Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared

[DeeDee249]

Her arms were tied in front of her, not tied behind her head. That illustration that we've all see so many times really is misleading, and so is LA's description of her arms being over her head. That was one of the points made about the lack of true restraint of a supposed kidnapping victim. Her wrists were loosely bound in the first place, with one wrist not even being actually tied. There was no way a child who was conscious would not have been able to get free. To see a more accurate representation, go to acandyrose and view the crime scene photos. There is a photo of JBR taken after she was brought up and laid under the tree. You can see the pattern of the R living room carpet under her. She was in full rigor at this time, so her arms were fixed in the position they were in when she was left in the wineceller. They are bent at the elbow and up in front of her like a boxer holds his arms. Being in full rigor, they would not have moved in the previous few hours, and certainly not between the time Arndt saw JR bring her up and the time that photo was taken. By the time she was on the autopsy table 12 hours after that (and about 36 hours after death) there is at least one photo showing her lying on her stomach and the shoulder bruise is visible; her arms appear to have been moved by the coroner. He stated that rigor was present but beginning to dissipate in the arms and smaller muscles of the face and jaw.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

I think this murderer had some indiosyncracies; namely, removing his gloves to get his DNA on the underwear and the longjohns (exactly where he wouldn't want to leave it, but what the hey) and then he puts the gloves back on for the rest of this affair. He also does not leave any hair or fibers anywhere else on JB - and no semen at all.

Keep in mind that in 1996, it took a couple teaspoons of cellular matter (blood, tissue, etc) to test for DNA. While a scientist could predict that the amount of sample needed would drop over time, I doubt this crime was committed by a scientist. It wasn't until around 2002 that samples as small as a drop (around 0.10 ml) could be tested.

And now they can test a single cell--who'd'a thunk it? Not me and not the vast majority of people, I think.

I don't think it can be conclusively stated that he left no fibre or hair at the scene. It would be more accurate to say that if the perpetrator left fibre or hair at the scene it was not in an area that would be considered incriminating (particularly if the perpetrator were someone who knew the Ramseys).

As for semen, it's not unusual for rapists to be impotent. The advent of DNA testing has shown something new: a lot of break-ins with a woman home were probably warm up attempts at rape rather than purely burglary or robbery. Typically, the "burglar" breaks in, finds himself not erect and settles for grabbing some stuff on the way out. With practise, he gains confidence and then starts assaulting victims.

Another possibility is that the rapist used a condom because he didn't want to leave bodily fluids behind. The autopsy showed that JonBenet was not penetrated by a penis but other murderers have done things like masturbated over the body of their victim.

All in all, I'm inclined to think that the perpetrator discovered himself impotent, which may have fuelled his rage (think of the head blow).

 

[Chrishope]

As for semen, it's not unusual for rapists to be impotent. The advent of DNA testing has shown something new: a lot of break-ins with a woman home were probably warm up attempts at rape rather than purely burglary or robbery. Typically, the "burglar" breaks in, finds himself not erect and settles for grabbing some stuff on the way out. With practise, he gains confidence and then starts assaulting victims.

True, but in our case, JR was home, along with PR. And unless the perp knew the Ramseys well, how'd he know the dog wouldn't be there?

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Looks like the dna in her panties came from the longjohns so what were the longjohns in prior contact with? And if there is male dna on the waistband of the longjohns how come there is none on the waistband of the size-12 panties?

Until relatively recently, DNA testing required a sample visible to the naked eye. Now samples as small as a single cell can be tested.

Mary Lacy, the prosecutor, attended a presentation on "touch DNA" and decided to send one piece of evidence in for testing in order to see if anything useful could be found.

As it turned out, even though the amount of DNA on the longjohns was invisible to the naked eye, each sample contained enough cells to run the routine test with.

This indicates two things. One, it does not match any Ramsey male. Two, the number of cells found could only have been left there via direct transfer (DNA owner's hand touching the longjohns) rather than secondary transfer.

The fact that the DNA on the longjohns matches the DNA found in JonBenet's panties exonerates the Ramseys. It's too improbable that matching DNA found in three such incriminating locations was not left by the perpetrator.

