The DNA = Contamination.

[Maxi]

It is interesting that the doctor doing the autopsy in the case said he couldn't determine whether the strangulation or the head blow came first on the male victim.

 

[sissi]

It is interesting that the doctor doing the autopsy in the case said he couldn't determine whether the strangulation or the head blow came first on the male victim.

Yes,and other components of the crime,use of a garotte,pre-1996,problems with dna collection/few loci in several samples,and if I understood this correctly,he had stalked her..used second floor to enter with a ladder,brought duct tape, covered metal pole to hit them over the head..interesting,short of a ransom note the crime isn't too dissimilar.
I thought at this point I would search for similar crimes prior to Jonbenet's to see how rare her's really was in the world of active criminals.(not parents)

JMO IMO

 

[Ivy]

sissi, that was interesting...but I found no similarities between those murders and the JonBenet case.

The male victim's head was covered with masking tape, and only his nose was sticking out. This is strikingly different from the JonBenet case, in which a small strip of duct tape had been placed over JonBenet's mouth...tape that bore no indication that it was put there while she was alive.

The so-called "garotte" found on the body of the female victim was nothing like the strangulation device found on JonBenet. There were semen stains found on several places on the woman's body, as well as on the bed. She was completely hog-tied (as was the male victim). The killer did not caringly wrap either body in a blanket.

THERE WAS NO RANSOM NOTE.

What I described are just a few of the dissimilarities between that case and the JonBenet case. I saw no similarities.

 

[Maxi]

Similarities I see between JonBenet's murder and other murders include the strangulation and head blow (very common in sex murders) and the use of duct tape.

The dissimilarities I see are the minimal trauma to the genitals and the presence of the body and the note in the same house.

Semen is sometimes found at the scene and sometimes not. I don't think it's important that none was found on or near JBR, except that the absence of semen is the main reason this isn't a "DNA case". Ditto covering the body. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

It's interesting that the case sissi cited appears to have been a robbery gone bad when the woman confronted the robber. Some have speculated that JBR may have been awakened by the noise of a would-robber, who then killed her so she couldn't identify him. Perhaps the tentative penetration was because he was not really a pedophile, just an opportunist. But that still leaves the puzzle of the ransom note.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Here's an very recent article that hints at some of many improvements in DNA testing and analysis since 1986:
DNA CAN PROCIDE VITAL BREAKTHROUGH


09:00 - 12 January 2004

Senior detectives agree that the breakthroughs needed to solve the Westcountry's longest-running murder investigations are likely to be provided by dramatic advances in DNA technology.

When police first used DNA profiling in 1986, they needed a sample the size of a 2p coin. Today they can discover a genetic profile from a tiny flake of skin left at the scene of a crime. --->>>


http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...ayContent&sourceNode=103331&contentPK=8461496

(I've got a sinus infection keeping me from posting or even reading much right now. Be back soon as I'm well and my head doesn't feel like it's falling off)

 

[sissi]

Thanks LP,it's wonderful the newer things being done with dna ,it raises the hopes that soon this case will be solved.
Eat some chicken soup,buy some ocean drops,get a nice warm mist vaporizer and read a good book (I'm still working through "Seabiscuit"and know I am a year behind the rest of the world..oh well). Hope you feel well soon

 

[SisterSocks]

(I've got a sinus infection keeping me from posting or even reading much right now. Be back soon as I'm well and my head doesn't feel like it's falling off)

Get well soon LP it really nice to see you back in type . :blowkiss: :blowkiss:


Socks

 

[LovelyPigeon]

This article seems to indicate that only a partial DNA profile was obtained to "match" to a suspect, even though the material on the victim's hand was collected shortly after the crime. Contamination? degradation? Whatever, it looks as if the partial profile will be sufficient for prosecution.

DNA “components” found in samples taken from a 10-year-old girl who
was allegedly subjected to a five-hour sex attack matched part of the
genetic profile ...


http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2510436

 

[Ivy]

Interesting, LP, but the article doesn't say whether the extracted DNA sample had to be amplified before markers could be compared to the same markers in the man's DNA profile. The article also doesn't suggest the sample was fragmented or degraded to a great extent. It states that the DNA was considered 110 times more likely to have come from the man in question than from someone not related to him. I take this to mean that the DNA sample contained 110 markers, which is a far cry from the mere 13 in the JonBenet case.

The first sample tested in the JonBenet case had to be amplified, which could have produced a false postive because the extra markers might have been just shadow bands. Also, it was never established how many sources besides JonBenet may have contributed to the sample. Only if the extra DNA belonged to just one person could the Ramseys be eliminated. If the extra DNA was from two or more people, the Ramseys could not be eliminated. Going by what Wood has been quoted as saying in the press, the DNA sample that was entered into the DNA database had to be amplified as well.

In the case described in the article, a determination was made that only one other person's DNA was present once the victim's DNA was extracted from the sample, and the markers matched the same markers in the man's DNA profile--and apparently many, many more than 13 markers were present than were present in the sample from the JonBenet case that was entered into the database. There appears to be a big difference between the case you cited and the JonBenet case.
____
IMO

 

[LovelyPigeon]

110 times more likely sounds like a low comparison number, which I thought might be indicative of the small number of markers available. Usually we hear DNA comparisons given in the millions, billions, trillions, etc

Do I misunderstand the 110 to mean 1 in 110 men would have the same markers found on this child's hand?

Amplified DNA is not a bad thing. It's a good thing that scientific technology is able to amplify small samples. If all samples were "large", obviously amplification wouldn't be necessary and there would have been no need to develop the technology.

 

[Shylock]

110 times more likely sounds like a low comparison number, which I thought might be indicative of the small number of markers available. Usually we hear DNA comparisons given in the millions, billions, trillions, etc

Do I misunderstand the 110 to mean 1 in 110 men would have the same markers found on this child's hand?

I don't get it either. I don't like the way this article was written and I'm not sure what the guy is trying to say.
I have to agree with you LP, the 110 is a foolishly low number when dealing with DNA that usually matches into the millions-to-one odds. If that's the best they can present to a jury I wouldn't count on a guilty verdict.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Here's more on the same defendant and other victims:

DNA found on the clothes of a 26-year-old rape victim matched part of the genetic profile of a man accused of carrying out a string of sex attacks, a court heard today.

A forensic scientist said a chance of DNA “bands” – found on a blue top worn by the woman – matching anyone other than Antoni Imiela was in the region of three million to one.

Scientist Valerie Tomlinson told the court she had overseen DNA tests carried out on the blue top, on other fabric from the victim’s clothing and on swabs taken from her bra.

She said that mixed DNA profiles were found on each, mainly made up of genetic material from the victim.

But she added that additional “bands” of DNA were found on the three materials tested – components which she said were represented in the genetic profile of Imiela.

Referring to the tests on the blue top, she said her team had found “an array of additional bands attributable to a male individual and on assumption that they were from one person they are represented together in a profile of Antoni Imiela”.

She added: “In this case if the DNA had originated from a known person unrelated to Mr Imiela I estimated the chances of obtaining a matching profile to be one in three million.”

The scientist said that corresponding statistics for the DNA found on the other two items were one in 600 for the bra swab and one in 60 for the other fabric.

She said that the figures had been lower in those cases because fewer bands of DNA had been present. --->>

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2468647