Simple question...

[cynic]

Nope. Not alone.

I would look around if I were you.

You're trying very hard to eliminate the fingernail DNA evidence but it wont work.

I am mostly puzzled as to why anyone would hold it to be of any value, given the circumstances of its collection, level of degradation and amount of markers.
If you are trying to defend it because you believe that there is tissue under her fingernails from scratching the SFF leader, then once again you stand alone in your contention.

Its ridiculous the lengths RDI will go to in order to eliminate the fingernail DNA evidence.

Actually the fingernail DNA has been discarded by both IDI and RDI, I guess not SFFDI though.

Granted it may not be enough to rule somebody in

That’s for sure.

BPD used the fingernail DNA to compare suspects early on. Thats according to the news.
…but they used it to rule people out.

If they used contaminated, degraded DNA to rule anyone out, I would suggest they begin doing a lot of retesting with the CODIS profile.

Therefore it is evidence.

Like I said earlier, try showing up in court with that.

...and you don't know that it does not belong to the owner of the CODIS DNA.

Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
The other "minuscule" sample, which is probably blood, was mixed with JonBenet's DNA, he said. That leaves investigators with the daunting task of trying to match a partial DNA strand with a sample from John Karr.
"The amount of DNA is small enough that it could exclude someone. But it could not go so far for the inclusion," Wise said.
http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13061689

 

[DeeDee249]

The BPD "used" the fingernail DNA ONLY in the sense that they tested it in attempting to see if there WAS usable DNA. That is it. When the DNA was proved to be unusable, it was no longer considered of use to the case. So to say that just because the BPD had it TESTED it was "usable" is false and misleading. ANY DNA has to be tested to see if there are enough markers to provide a match to a potential donor. The testing itself does not mean that is was able to be used for a match. In the case of JB, NONE of the fingernail DNA was able to be used for a match for two reasons- it was old and degraded (with not enough markers) and because it had been collected under contaminated circumstances.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The BPD "used" the fingernail DNA ONLY in the sense that they tested it in attempting to see if there WAS usable DNA. That is it. When the DNA was proved to be unusable, it was no longer considered of use to the case.

This contradicts media reports on the fingernail DNA evidence. Not just the recent CNN reports but reports from early in the investigation, where the fingernail DNA evidence was used by the BPD to compare against potential suspects.

I don't make up these stories, thats what they print.

From what news story do you get 'it is unusable' because I would really like to read it.

Cynic is pulling up forum posts to find the source for 2-3 markers, but I think you can do better than that to support your story.

 

[Ravyn]

This contradicts media reports on the fingernail DNA evidence. Not just the recent CNN reports but reports from early in the investigation, where the fingernail DNA evidence was used by the BPD to compare against potential suspects.

I don't make up these stories, thats what they print.

From what news story do you get 'it is unusable' because I would really like to read it.

Cynic is pulling up forum posts to find the source for 2-3 markers, but I think you can do better than that to support your story.

What did Lacy send to Bode,the longjohns...Now to help Lacy case don't you think if this fingernails DNA was good that would had been sent to make a better profile of the killer...And this could show even Lacy knew the Fingernail DNA was degraded or not good...

 

[Sophie]

Good to know. But that's not what I asked. I already knew what kind of things you were talking about. I asked why would there have been anything like that on them? More on that in a moment.



It's not RDI who has written it off.



True enough, and those are the magic words: IF JB fought back. That's precisely my point. There's nothing to suggest that she did. Quite the opposite, actually.





Early on, they may have been. I don't know about afterwards.



HOTYH, why do you do these things? I didn't say anything that people who worked the investigation have not said.

*APPLAUSE*

There is no sign whatsoever that JBR struggled and, in fact, I am not sure why HOTYH would want her to have struggled given that it would leave serious questions about whether the perp had stunned her or restrained her which in turn would leave serious questions about whether the restraints were just staging.