Now that they've have results from the one piece of evidence that was sent to be tested, I assume they will be testing other pieces of evidence. I certainly hope so.

Also what other foreign dna was discovered on JonBenet, there must be some since she allegedly never bathed and was in contact with many people at the White's, so why all the secrecy over the evidence?

In 1996, it took a large sample to test for DNA. The sample would be easily visible to the naked eye. Did the coroner take swabs from various surfaces on her body that had no visible staining and preserve them against the day when they could be tested? I don't know; do you?

If the coroner did not do so, I suspect it's probably too late to exhume her body and test it now. She was no doubt bathed before she was dressed for interment.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

True, but in our case, JR was home, along with PR. And unless the perp knew the Ramseys well, how'd he know the dog wouldn't be there?

The perpetrator may have been someone who knew the Ramseys--and not someone they socialised with. For instance, did they put in a stop order at the post office? There's been several incidents where it was discovered post office workers were selling that info to thieves. The people at the kennel knew when the dog was going to be at the kennel, obviously. Did anyone the Ramseys employed on a personal basis (housekeeper, gardener, etc) know they were going to be gone? Then not only that person but people who knew that person would have known. For example, say Annie Doe was employed by the Ramseys to fold tea towels each morning. Not only would Annie Doe know that the Ramseys would be gone and when but she'd tell her boyfriend Bob Low and her BFF Chrissy Lane. And so on. That person could have guessed that the Ramseys had dropped off their dog before the day of their trip.

It has been a long time since I read Death of Innocence but I remember being struck while reading it at how class-blind they seemed to be. They speculated about various suspects but they were almost all from their own class. They didn't even seem to consider people that had non-social contact with them--in fact, they mostly seemed not even to have realised such people exist.

Alternatively, the perpetrator may have gambled. Not all dogs bark at intruders and any dog that barks at every stranger quickly gets tuned out by their humans. It's pretty easy to carry some cheese or other such smelly treat that dogs consider delicious. One bite of cheese and most dogs consider that human a friend for life.

The intruder was probably someone who was comfortable taking risks, probably someone who sought out risks. I don't see any reason why a dog would deter such a person.

 

[Chrishope]

The fact that the DNA on the longjohns matches the DNA found in JonBenet's panties exonerates the Ramseys. It's too improbable that matching DNA found in three such incriminating locations was not left by the perpetrator.

Actually it doesn't exonerate them at all. We don't know the explanation for the DNA being there.

These are only "incriminating" locations because Mary Lacy and IDI's want to use that term. There may be a very innocent reason for DNA to be on the longjohns. If I understand the facts of the case correctly, the panty DNA was a much smaller sample, so it could have been from secondary transfer from teh LJs to the panties.

 

[BBB167893]

The fact that the DNA on the longjohns matches the DNA found in JonBenet's panties exonerates the Ramseys. It's too improbable that matching DNA found in three such incriminating locations was not left by the perpetrator.

Actually it doesn't exonerate them at all. We don't know the explanation for the DNA being there.

These are only "incriminating" locations because Mary Lacy and IDI's want to use that term. There may be a very innocent reason for DNA to be on the longjohns. If I understand the facts of the case correctly, the panty DNA was a much smaller sample, so it could have been from secondary transfer from teh LJs to the panties.

From what I can gather, that pretty much sums it up.

Anyone catch this (may I be forgiven for breaking any rules):

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9301

 

[cynic]

This indicates two things. One, it does not match any Ramsey male. Two, the number of cells found could only have been left there via direct transfer (DNA owner's hand touching the longjohns) rather than secondary transfer.

The fact that the DNA on the longjohns matches the DNA found in JonBenet's panties exonerates the Ramseys. It's too improbable that matching DNA found in three such incriminating locations was not left by the perpetrator.

I could not disagree more with those conclusions.
Secondary or tertiary transfer could have been the cause of both the panty and longjohn DNA findings.

