Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #99

[margarita25]

JMO.

I see you found the article you were looking for regarding the shawl.

Thank you. THIS is an excellent example of the limits of touch DNA, it's susceptibility to contamination and a non-existent chain of custody regarding evidence or possible evidence.

The majority opinion of true DNA experts, researchers and forensic genealogists regarding this article, as well as the author's premise and conclusion, is that it is a bunch of bunk. It cannot be proven the shawl was from the victim, nor can it be proven the DNA found on the shawl is not contamination or some other artifact.

You'll notice no major lab or research scientist has been willing to verify the alleged results. I'm afraid the author has tried to use unverified DNA results from an unverified piece of clothing in order to promote their book.

There is much more to this story than I feel comfortable posting here, but suffice it to say, many people feel the author would have been a worthy hire of Mr. P. T. Barnum.

With re: to “touch DNA”, my only real frame of reference would be the JBR case:

What is touch DNA?

How touch DNA was used in the Ramsey case

DA on Reopening DNA Portion of JonBenet Investigation

 

[Charlot123]

JMO.

Adoption records don't matter. The adoptive family's name doesn't matter.

Let me try to explain it this way.

A and B adopt a child. They name it C. However, C's real bio parents are X and Y. And C's DNA shows he is the child of X and Y through familial/autosomal DNA. In fact, he was named Z at birth.

So Z (under the name of C) has been living in the Delphi area for the past 25 years or so, presumably under the surname of A and B.

Let's say, Z becomes a suspect and LE wants his DNA. He refuses. So, LE tails him and pick up a napkin Z used to wipe his mouth at Subway. They find saliva DNA and the results show Z's match to hundreds of people but not to A and B.

No problem. Once the DNA trees are built, and the bio family is found, then the adoption records can be opened by subpoena because there is enough reason for a judge to sign off on a warrant due to the DNA results.

What about embryo adoption? Is it open, do you know?

What if he were adopted from Eastern Europe? In the late 80-es and 90-es there were a lot. Then, it might be a dead end.

(But of course, at least DNA from the napkin matches, so they know it is him, so they’ll nail him sooner or later).

 

[MistyWaters]

David Lambkin is one of the nation’s foremost experts in cold-case homicide investigations...........

“Even if you’ve got DNA, you want to be able to prove your case independent of DNA. Prove your case and exhaust everything else.”
Halfway Across: The Delphi Murders

 

[pepper 34]

*

 

[cluciano63]

Just because he has not been found does not mean it is for some bizarre reason, imo, as in adopted, etc...many, many criminals get away with crimes, many murders go unsolved ...the stats are not great, especially in stranger on stranger crimes. Which this seems to be, imo.

 

[MistyWaters]

With re: to “touch DNA”, my only real frame of reference would be the JBR case:

What is touch DNA?

How touch DNA was used in the Ramsey case

DA on Reopening DNA Portion of JonBenet Investigation

The media is filled with reports about the unreliability of touch DNA.

Framed By Your Own Cells: How DNA Evidence Imprisons The Innocent
“Imagine a man waiting at a restaurant for a business associate. His business associate opens the restaurant door, then walks over to the man and shakes the man's hand with the same hand the associate used to open the restaurant door. The man has now received a DNA transfer of his associate's DNA, and any DNA that the associate's hand picked up on the restaurant door handle. If we were to swab the man's hand for DNA, we might find the man's DNA, his associate's DNA, and the DNA of a few other unknown people who touched the door handle of the restaurant and whose DNA stuck around, people who the man never touched. The DNA of these other people transferred to the man's hand through the touch-transfer properties of DNA.

Similarly, a person identified by a match of DNA discovered at a crime scene may have never come into contact with the object or the person on which his DNA was found. Yet, modern day high-tech CSI investigations do not account for the possibility that the evidence discovered at a crime scene was deposited via touch-transfer....”

 

[Cherokee]

What about embryo adoption? Is it open, do you know?

What if he were adopted from Eastern Europe? In the late 80-es and 90-es there were a lot. Then, it might be a dead end.

(But of course, at least DNA from the napkin matches, so they know it is him, so they’ll nail him sooner or later).

JMO.

With DNA, there is never a dead end.

People from all over the world have submitted DNA. Autosomal DNA is analyzed as to ethnic origin, and the percentages in a single DNA test are now fairly accurate. If a person's ethnic DNA map shows they are Serbian, then testing will be done there to find matches. But all of this is in the realm of conjecture.

The truth is, familial DNA cannot be tricked. It is who we are. It doesn't matter what our name is, what our nationality is, or where we came from. IT IS US. You can't run from your DNA. You are tied to two people (father and mother) and four people, and then eight and so on, until you have hundreds of ancestors and cousins.

If you are part of the human race and have your DNA tested, we will find your family. It may take some time, but it will happen.

 

[margarita25]

The media is filled with reports about the unreliability of touch DNA.

