What would you ask the DNA owner?

[DeeDee249]

That info has never been released, although I would be shocked if her profile was not found.

I would be just as suspicious of NO R DNA on the longjohns as I am of the fact that the flashlight BATTERIES were wiped of prints.
Certainly, Patsy's "touch DNA" is on the longjohns. She has admitted putting them on JB. If the DNA is there, that info isn't being released because the DA doesn't want to "taint" the perception that the Rs are innocent.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

CODIS currently contains more than four million DNA profiles from convicted offenders and more than 160,000 DNA profiles obtained from crime scene evidence. All 50 states participate in CODIS, although the laws authorizing DNA collection, analysis, and entry into databases vary considerably. Every state takes DNA samples from convicted sex offenders, more than 40 states allow collection of samples from all convicted felons, at least 38 allow from convicts of certain qualifying misdemeanors, eleven allow from those arrested for certain crimes, and one state permits collection from individuals detained as suspects. The passage of the DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005 allowed CODIS to include samples from any individual from whom collection was authorized under state law, and also permitted inclusion of DNA from federal arrestees and from non-U.S. detainees. These changes in the law have led to a dramatic expansion of forensic DNA databases.
http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/issuebriefpdfs/DNA,%20Forensics,%20and%20the%20Law%20Issue%20Brief.pdf

Knock, knock its prima facie again: The DNA will never produce a CODIS match because the owner is foreign. The system is largely useless if the DNA owner is outside CODIS scope.

DNA will never match in CODIS because the U.S. isn't a closed system. Just like the R's house has doors and windows, the U.S. has airports and seaports.

There's what, 7 billion people in the world and only 4 million DNA profiles. CODIS is a watched pot that will never boil, in this case.

 

[BBB167893]

Using the 'why bother' logic, why bother writing an RN? why bother staging an explainable accident to look like a 1st degree capital child murder? Worst they could get with the accident is 2nd degree manslaughter.

Speaking purely for myself, don't you think I've asked myself those questions?

 

[BBB167893]

Panorama speaks to senior forensic scientist Professor Allan Jamieson who is Director of The Forensic Institute, based in Glasgow. He warns that too much trust is already placed in DNA results.

He says: "People put too much faith in DNA. They're giving it an infallibility which it does not have."

He explains that finding DNA traces does not always tell you what you think it does not have."

That basically sums up one of (if not THE) big problems with this case.

 

[BBB167893]

Boulder District Attorney's office: Unknown male DNA in multple criminally significant places on JBR is huge evidence of an intruder. Lets exhonerate the R's, put the DNA into CODIS and wait for a match.

Personally, I think they got it backwards. Wait for a match, THEN AND ONLY THEN exonerate anybody.

Look, HOTYH, you keep saying that politics had nothing to do with the exoneration. Well, at the risk of being accused of having an ax to grind, save that for the tourists, okay? You may convince some newbies, but not me. I've been around way too long for fall for that one. I've been on this one since Day One, man. I've watched what went on. I can't not see what I see.

RDI's position on the significance of the intruder DNA is oversimplified and understated.

I prefer the word "cautious."

DNA found under JBR's fingernails, in her underwear, and on her longjohns were not necessarily even the same type of DNA.

Okay, but would it be too much to ask that they find out WHAT TYPES they were BEFORE going off half-cocked?

JBR traded paint with this person the night she was murdered, that much is clear. Understating the DNA doesn't make it go away. Its huge evidence favoring an intruder theory, and it has resulted in much, much better media coverage of JBR's murder, thats for sure.

That's a matter of opinion. But I can respect what you say.

 

[BBB167893]

Another ignorant question: did they find Patsy's DNA on the LJs? Just wondering given that she put the LJs on JBR that night.

I've stated several times that the detection process, as was explained on TV, most likely destroyed any DNA that PR might have left.

 

[Sophie]

CODIS currently contains more than four million DNA profiles from convicted offenders and more than 160,000 DNA profiles obtained from crime scene evidence. All 50 states participate in CODIS, although the laws authorizing DNA collection, analysis, and entry into databases vary considerably. Every state takes DNA samples from convicted sex offenders, more than 40 states allow collection of samples from all convicted felons, at least 38 allow from convicts of certain qualifying misdemeanors, eleven allow from those arrested for certain crimes, and one state permits collection from individuals detained as suspects. The passage of the DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005 allowed CODIS to include samples from any individual from whom collection was authorized under state law, and also permitted inclusion of DNA from federal arrestees and from non-U.S. detainees. These changes in the law have led to a dramatic expansion of forensic DNA databases.
http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/issuebriefpdfs/DNA, Forensics, and the Law Issue Brief.pdf

Thank you, Cynic, that's brilliant. So, in fact, at the rate the database is growing and the circumstances under which DNA can be stored change, it isn't unreasonable to think that a match is possible...