[SIZE=-1]"Eleven employees wore a freshly laundered item of clothing, with the exception of one participant who wore new panty hose, for a period of time, generally one day. Females wore hosiery, and males wore T-shirts. After the workday, the items were collected and stored in clean paper or plastic bags and were maintained at room temperature until analysis."
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"DNA analysis was performed on the items, along with their corresponding pillboxes containing the trace evidence debris, for all study participants, their cohabitants (primarily spouses), if appropriate, and the personnel conducting scraping and DNA analysis (FBI Laboratory 1999)."
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Whereas the DNA recovered from the pillbox was a single source, the friction swab contained a major (the wearer) and an unknown minor contributor. The hosiery was removed from the original packaging and worn for an afternoon prior to testing. During this time, the only individual to come in contact with this item was the donor. These results suggest that the extraneous DNA profile may have originated at the manufacturing site or was transferred from the wearer's environment (Locard 1930). Nevertheless, the wearer of this hosiery is clearly identified as the major contributor of DNA in the STR profile."
[/SIZE]http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2001/stouder.htm

Also consider:

"Objects handled by many individuals allproduced profiles with multiple alleles of varying intensity. To determine the effect of multiple handlers, we exchanged polypropylene tubes between individuals (2 or 3, 10 min each) with different genotypes. Although the material left by the last holder was usually present on the tube, that of previous holders was also retrieved to varying extents. The strongest profile obtained was not always that of the person who last held the object, but was dependent on the individual. We regularly observed profiles of previous holders of a tube from swabs of hands involved in these exchanges, showing that in some cases material from which DNA can be retrieved is transferred from object to hand (secondary transfer)."
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf

Again, more support:

"SECONDARY TRANSFER
Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing."
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf

And finally, (although I have more if necessary)...

"Conclusions:
1.Skin to skin to object secondary transfer of trace DNA was observed.
2.The final person to come into skin contact with an object is not always the donor of the dominant profile recovered."
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/modified_sec_transfer_dna_poster_tcm44-12738.pdf

As I have stated on another thread, Lacy and her minions are free to find "unidentified" "matching" DNA (even though they have not disclosed how many matching markers) in a 100 locations on JBR where JBR herself may have transferred it, and I will be quite unimpressed. Show me a DNA match between her panties and something that only the fictional intruder would have touched such as the garrote and I will give it some consideration.
This just serves to further disgust me with Mary Lacy. I have no idea how she is able to sleep at night, (I guess the same way that John Ramsey does).

 

[Solace]

I've been at this WAY to long to put up with that garbage, Jayce. John Ramsey, early on in this case, said that he had hired private investigators to find the real killer because he didn't trust the police (all the while swearing he cooperated! LOL). But in his deposition, he finally admitted that was a lie and that the investigators were only looking for stuff to produce reasonable doubt at trial, including, and I swear I'm not making this up, targeting witnesses for dirty tricks. These same people have, in the last few days, been on television touting evidence that was disproven a long time ago.


SD,

IS THIS IN THE 1998 INTERVIEW OR THE 2000 INTERVIEW, BECAUSE I HAVE GOT TO READ THIS IDIOT'S ANSWER. THANKS SOLACE

 

[Solace]

Okay, here goes.

In 2002, two years after she was asked to give an innocent explanation, she told "48 Hours" that, quote:

"After John discovered the body and she was brought to the living room, when I laid eyes on her, I knelt down and hugged her, but I was--I had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers or whatever I had on that morning are going to transfer to her clothing."

Okay, that's what she said.

But here's what DOI said:

"I rip the tape off her mouth, begging her to talk to me. I pull the blanket off her...I run to the living room...Patsy will be coming in...She must not see JonBenet like this. I get a blanket to cover JonBenet. I lay the blanket over her."

So by John's own account, JB was already fully covered up by a second blanket (not the one from the basement) before Patsy ever saw her. Patsy's story might account for the fibers on THAT blanket (and to my knowledge, none of her fibers were mentioned as being on JB's clothing to start with), but not the one in the basement. OOPS! She should have asked her lawyer for her money back.

Wendy Murphy herself weighed in on this:

"Patsy's story would require flat-out magic. Her fibers would have had to float downstairs and down a hallway and land on and in those specific areas, since they weren't brought upstairs until later that day, when everyone was evacuated."

Mm-mm-mm.