I am with you. I really don't understand why HOTYH is so recalcitrant about bits of evidence that don't necessarily prove either IDI or RDI. I'm conscious of going on about this so I'll try to stop after this, but I struggle to believe that HOTYH accepts any evidence that doesn't point to his SFF, even if it points to an intruder more generally.

 

[Sophie]

The BPD "used" the fingernail DNA ONLY in the sense that they tested it in attempting to see if there WAS usable DNA. That is it. When the DNA was proved to be unusable, it was no longer considered of use to the case. So to say that just because the BPD had it TESTED it was "usable" is false and misleading. ANY DNA has to be tested to see if there are enough markers to provide a match to a potential donor. The testing itself does not mean that is was able to be used for a match. In the case of JB, NONE of the fingernail DNA was able to be used for a match for two reasons- it was old and degraded (with not enough markers) and because it had been collected under contaminated circumstances.

TY DeeDee. I know you and Cynic et al understand DNA evidence properly so I wonder whether one of you could tell me whether it would be possible for the coroner to have picked up the unknown DNA and to have deposited it - after all, he is bound to have touched JBR's hands, longjohns and underwear, and we know that the procedures they followed were lax.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

*APPLAUSE*

There is no sign whatsoever that JBR struggled and, in fact, I am not sure why HOTYH would want her to have struggled given that it would leave serious questions about whether the perp had stunned her or restrained her which in turn would leave serious questions about whether the restraints were just staging.

I am with you. I really don't understand why HOTYH is so recalcitrant about bits of evidence that don't necessarily prove either IDI or RDI. I'm conscious of going on about this so I'll try to stop after this, but I struggle to believe that HOTYH accepts any evidence that doesn't point to his SFF, even if it points to an intruder more generally.

This is patently false.

The DNA evidence under JBR's fingernails is a sign she struggled. There is RDI denial that this evidence even exists. I can assure you that there is a document in LE's file on fingernail DNA evidence. Its an exhibit. Can it convict on its own? I don't know. There are claims that it only contained 2 or 3 markers, which places everybody in the neighborhood on the list. But these claims aren't validated from an authoritative source. There could be many more markers, and those markers could be consistent with the other DNA that was found in JBR's underwear and in two places on the longjohns.

Its pretty clear from reading the many posts that RDI is in complete denial of all of the DNA evidence, and the support it provides IDI. I suggest discussing fibers instead because at least it doesn't seem like RDI has to all the obvious spin and ad hominem to undo the damage caused to RDI's case by this new evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

The DNA under her fingernails suggests she fought back.

Are you kidding? Then why isn't there a hell of a lot more of it?

Moreover, where are the bitemarks inside her mouth and on her tongue? Where are the bruises from flailing and kicking wildly. There's a poster here named Ames who has some personal experience with being strangled. You really ought to seek her out.

This is an excellent example of what I said: RDI tends to disregard the DNA under her fingernails, to the point where it doesn't even exist!

It doesn't exist the way SOME people make it out! If that's what you mean.

I dunno, maybe its when I read your post:

If only the DA followed up.
If only the R's were searched that day.
If only they could get more handwriting.

If only there was a smoking gun.

Well, I'm sure that's the twist you'll put on it. But all of those statements have been said at one time or another by LE investigators (quite a few of them, really). Let me put it this way:

if any of the above methods had been used, they might have FOUND one. Wouldn't you say that they would have been worth it?

See what I mean?

I was just about to ask you the exact same thing.

 

[BBB167893]

BPD used the fingernail DNA to compare suspects early on.

Key words there.

Granted it may not be enough to rule somebody in but they used it to rule people out.

That's a popular myth. The DNA ALONE was never used to rule anyone out.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Key words there.



That's a popular myth. The DNA ALONE was never used to rule anyone out.

I believe there was a news report that stated DNA evidence found underneath JBR's fingernails was compared to suspects.

