JonBenet's case on Anderson Cooper 360

[BBB167893]

IDI does not make sense to the ignorant.

EXCUSE ME??? Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that, pilgrim?

But John Walsh has actually helped solve more cases than RDI, right?

LOW, HOTYH. LOW.

 

[BBB167893]

He may very well be

This seems like a more credible internet source. Klass does NOT point the finger, even seems willing to accept JMK as killer.

The pollydad source is not credible. Its a forum discussion and who knows maybe not Klass. It certainly reads differently than the CNN transcript.

There was another interview he did right around the same time for MSNBC. I think it was Joe Scarborough's show. He explicitly mentioned staging and Patsy's fibers.

 

[cynic]

I remember that comment about the DNA from a while back, and it was always confusing to me. If Cynic is around, you do such a great job of explaining the DNA ins and outs, maybe you could "translate" into layman's terms. Or if anyone else understands the part about JB and 1 person vs more than one and how that impacts the results of a mixed sample, please explain it to me. Thanks.

There is pretty much no short answer that’s possible here, although I will try to be brief(ish.)
The lab report appears to be from early testing, but I do think that that the so called intruder profile is tenuous.

There would be three issues that would have made a definitive interpretation at the lab difficult.

1. The sample was mixed.
2. Degradation and/or sample size was such that a full profile was not possible to achieve.
3. A mix involving a DNA “rich” substance such as blood (in this instance, JBR’s blood) with a low yield DNA substance (most probably skin cells) can be very problematic to interpret as there is such an imbalance.

The report states that there is a major and minor component in the sample.
The major component is from JBR.
The minor component is either from an unknown male contributor, or from one or more of the following:
John Andrew Ramsey
Melinda Ramsey
John B. Ramsey
Patricia Ramsey
Burke Ramsey
Jeff Ramsey
(Two other names were blacked out.)

It is an interesting, and often overlooked, fact that two females are listed here.
This means that the lab is not excluding possibilities such as:
JBR and JAR and JR
JBR and JAR and PR
JBR and PR and JR
JBR and BR and JR
etc.
There can be a very significant amount of shared markers between closely related family members which can make analysis complicated if there is a possibility that they were involved in the crime and were possible contributors to the DNA sample.
Because the lab simply did not exclude JR, PR, JAR, BR and the others on the list means that there must have been enough markers in common between them that their individual reference profiles were able to account for most but not all of the “intruder” profile. However, it seems that they noticed that the “unknown” profile could be “matched” if it was the result of say two people on the list as opposed to single “unknown” male.

Below I did a quick example using two markers plus the amelogenin (sex) marker.
The crime scene sample here has the following
Amel (X,Y) Marker1 (5,6,8,12) Marker2 (5,8,9,11)
I believe that the samples in this case were high ratio mixtures, in my example the mix is approximately 10:1:1
JonBenet’s “profile” at the two markers is (6,8) and (8,9)
This would mean the profile of the unknown donor is (5,12) and (5,11) which I have labeled “Unknown”
However, it is also possible that the result could be from the following two donors:
(5,6) and (8,12) at Marker1
(5,8) and (9,11) at Marker2
This could be from donors whom I have labeled FamilyM1 and FamilyM2. (In this example FamilyM1 is a female and FamilyM2 is a male.
This would correspond to two people from the list:
John Andrew Ramsey
Melinda Ramsey
John B. Ramsey
Patricia Ramsey
Burke Ramsey
Jeff Ramsey

One conclusion that could certainly be drawn from the report is that the so called “intruder” profile must be remarkably close to that of the people on the list.

In a high ratio mixture, contribution from a minor donor can be “overshadowed” or masked by the major donor if and where they coincide.
This is all the more probable in situations where more than one family member may be involved as some family members will often have many markers in common.
“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Below is a bit more information relating to mixtures and masking:

Mixtures and Low-Level DNA:
Addressing Questions Regarding Forensic DNA Typing
John M. Butler, Ph.D.
National Institute of Standards and Technology,Columbia, SC, May 20, 2009

Also

A mixed profile consisting of more than one individual may be evident if a locus is observed with more than two peaks at a locus. However, extra bands or imbalanced peaks may be genetic or non-genetic. To make an objective assessment, all of the alternatives must be considered:
Profiles with allelic artefacts e.g. stutters
Non-specific artefacts
Software - e.g. pull-up peaks
Poor operator technique - e.g. lane to lane leakage
Masking effect - when alleles from different individuals are superimposed
Suppressed amplification of an allele - due to primer binding site mutation
Promoted amplification of an allele - due to flanking region mutation
Multiple banded or imbalanced profiles generated as a result of genetic phenomena such as trisomy, translocation and somatic mutation
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.promega.com%2Fgeneticidproc%2Fussymp9proc%2Fcontent%2F03.pdf&ei=yV0zTdDNH4GglAe35M2YCg&usg=AFQjCNFKFuchu2OPEWdiHZs8xSc52wVH8Q

 

[Toltec]

How could DNA from a killer be degraded? Does degraded mean old? Can someone please explain that to me in laymans terms?

 

[DeeDee249]

How could DNA from a killer be degraded? Does degraded mean old? Can someone please explain that to me in laymans terms?