I was just reading your posts and YOU ARE REALLY GOOD SD. I HOPE YOU ARE CONTINUING WITH THE BOOK . I WILL READ IT AVIDLY.

 

[BBB167893]

I've been at this WAY to long to put up with that garbage, Jayce. John Ramsey, early on in this case, said that he had hired private investigators to find the real killer because he didn't trust the police (all the while swearing he cooperated! LOL). But in his deposition, he finally admitted that was a lie and that the investigators were only looking for stuff to produce reasonable doubt at trial, including, and I swear I'm not making this up, targeting witnesses for dirty tricks. These same people have, in the last few days, been on television touting evidence that was disproven a long time ago.


SD,

IS THIS IN THE 1998 INTERVIEW OR THE 2000 INTERVIEW, BECAUSE I HAVE GOT TO READ THIS IDIOT'S ANSWER. THANKS SOLACE

The 2001 deposition, Solace. Quite early into it.

 

[BBB167893]

I was just reading your posts and YOU ARE REALLY GOOD SD. I HOPE YOU ARE CONTINUING WITH THE BOOK . I WILL READ IT AVIDLY.

Thank you. It's up to the publishers now, once I find one.

 

[JMO8778]

I could not disagree more with those conclusions.
Secondary or tertiary transfer could have been the cause of both the panty and longjohn DNA findings.

[SIZE=-1]"Eleven employees wore a freshly laundered item of clothing, with the exception of one participant who wore new panty hose, for a period of time, generally one day. Females wore hosiery, and males wore T-shirts. After the workday, the items were collected and stored in clean paper or plastic bags and were maintained at room temperature until analysis."
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"DNA analysis was performed on the items, along with their corresponding pillboxes containing the trace evidence debris, for all study participants, their cohabitants (primarily spouses), if appropriate, and the personnel conducting scraping and DNA analysis (FBI Laboratory 1999)."
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Whereas the DNA recovered from the pillbox was a single source, the friction swab contained a major (the wearer) and an unknown minor contributor. The hosiery was removed from the original packaging and worn for an afternoon prior to testing. During this time, the only individual to come in contact with this item was the donor. These results suggest that the extraneous DNA profile may have originated at the manufacturing site or was transferred from the wearer's environment (Locard 1930). Nevertheless, the wearer of this hosiery is clearly identified as the major contributor of DNA in the STR profile."
[/SIZE]http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2001/stouder.htm

Also consider:

"Objects handled by many individuals allproduced profiles with multiple alleles of varying intensity. To determine the effect of multiple handlers, we exchanged polypropylene tubes between individuals (2 or 3, 10 min each) with different genotypes. Although the material left by the last holder was usually present on the tube, that of previous holders was also retrieved to varying extents. The strongest profile obtained was not always that of the person who last held the object, but was dependent on the individual. We regularly observed profiles of previous holders of a tube from swabs of hands involved in these exchanges, showing that in some cases material from which DNA can be retrieved is transferred from object to hand (secondary transfer)."
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf

Again, more support:

"SECONDARY TRANSFER
Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing."
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf

And finally, (although I have more if necessary)...

"Conclusions:
1.Skin to skin to object secondary transfer of trace DNA was observed.
2.The final person to come into skin contact with an object is not always the donor of the dominant profile recovered."
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/modified_sec_transfer_dna_poster_tcm44-12738.pdf

As I have stated on another thread, Lacy and her minions are free to find "unidentified" "matching" DNA (even though they have not disclosed how many matching markers) in a 100 locations on JBR where JBR herself may have transferred it, and I will be quite unimpressed. Show me a DNA match between her panties and something that only the fictional intruder would have touched such as the garrote and I will give it some consideration.
This just serves to further disgust me with Mary Lacy. I have no idea how she is able to sleep at night, (I guess the same way that John Ramsey does).

pillows stuffed w money is probably a very comfortable way to sleep !
I thought the whole post worth repeating.

 

[JMO8778]

I was just reading your posts and YOU ARE REALLY GOOD SD. I HOPE YOU ARE CONTINUING WITH THE BOOK . I WILL READ IT AVIDLY.

I second that.me too !