I personally believe there was more than one person, so just because DNA doesn't match doesn't mean the person was not involved.

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe there was a news report that stated DNA evidence found underneath JBR's fingernails was compared to suspects.

I personally believe there was more than one person, so just because DNA doesn't match doesn't mean the person was not involved.

And we ALL know (including you) that this report was not correct.

 

[DeeDee249]

TY DeeDee. I know you and Cynic et al understand DNA evidence properly so I wonder whether one of you could tell me whether it would be possible for the coroner to have picked up the unknown DNA and to have deposited it - after all, he is bound to have touched JBR's hands, longjohns and underwear, and we know that the procedures they followed were lax.

Yes, that is certainly possible. We know Mayer was not a stickler for proper procedures. He used the same clippers for all her nails and we don't know if they had even been sterile to begin with. Certainly he removed her clothing and SHOULD have been wearing gloves when he did so, but we don't know that either.
I would have liked to see any DNA found on JB tested against all who worked in the coroner's office, lab and ALL the male corpses who Mayer had used those clippers on since the last time they were proved to have been sterilized, as well as all male corpses he autopsied since the last time his instruments were proved to have been sterilized.
Of course, that can never happen, and even then probably would have never happened.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And we ALL know (including you) that this report was not correct.

No, not including me.

The report WAS correct.

The report was from local news and referred to local LE using fingernail DNA evidence. If it would not be admissible in court then they would not have used it.

 

[cynic]

No, not including me.

The report WAS correct.

The report was from local news and referred to local LE using fingernail DNA evidence. If it would not be admissible in court then they would not have used it.

All right, let’s see the source. I thought you were referring to the LKL interview with Lin Wood.

 

[cynic]

TY DeeDee. I know you and Cynic et al understand DNA evidence properly so I wonder whether one of you could tell me whether it would be possible for the coroner to have picked up the unknown DNA and to have deposited it - after all, he is bound to have touched JBR's hands, longjohns and underwear, and we know that the procedures they followed were lax.

Definitely Sophie, here is a bit from one of my links in the DNA Revisited thread.
In the example below, we are talking about contamination issues at a DNA lab; I would hate to think what the possibilities would be for evidence being handled by someone not aware of cross contamination issues resulting from skin cell transfer. If Mayer’s fingernail clipper “protocol” was any indication of his overall procedures, I would be very concerned about the validity DNA results obtained thus far.

“DNA evidence extracted from the 10-year-old girl's underwear would be the clincher. Charged with child rape, the road-crew worker from the South King County town of Pacific faced up to 26 years in prison -- until authorities learned of startling test results coming out of the Washington State Patrol's Tacoma crime lab. The genetic evidence excluded the victim's uncle and pointed to an unknown man. The airtight case suddenly had a gaping hole.Four months later, on Jan. 8, 2002, prosecutors offered a deal. The defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of child molestation, shaving a decade off his sentence.
A couple of weeks after that, the lab made an embarrassing discovery.
The mystery man was a mistake.
Forensic scientist Mike Dornan had bungled the test, accidentally contaminating the child's clothing with DNA from another case he'd been working on.
DNA contamination and errors at the State Patrol crime labs are recurring problems, an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has found.
Forensic scientists contaminated tests or made other mistakes while handling DNA evidence in at least 23 cases involving major crimes over the last three years, according to State Patrol and court records.
The list of DNA testing errors, uncovered through public-records requests and interviews with defense attorneys and experts, offers an unusual glimpse into what can go wrong. Crime labs across the country are struggling with similar problems but documented evidence has been hard to come by.
The State Patrol cases reveal that the technology has an Achilles' heel: human error.
Forensic scientists tainted tests with their own DNA in eight of the 23 cases. They made mistakes in six others, from throwing out evidence swabs to misreading results, fingering the wrong rape suspect. Tests were contaminated by DNA from unrelated cases in three examinations, and between evidence in the same case in another. The source of contamination in five other tests is unknown.”