 

[Sophie]

I've stated several times that the detection process, as was explained on TV, most likely destroyed any DNA that PR might have left.

Thanks, Dave: this is something that obviously hasn't stuck in me mind.

 

[Sophie]

Knock, knock its prima facie again: The DNA will never produce a CODIS match because the owner is foreign. The system is largely useless if the DNA owner is outside CODIS scope.

DNA will never match in CODIS because the U.S. isn't a closed system. Just like the R's house has doors and windows, the U.S. has airports and seaports.

There's what, 7 billion people in the world and only 4 million DNA profiles. CODIS is a watched pot that will never boil, in this case.

There's 7 billion people in the world and 4 million profiles in the US and just under that amount in the UK so you are up to 8 million, with both countries looking to increase the circumstances in which DNA can be taken (although I would expect the UK's right to be circumscribed by the European Court of Justice on the basis of right to privacy before too much longer). No other country has quite those numbers but they all have databases in place and their numbers are increasing according to their own laws. Many will have much smaller populations than the US so it's conceivable that the percentage of the population covered by the smaller databases is pretty high in those countries. The known population of the UK is 61 million (although it's almost certainly quite a bit higher than that with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers who don't appear on official stats). 4 million DNA profiles means that over 5% of the official population is on the database for one reason or another. That is a fairly large pool that would certainly be made available to overseas agencies who requested help as your CODIS has helped us a couple of times.

I sincerely doubt that any other European country would refuse to run the JBR DNA through their system if requested.

So in fact, the pool is much larger than you are suggesting.

 

[cynic]

Thank you...it isn't unreasonable to think that a match is possible...

You're welcome Sophie.
For a number of reasons I think that the DNA in this case is a complete dead end. Unfortunately it has given IDI the foundation upon which it has built its tenuous case. Additionally, and far more troubling, is that it has created (thanks to Mary Lacy) the public perception that the R’s are completely innocent.

 

[cynic]

I've stated several times that the detection process, as was explained on TV, most likely destroyed any DNA that PR might have left.

Do you have a source SD? I have looked around but I have not been successful.

 

[Sophie]

Your welcome Sophie.
For a number of reasons I think that the DNA in this case is a complete dead end. Unfortunately it has given IDI the foundation upon which it has built its tenuous case. Additionally, and far more troubling, is that it has created (thanks to Mary Lacy) the public perception that the R’s are completely innocent.

I agree totally, Cynic. Unfortunately, I think Lacy also managed to prevent this case from ever being successfully prosecuted by handing everyone bar the DNA owner their reasonable doubt on a plate ('Members of the jury, the prosecution is going to tell you that this man's handwriting is a match to the ransom note, that he was in Boulder that day, that he had artifacts belonging to JBR and that he knew the Ramseys and their home and that this points to his guilt. However, the then DA cleared two people fitting the same criteria on the basis that their DNA didn't match that found on JBR's longjohns so you can't reasonably find this man guilty either since his DNA doesn't match either).' I know that's a gross simplification but this is essentially what Lacy achieved...

 

[Sophie]

Oh man, prima facie raises its ugly head again. Just no one start on Occam's Razor

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There's 7 billion people in the world and 4 million profiles in the US and just under that amount in the UK so you are up to 8 million, with both countries looking to increase the circumstances in which DNA can be taken (although I would expect the UK's right to be circumscribed by the European Court of Justice on the basis of right to privacy before too much longer). No other country has quite those numbers but they all have databases in place and their numbers are increasing according to their own laws. Many will have much smaller populations than the US so it's conceivable that the percentage of the population covered by the smaller databases is pretty high in those countries. The known population of the UK is 61 million (although it's almost certainly quite a bit higher than that with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers who don't appear on official stats). 4 million DNA profiles means that over 5% of the official population is on the database for one reason or another. That is a fairly large pool that would certainly be made available to overseas agencies who requested help as your CODIS has helped us a couple of times.