 

[Tadpole12]

I think it's clear that they need to send at least some of the other evidence to be tested, if not all of it. - Grainne Dhu

I've been wondering about that. Why wouldn't the other articles of clothing have been retested? Shouldn't that touch dna be elsewhere?/everywhere!

If JBR was redressed by the 'now' bare handed 'intuder', wouldn't the dna be on the cuffs of those bottoms as well. Or the hair tie? On the waistband of the wednesday panties?

I dunno, I'm just thinking about how tricky it can be to put long john sleeper type bottoms on a sleeping child, let alone the lifeless body of JBR. The feet are always hard to get through the cuffed bottoms.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think it's clear that they need to send at least some of the other evidence to be tested, if not all of it. - Grainne Dhu

I've been wondering about that. Why wouldn't the other articles of clothing have been retested? Shouldn't that touch dna be elsewhere?/everywhere!

If JBR was redressed by the 'now' bare handed 'intuder', wouldn't the dna be on the cuffs of those bottoms as well. Or the hair tie? On the waistband of the wednesday panties?

I dunno, I'm just thinking about how tricky it can be to put long john sleeper type bottoms on a sleeping child, let alone the lifeless body of JBR. The feet are always hard to get through the cuffed bottoms.

Yes, yes, yes. The DNA should be on all those places. As well as on doorknobs, the handle of the suitcase that was supposedly used in the "escape", her hair ties, the metal grate that was supposedly moved to allow the "intruder" in, and the list is endless. That same DNA should be on the note, too. And prints. No prints, so gloves? AND if gloves were used to write the note, why wouldn't you keep them on when you pulled down the pants of a 6-year old girl you are about to molest and kill? So if your hands are gloved how did the DNA get on there? See? This whole crime makes no sense at all. Why? That's because it is staged. And that's it in a nutshell.

 

[JMO8778]

I really think the DNA was already on the paintbrush handle.Patsy took an art class at the local college and it's not uncommon for instructors to use the student's brush to demonstrate on their own canvas for them.So if an instructor's dna was already on it,then when that gloved hand touched the paintbrush handle,the dna is then transferred to other places that it touched as well.

Thomas mentioned in his book that she took the class,perhaps he had it figured out already?

If Lacy truly cared about finding the 'killer' she would also be searching for possible innocent matches to the dna,not simply declaring the R's exhonerated,based on nothing but transferable dna.Especially in light of all the evidence against them,all the lies the R's have told and all the inconsistent statements they've made.

 

[DeeDee249]

I really think the DNA was already on the paintbrush handle.Patsy took an art class at the local college and it's not uncommon for instructors to use the student's brush to demonstrate on their own canvas for them.So if an instructor's dna was already on it,then when that gloved hand touched the paintbrush handle,the dna is then transferred to other places that it touched as well.

Thomas mentioned in his book that she took the class,perhaps he had it figured out already?

Oh, I am sure he did. That's why it was so idiotic that Lacy cleared the Rs. Without knowing who that DNA belonged to, you just can't say it was the killer's. BTW, if the DNA came from the paintbrush handle that would explain how it got mixed with JBR's blood on the panties, too. The hand that held the brush broke the handle, and used either the handle itself to assault her or a finger (gloved or bare) that left the splinter. The same hand pulled down the long johns (or the assault couldn't have taken place). So the paintbrush handle is a likely source for the DNA. Now, if THAT had been tested....
I am sure it still exists in an evidence locker. How about it, Boulder DA? Why not test the handle? Then you can try to match it against males in that painting class.

 

[JMO8778]

I am sure it still exists in an evidence locker. How about it, Boulder DA? Why not test the handle?

maybe we could petition for that??

 

[Tadpole12]

This whole crime makes no sense at all. Why? That's because it is staged. And that's it in a nutshell.- DeeDee249

Ya. That's it in a nutshell.



Basic .... scientific method? ..... dna present with the exclusion of what objects ..... the pattern of inclusion.

hmmm .... maybe ....not in the budget for a cold case?
Who exactly initiated the re-testing (within the BPD)? Wouldn't the more than one intruder (ie the Anarchist/socialists or inept kindnappers) scenarios warrant greater testing.

hmmm ...