Framed By Your Own Cells: How DNA Evidence Imprisons The Innocent
“Imagine a man waiting at a restaurant for a business associate. His business associate opens the restaurant door, then walks over to the man and shakes the man's hand with the same hand the associate used to open the restaurant door. The man has now received a DNA transfer of his associate's DNA, and any DNA that the associate's hand picked up on the restaurant door handle. If we were to swab the man's hand for DNA, we might find the man's DNA, his associate's DNA, and the DNA of a few other unknown people who touched the door handle of the restaurant and whose DNA stuck around, people who the man never touched. The DNA of these other people transferred to the man's hand through the touch-transfer properties of DNA.

Similarly, a person identified by a match of DNA discovered at a crime scene may have never come into contact with the object or the person on which his DNA was found. Yet, modern day high-tech CSI investigations do not account for the possibility that the evidence discovered at a crime scene was deposited via touch-transfer....”

Indeed. I was referring to specific cases on WS and trying to recall any case references but all I could think of was JBR. I can’t recall ever really reading/posting anything related to touch DNA in any particular cases that I’ve followed here.

 

[Confusion]

I'm not sure if this is a serious question or not; I think it is, but I'm tired enough to not really know. If he were the child of a "sperm donor", and several others had also used the same sample, would knowing the mtDNA be enough to track him down? I'd hate to think there were hundreds of people out there being suspected because one 1/2 sibling none of them ever met was a deviate.

 

[Cherokee]

With re: to “touch DNA”, my only real frame of reference would be the JBR case:

What is touch DNA?

How touch DNA was used in the Ramsey case

DA on Reopening DNA Portion of JonBenet Investigation

JMO

I'm sorry, but these articles are the worst of how "touch DNA" can be used by an unethical DA to try to absolve personal friends. It is almost a primer on the dangers of "touch DNA." Mary Lacy believed the Ramseys were innocent because she thought she saw a butt print in a hallway when she toured their house four days after it was released by crime scene technicians. This is a fact. Google it. The woman is truly nuts.

Lacy's "exoneration" was as worthless as the paper it was written on. Lacy had no authority to do what she did, and she should have been removed from office for such an egregious misuse of legal means, as well as unethical conduct.

The DA after Lacy, Stan Garnett, said Lacy's exoneration meant nothing and the Ramseys are still suspects. However, that hasn't stopped the media from cutting and pasting the lie that the Ramseys have been exonerated and cleared by DNA.

Furthermore, even the lab Lacy used to try to complete her trickery, Bode Labs, told her they needed to do a retest to make sure the results could be duplicated and confirmed. Lacy refused. Then she took the report, extracted a few lines from it, left out the most important parts, then refused to release it to the public or take questions at the press conference. It was a fait accompli.

It wasn't until reporter Charlie Brennan got the Bode Lab reports in October 2016, using an FOI request, the public was able to see what they really contained, and Lacy's chicanery was exposed.

And all because of a "butt print."

 

[margarita25]

I'm not sure if this is a serious question or not; I think it is, but I'm tired enough to not really know. If he were the child of a "sperm donor", and several others had also used the same sample, would knowing the mtDNA be enough to track him down? I'd hate to think there were hundreds of people out there being suspected because one 1/2 sibling none of them ever met was a deviate.

Well, this is not specific to your question, but jumping off this and one thing I thought was interesting was a flyer I just saw in another case:

Slightly o/t;

Missing Person's Event in Harris County, TX

 

[Cherokee]

David Lambkin is one of the nation’s foremost experts in cold-case homicide investigations...........

“Even if you’ve got DNA, you want to be able to prove your case independent of DNA. Prove your case and exhaust everything else.”
Halfway Across: The Delphi Murders

JMO.

This is SO TRUE!

As any good investigator knows, it is the totality of the case that is important ... not just any DNA, not just a weapon, not just witnesses, or any other evidence. It has to be the whole package.

 

[margarita25]

JMO

I'm sorry, but these articles are the worst of how "touch DNA" can be used by an unethical DA to try to absolve personal friends. It is almost a primer on the dangers of "touch DNA." Mary Lacy believed the Ramseys were innocent because she thought she saw a butt print in a hallway when she toured their house four days after it was released by crime scene technicians. This is a fact. Google it. The woman is truly nuts.

Lacy's "exoneration" was as worthless as the paper it was written on. Lacy had no authority to do what she did, and she should have been removed from office for such an egregious misuse of legal means, as well as unethical conduct.

The DA after Lacy, Stan Garnett, said Lacy's exoneration meant nothing and the Ramseys are still suspects. However, that hasn't stopped the media from cutting and pasting the lie that the Ramseys have been exonerated and cleared by DNA.

Furthermore, even the lab Lacy used to try to complete her trickery, Bode Labs, told her they needed to do a retest to make sure the results could be duplicated and confirmed. Lacy refused. Then she took the report, extracted a few lines from it, left out the most important parts, then refused to release it to the public or take questions at the press conference. It was a fait accompli.