I sincerely doubt that any other European country would refuse to run the JBR DNA through their system if requested.

So in fact, the pool is much larger than you are suggesting.

According to prima facie, thats still a dead end. There are so many people and countries that don't respect the U.S. and don't contribute to the CODIS pool, that the number reaches the billions. You would actually need this DNA owner to step out of his environment and get into trouble in some jurisdiction that would then take a DNA sample and submit it to CODIS. Not likely. Prima facie doesn't favor the wait-and-see DNA approach.

The DNA can help only after a suspect is apprehended by other means, as you suggested on another thread.

 

[BBB167893]

Do you have a source SD? I have looked around but I have not been successful.

All I can tell you is what I saw on a news blurb which ran the day after the story broke where a Bode Tech demonstrated the process. The story said that when the DNA scrapings are placed into the analyzer, any DNA that is not related to the sample they are trying to match up is destroyed.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I agree totally, Cynic. Unfortunately, I think Lacy also managed to prevent this case from ever being successfully prosecuted by handing everyone bar the DNA owner their reasonable doubt on a plate ('Members of the jury, the prosecution is going to tell you that this man's handwriting is a match to the ransom note, that he was in Boulder that day, that he had artifacts belonging to JBR and that he knew the Ramseys and their home and that this points to his guilt. However, the then DA cleared two people fitting the same criteria on the basis that their DNA didn't match that found on JBR's longjohns so you can't reasonably find this man guilty either since his DNA doesn't match either).' I know that's a gross simplification but this is essentially what Lacy achieved...

ML didn't put the DNA on the longjohns or make it match the DNA that was found in the criminally induced blood stain on JBR's underwear. It seems you have an argument with ML when really you have an argument with science. Not easy to win that one!

There is no DNA placement scenario that is more compliant with Occam's Razor than the criminal scenario. Thats just how it is.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Asking the DNA owner for a handwriting sample is best, because the DNA owner could just lie about the other stuff. Besides, according to the RN the DNA is more likely owned by one of 'two gentlemen' who did not write the RN, so the DNA owner's handwriting won't match.

 

[Sophie]

HOTYH,

See, I think it's you who are ignoring science. The blood may have been criminally-induced but any 12 year-old understands the nature of blood. Do the experiment yourself: prick your finger, let a droplet fall on an unwashed item of clothing and send it to a lab. There will be traces in the blood of the substances that were on your clothes before you pricked your finger - including - very possibly - unknown DNA.

I honestly don't think you are accepting how easily DNA is transferred. Someone touching those new Bloomies (which could easily (ask Dr Lee) have had the DNA from a cough and bit of a skin cell on them) and then redressing her as well as the contact between the Bloomies and the LJs themselves could easily account for this DNA in this case. As could anyone touching the items after they were removed at autopsy, a list which I would bet my lifesavings on being longer than anyone could guess. This case was too much of a curio for us to exclude the possibility of a sightseer touching them. Similarly, by her own admission, Patsy hated washing - those LJs may not have seen detergent for a month so you can't attempt to decisively date the DNA.

Science tells us that there is unknown DNA. Science, however, is much more modest than Mary Lacy - it understands the limitations of what we are dealing with - and doesn't purport to attribute the DNA to the killer. It just provides a DNA profile.


However, RDI will accept that this may be the DNA of the killer. IDI won't accept the reverse despite slews of DNA experts around the globe urging caution on relying on touch DNA evidence.

And they get to being pig-headed about the incontrovertible fact that the DNA may belong to someone involved with the killing but that this does not preclude Ramsey knowledge of or complicity in the crime.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH,

See, I think it's you who are ignoring science. The blood may have been criminally-induced but any 12 year-old understands the nature of blood. Do the experiment yourself: prick your finger, let a droplet fall on an unwashed item of clothing and send it to a lab. There will be traces in the blood of the substances that were on your clothes before you pricked your finger - including - very possibly - unknown DNA.

OK lets assume I let the droplet fall on my underwear and send it to a lab. They effortlessly find unknown DNA.

Now, I send my longjohns that I was wearing at the same time as the underwear to a lab and they find the SAME DNA PROFILE as was on the underwear. What does this cause you to believe? Hello??

 

[p7byrd]

I'd ask him how's his job going at the underwear factory.