“Crime lab officials here and elsewhere don't like to talk about the fact that the same test that can link someone to a crime scene with a few minuscule cells left on a doorknob can also be contaminated by a passing sneeze. Or that DNA tests are only as reliable as the humans doing them -- a troubling prospect when dealing with evidence that has the power to exonerate suspects or imprison them for life.”

"The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible," said William C. Thompson, a forensic expert and professor of criminology and law at the University of California-Irvine, who reviewed the incidents at the request of the P-I.

"What we're seeing in these 23 cases is really the tip of the iceberg."
Although the labs only recently set up a mandatory reporting system for DNA mistakes, officials are "100 percent certain that with all the precautions we catch everything," said Gary Shutler, who supervises the lab system's DNA work.

http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/forensic_labs.htm

 

[DeeDee249]

No, not including me.

The report WAS correct.

The report was from local news and referred to local LE using fingernail DNA evidence. If it would not be admissible in court then they would not have used it.

CNN's report was not completely accurate. While usable DNA from her underwear was usable, the DNA from her fingernails NEVER had enough info to be of use, and there was NEVER any skin or blood (from JB or anyone else) found there. And there was never any match from the fingernail DNA to other DNA. It was not able to matched to ANYONE, even JB herself.
There are plenty of situations where news reports have been wrong. This was one of them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

All right, let’s see the source. I thought you were referring to the LKL interview with Lin Wood.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20154149.html

"LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS INVESTIGATING THE murder of JonBenet Ramsey have intensified their search for a match for the DNA found under the victim's fingernails, NEWSWEEK has learned. Sources say the DNA doesn't match any tissue analyzed so far, including samples from her parents and her brother. In looking for an innocent explanation, Boulder police are now gathering samples, using mouth swabs, from several children who might have played with JonBenet before her ... "

Off we go with our DNA. Aren't we the BEST law enforcement officals EVER?

Oh, but wait, its really degraded unusable DNA with only 2 markers! We thought we could compare it with people but it was really all just a big mistake back at the lab! (Or, Cynic should recheck his 2 marker sources, methinks).

 

[BBB167893]

I believe there was a news report that stated DNA evidence found underneath JBR's fingernails was compared to suspects.

Maybe at first. As recently as 2004, DA's office investigators stated publicly that the fingernail DNA was of little value.

I personally believe there was more than one person, so just because DNA doesn't match doesn't mean the person was not involved.

HOTYH, answer me this: if there was any evidence that more than one person was involved, wouldn't we have heard about it by now? This case has been absolutely bedeviled by people who couldn't keep their mouths shut.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Maybe at first. As recently as 2004, DA's office investigators stated publicly that the fingernail DNA was of little value.



HOTYH, answer me this: if there was any evidence that more than one person was involved, wouldn't we have heard about it by now? This case has been absolutely bedeviled by people who couldn't keep their mouths shut.

The RN author presented to investigators a set of circumstances that investigators simply chose not to believe.

The RN author could be one of these people that says things like they are, to their own detriment. The Zodiac Killer and the Unabomber come to mind. Many, many criminals who write tell things just like they are.

Criminals who write. Hmmmm.

Anyway, there is evidence that more than one person was involved. It comes in the form of a written statement from someone known to be involved.

 

[cynic]

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20154149.html

"LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS INVESTIGATING THE murder of JonBenet Ramsey have intensified their search for a match for the DNA found under the victim's fingernails, NEWSWEEK has learned. Sources say the DNA doesn't match any tissue analyzed so far, including samples from her parents and her brother. In looking for an innocent explanation, Boulder police are now gathering samples, using mouth swabs, from several children who might have played with JonBenet before her ... "

Off we go with our DNA. Aren't we the BEST law enforcement officals EVER?

Oh, but wait, its really degraded unusable DNA with only 2 markers! We thought we could compare it with people but it was really all just a big mistake back at the lab! (Or, Cynic should recheck his 2 marker sources, methinks).