Degraded can mean old (as in decomposing) or contaminated, I believe.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thank you, Cynic, for your explanation. I THINK I actually understand what you mean: (please correct me if I am wrong)
That the "male" DNA may actually be from a mix of JB's DNA from her blood (which we KNOW is there) and less "precise" DNA (skin cells?) from one or more other people, one of whom may actually be a female. It seems to me more and more that siblings (half and/or full) may be involved.
Is this what they meant when they said that if it was a "mixed" sample, a R couldn't be ruled out?

 

[cynic]

How could DNA from a killer be degraded? Does degraded mean old? Can someone please explain that to me in laymans terms?

Degradation is the process of breaking down DNA into smaller and smaller fragments.
Heat, humidity, bacteria, sunlight, certain dyes, acidic conditions, exposure to oxidizing agents (such as bleach) can all be responsible for degradation.
“Age” only comes into play insofar as the longer the agents that I’ve described above have an opportunity to act on DNA, the more severe the degradation will be. Given enough time, the DNA will be useless from a forensic point of view.

 

[Toltec]

Degradation is the process of breaking down DNA into smaller and smaller fragments.
Heat, humidity, bacteria, sunlight, certain dyes, acidic conditions, exposure to oxidizing agents (such as bleach) can all be responsible for degradation.
“Age” only comes into play insofar as the longer the agents that I’ve described above have an opportunity to act on DNA, the more severe the degradation will be. Given enough time, the DNA will be useless from a forensic point of view.

So a killer comes into the Ramsey home, sexually assaults and kills JonBenet, leaves degraded DNA? I do not see any conditions or exposures to warrant the DNA found to be the killers.

 

[cynic]

Thank you, Cynic, for your explanation. I THINK I actually understand what you mean: (please correct me if I am wrong)
That the "male" DNA may actually be from a mix of JB's DNA from her blood (which we KNOW is there) and less "precise" DNA (skin cells?) from one or more other people, one of whom may actually be a female. It seems to me more and more that siblings (half and/or full) may be involved.

Body fluids such as blood and semen will deposit a large quantity of nucleated cells in a very small area. For example, a ½” blood spot would contain as many as 30,000 cells.
If someone were to touch that same area, they would possibly deposit only up to a few hundred cells. While both could lead to a full profile, you could see how issues such as masking might be problematic in such a disproportionate mix.
Degradation, of course, would damage the minor profile (rendering only a partial profile,) before the major profile.

Type of sample & Amount of DNA:

Blood = 30,000 ng/mL
stain 1 cm in area = 200 ng
stain 1 mm in area = 2 ng

Semen = 250,000 ng/mL
Postcoital vaginal swab = 0 - 3,000 ng

Hair
Plucked = 1 - 750 ng/hair
shed = 1 - 12 ng/hair

Saliva = 5,000 ng/mL

Urine = 1 - 20 ng/mL
http://www.bioforensics.com/downloads/KraneMAAFSDC.ppt

Is this what they meant when they said that if it was a "mixed" sample, a R couldn't be ruled out?

Yes

 

[cynic]

So a killer comes into the Ramsey home, sexually assaults and kills JonBenet, leaves degraded DNA? I do not see any conditions or exposures to warrant the DNA found to be the killers.

I believe that the “unknown” DNA is the result of innocent transfer or contamination and not the result of primary contact from an intruder.
The evidence points to the Ramseys.

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe that the “unknown” DNA is the result of innocent transfer or contamination and not the result of primary contact from an intruder.
The evidence points to the Ramseys.

I agree.

 

[UKGuy]

There is pretty much no short answer that’s possible here, although I will try to be brief(ish.)
The lab report appears to be from early testing, but I do think that that the so called intruder profile is tenuous.

...

Excellent post!

IDI will not be amused. The evidence points to the Ramseys.. Oh my what can we do, lets just say there is zero evidence linking to or matching anyone.

Then IDI might stand for Insider Did It.

 

[cynic]

Then IDI might stand for Insider Did It.

I never thought I’d say this, but I’m now a member of the IDI camp.
Please don’t quote me, though.

 

[DeeDee249]

After all, JR himself said it- "this is an inside job".

 

[Ames]

After all, JR himself said it- "this is an inside job".

Yep...it was an "inside job" alright....

 

[wonderllama]

So hold on....all this unknown DNA that people have been harping on about and telling those of us who are in the RDI camp is in fact STILL able to be linked to several members of the Ramsey Family?

Am I getting this right?

 

[nobull]

So hold on....all this unknown DNA that people have been harping on about and telling those of us who are in the RDI camp is in fact STILL able to be linked to several members of the Ramsey Family?

Am I getting this right?

Yes.

The DNA evidence that "clears" the Ramseys has IMO been nothing more than an elaborate shell game.

 

[BBB167893]

So a killer comes into the Ramsey home, sexually assaults and kills JonBenet, leaves degraded DNA? I do not see any conditions or exposures to warrant the DNA found to be the killers.

That's precisely the point, Toltec.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes.

The DNA evidence that "clears" the Ramseys has IMO been nothing more than an elaborate shell game.

And like the old shell game, it depends on sleight-of-hand so you don't see what else is going on.