 08, 2003
Lin knew it would be smooth sailing with Lacy at the helm.

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9839651

To the many questions that have plagued the Ramsey case we can now add another: is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on?
Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado
http://www.reporternews.com/news/200...n-ramsey-case/

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

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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

She came thru for them when she entered office too. I learned that ML was the one who caused the FBI to enter the CODIS DNA in the first place! Although I'm not sure why entering DNA into CODIS or having Bode analyze the leggings waistband for DNA is a bad thing. RDI would have us believe its a bad thing at every turn, but of course we all understand why.

ML has provided the only true advances in the investigation in the last 10 years. If only BPD came up with some PR or JR DNA instead of lint.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yep. John Mark Karr was a stellar leap forward. Well, at least she got to add one more sick pedophile to the US population. Way to go, ML. I'm sure you're proud.

 

[Roy23]

Plenty of people are skeptical.

On July 9, 2008, Cyril Wecht addressed the new findings, “The fact that this other DNA was found at this time matches previous DNA that was thought to be a contaminant does not alter the picture.” Of course not. This did not call for the public exoneration the DA rushed to give; it called for investigation. There was no way to know whether it belonged to the killer
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 131

The DNA evidence could be significant, or, it could be contamination, there’s a debate about that.
Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy DA
-February 3, 2009

…whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”
…
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
-Henry Lee
Daily Camera, Vanessa Miller, July 10, 2008

Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer.
…

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9839651

Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence.
"My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant.
…
Grant said he still sees evidence, and "unanswered questions" that would support either inside or outside involvement in JonBenet's murder - but that Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.
"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-former...,2592897.story

GRACE: To Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author of "And Justice for Some." Wendy, are you convinced that the discovery of this DNA, which matches DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear -- that DNA, a male DNA was found within blood of JonBenet Ramsey`s in her underwear. Does this really clear the Ramseys?
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: No. In my opinion, Mary Lacy has issues in terms of her judgments. She was the one who, after all, charged John Mark Karr, a completely innocent man, with the crime despite the fact that he had never even been in Boulder, Colorado. We all seemed to know that before she did. Let`s just say I`m not having a lot of faith in this woman`s judgment at all. Plus, she`s a lame duck politician. No.
And you know what, Nancy? I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../09/ng.01.html


I have no doubt that Lacy was satisfied that there could be no alternative explanation. I only wish that that meant something.

Yawn!!!

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