It wasn't until reporter Charlie Brennan got the Bode Lab reports in October 2016, using an FOI request, the public was able to see what they really contained, and Lacy's chicanery was exposed.

And all because of a "butt print."

Lol, I just randomly pulled the first three links that came up for reference. Maybe I should have read them.

 

[Charlot123]

JMO.

Whose DNA they lifted, as you said, is unknown. Considering no lab replicated the results, that in and of itself is a huge red flag. Contamination is such a huge issue when dealing with DNA, and it is THE issue with so-called "touch DNA."

They did find the Romanoff family. It was proven through mtDNA, and the discovery was very exciting! The Bolsheviks tried to obliterate those bones with acid and fire, and STILL DNA helped identify the family. I have read many articles and books on the Romanoffs and the DNA extraction, testing and results. It was not based on "touch DNA" but on full extraction from cell tissue in the bones. Now THAT is real DNA solving a real mystery.

With the Romanoffs, I had questions related to how they were discovered. It was exceptionally strange. I should probably not discuss it here as it is outside of the Delphi scope.

 

[Andreee]

Just because he has not been found does not mean it is for some bizarre reason, imo, as in adopted, etc...many, many criminals get away with crimes, many murders go unsolved ...the stats are not great, especially in stranger on stranger crimes. Which this seems to be, imo.

I agree, confidence in finding a murderer does not mean the murderer is necessarily found. I sincerely hope the Delphi murderer is found, but he may never be identified, perish the thought!

 

[cluciano63]

JMO.

This is SO TRUE!

As any good investigator knows, it is the totality of the case that is important ... not just any DNA, not just a weapon, not just witnesses, or any other evidence. It has to be the whole package.

Of course. But adult male DNA found on the body of a teenaged girl, for example, would pretty much preclude any valid explanation, if he was not known to her. Circumstances are everything. Jmo

 

[sunshineray]

Some are still trying to come to terms with sketch #1 released ( and looking to match BG pictures) and now the newer sketch #2 (actually done a few days after the murders) looking so very different. ISP said the first sketch is secondary NOT the photos/video of BG. Wasn't there a guy who came forward when BG pics were first release who said a guy looking simular, "hobo" guy accosted he and his friends, for money, on the trails 3 weeks before the murders? Sketch #1 could be this hobo guy done collectively from these witnesses. Since their descriptions looked so much like BG the ISP went with it. Maybe the hobo was just recently identified and eliminated? ISP revisits the greatly different description of sketch #2 guy, lots of re-interviews and now think he's BG seen after shedding outer clothes or before donning them?

 

[Cherokee]

Lol, I just randomly pulled the first three links that came up for reference. Maybe I should have read them.

Ha ha, thanks for the laugh! Whew, glad you weren't wedded to the articles. It was going to take me all night to explain what was wrong with them. I'm glad you accepted my Reader's Digest version.

JMO.

 

[Cherokee]

I'm not sure if this is a serious question or not; I think it is, but I'm tired enough to not really know. If he were the child of a "sperm donor", and several others had also used the same sample, would knowing the mtDNA be enough to track him down? I'd hate to think there were hundreds of people out there being suspected because one 1/2 sibling none of them ever met was a deviate.

JMO.

Autosomal DNA includes all of the DNA on your chromosomes back through your parental lines, including X-matches, which is passed on from a mother to her children.

mtDNA is passed only from a mother to her children, both male and female, but a male child cannot pass it on to his progeny. Only the female child can. Therefore, mtDNA can only be trace from a woman's mother back to her mother and so on. It only follow's the mother's line.

The X-matches in Autosomal DNA are different to this in that we receive from our parents either XY (making us male) or XX (making us female). A mother will always contribute an X to her children. Always. She gives an X to her son and an X to her daughter. It is the father who determines the sex of the child by contributing either a Y, making the child XY (male) or contributing an X, making the child XX (female).

To answer your questions, within the autosomal DNA, there are DNA clues to the mother's side of the family. Even if the unethical sperm doctor impregnated 50 women, the 50 children would all be half-siblings, as their mother's DNA would be different. Therefore, no one could be arrested based on having shared DNA only on the father's side. The DNA X-matches within the Autosomal DNA would help separate the children's test results within the larger framework of the mother's own Autosomal DNA inheritance.

 

[margarita25]

Ha ha, thanks for the laugh! Whew, glad you weren't wedded to the articles. It was going to take me all night to explain what was wrong with them. I'm glad you accepted my Reader's Digest version.

JMO.

Yes, my general point was to say that the main case that (some) people think of when they hear the term “touch DNA” is the Ramsey case. As to specific discussion relating to that case, there’s only not a special sub forum but a special subcontinent just for JBR! I think that’s actually the biggest case forum on WS?!

(ETA: O/t, check this out, an entire WS Forum on JBR with 138 different sub threads! And within those 138 SUB threads are 2,634 discussion threads!

JonBenet Ramsey )