As DeeDee has said, it is entirely possible that the report was inaccurate or based on a less than reputable source.
If it was accurate, it only means that the BPD may have used this DNA for a very short period of time prior to learning its full history vis-à-vis contamination issues.
With regard to using DNA that had few markers for clearing/excluding people, what will happen is that, obviously, you won’t clear as many people as you would with high value DNA.
Without getting too deeply into allele frequencies:
14.5% of Caucasians will show the following alleles: (11,12) at the D5S818 CODIS locus/marker.
Could a one locus/marker “profile” be used to exclude/exculpate people? Yes, in the single locus example above, only 1 out of 6 or 7 people will have that “profile”
Could a one locus/marker “profile” be used to include/inculpate people? No.
Could a 2,3,4,5 or 6 marker “profile” be used to exclude/exculpate people? Yes
Could a 2,3,4,5 or 6 marker “profile” be used to include/inculpate people? No, not legally that’s for sure.
Is it wise or responsible to use potentially contaminated and degraded DNA for purposes of exclusion? No.

The following two words come up time and time again in association with the fingernail DNA; degraded and contaminated.
Seriously, HOTYH, I don’t mind debating issues surrounding the JBR case that have some relevance, this does not fall into that category.
If you wish to continue to hold this DNA to be of some value, that’s your prerogative, but as I’ve said before, you stand alone.


"There's still testing going on and they still have a reasonable explanation for the foreign DNA," said Lee.
The foreign DNA under JonBenet's fingernails may be explained by contamination from the nail clippers used in the autopsy.
May 25, 2001 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25383,00.html

Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable.
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11111998Story-HistoryDaveLucasShow(Ramsey).htm

LARRY KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: Well, I have heard, as you have, that the instruments used to collect this small bit of evidence -- the instruments were contaminated
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/23/ng.01.html

The DNA evidence has long been the subject of controversy. The DNA analyzed from her underwear in 1999 could not be matched to previously analyzed but badly degraded DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails two years earlier.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/10/now-add-dna-to-evidence-of-an-intruder/

"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation"
Page 41

And from my previous post:

COOPER: The DNA, apparently, that exists, a -- a spot of blood from her underwear. There was also DNA underneath the fingernails. But it wasn't conclusive.
KOBILINSKY: Well, it was, apparently, degraded. And, therefore, it...
COOPER: What does that mean exactly, degraded?
KOBILINSKY: Well, it means that the DNA was in very small quantity. And it also means that the DNA was fragmented.
That could happen for a number of reasons. But the main point is, they weren't able to -- to get any information from that particular DNA. And, similarly, there was one -- one of the two stains on the panties was also of low quality, or degraded, and, therefore, really didn't provide us with important information.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/24/acd.01.html

What was found in the investigation
DNA evidence from the JonBenet Ramsey murder:
• DNA from under her fingernails, poor quality.
• Foreign male DNA recovered from a spot of her blood in her panties, of only moderate quality.
• Foreign male DNA recovered from another spot of her blood in her underwear, with 10 genetic markers and considered of significant value.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4940501,00.html

Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
The other "minuscule" sample, which is probably blood, was mixed with JonBenet's DNA, he said. That leaves investigators with the daunting task of trying to match a partial DNA strand with a sample from John Karr.
"The amount of DNA is small enough that it could exclude someone. But it could not go so far for the inclusion," Wise said.
http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13061689

Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

To Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, the DNA in her underwear, what type of DNA was it? What type of DNA was under her fingernails?
KOBILINSKY: Well, you know, we don`t really know too much about the DNA under her fingernails because it was degraded, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/23/ng.01.html

Bob Grant, a former Adams County DA who helped investigate JonBenet’s death….
There were also DNA traces found under the child’s fingernails, but they were degraded and tests were inconclusive, Grant said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14441778/