Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Anti-K]

Touch DNA is primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. DNA transferred or deposited from skin cells and DNA from bodily fluids is a whole nother animal.

The type of DNA collected is not determined by the method of collecting the sample.

Primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. refers to transfer of DNA. DNA in skin cells is exactly the same as the DNA from bodily fluids.

In the Jonbenet case, it is not known what the tDNA came from. BODE has said probably skin cells, but it might not be. The DNA found on the panties? Probably saliva. But it might not be. Regardless of the source, the DNA is the same.

A few years ago tDNA and LCN were considered the same thing. But, LCN is a process used when the tDNA sample is too “small” for the regular process. tDNA is essentially DNA transferred when someone touches something and that DNA is transferred in varying amounts and sometimes it is transferred in amounts sufficient for the use of the regular process. tDNA is not just LCN and so the two terms are no longer considered synonymous.

Since tDNA is not visible to the naked eye, new methods of collection had to be developed – mostly very simple methods such as taping and scraping. If one of these novel methods is, than the DNA is tDNA; BUT, the DNA in tDNA is just DNA.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Once again I see the big If qualifier has been overlooked in the steadfast DNA argument.

I’m not sure what it is that you’re referring to, but I’m curious.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I disagree.
The DNA put someone handling those, new out of the package, panties. There is no time stamp on DNA.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the DNA wasn't an artifact from the manufacturing process by the sewing process or packaging and simply transferred by the person putting them on JonBenet that night right before that same person pulled her leggings back on.

No reason at all. It actually IMO makes far more sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no time stamp on DNA. However, the DNA does not exist in a vacuum and context (history and circumstances) go towards us a semblance of time stamp.

There is a reason to believe that the DNA did not come from the manufacturing process. The DNA found on the panties was 10 times the amount found on the new panties tested. That’s significant. The DNA found on the panties matches the DNA found on the leggings. One sample is probably saliva and commingled with blood and the other(s) are probably skin cells. One sample is in the inside crotch of panties and the other(s) are on the outside, hip area of leggings. This DNA did not transfer from one article of clothing to the other! So, it is not reasonable to believe that the DNA came from the manufacturing process.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The DNA in the panty portion was, according to published public reports, a degraded sample that contained two profiles that were mixed, one of which was amplified so it would be acceptable for submission to CODIS. The other partial profile, iirc, matched JonBenet.

Without having seen the full original reports I choose to rely on what Kolar published. He has viewed much of the evidence and stated there are samples of unsourced DNA belonging to six people. I find it unreasonable to believe six unknown people were in that household that night handling JonBenet and that her parents didn't know anything about it.

All DNA is amplified. All of it. The sample entered into CODIS had 9 good markers and one that needed to be tweaked in some manner, but eventually analysis produced a result sufficient for identification and acceptance by CODIS. This is what Kolar has said, so if you believe Kolar than you shouldn’t be having so much trouble with this.

At least we agree that it is not reasonable to believe that “six unknown people were in that household that night.”
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Once again I see the big If qualifier has been overlooked in the steadfast DNA argument.

I’m not sure what it is that you’re referring to, but I’m curious.
...

AK

I believe Venom is referring to this screen capture of a DNA lab report, circa 1997:

There is no "big If qualifier" pertaining to the CODIS profile.

...

 

[2 percent]

In your opinion.

What is only my opinion?

There is no definite yet. But NO case ever throws out DNA as irrelevant before they find the person it matches. That is just bad police work. DNA is relevant in this case. IT is relevant and it points to someone. It has been used to exclude people. It matters. IMO

I never advocated throwing out DNA evidence. I said it isn't relevant yet because, quite honestly, we don't know where it fits in this case.

As for excluding people, I don't know that either...I haven't seen the report

 

[2 percent]

You may disagree but the FBI did not. They need to know who that DNA belongs to and it is not innocent DNA or they would not have done that.

Not true. Not all profiles in codis are criminals or suspected criminals.
Like iafis there has to be elimination profiles to rule out contamination.

I have never ever seen a case where dna is found and people say.. Nah.. that belongs to a worker in Malaysia . Except here.

It was Dr Henry Lee who said it first

 

[2 percent]

Okay, but then, in 2008, the same DNA profile was isolated from TWO locations on the pants the victim was wearing. The amount of genetic material collected on both occasions negates the possibility of innocent transfer.

You've mentioned the amount amount of DNA several times now, hinting that the amount of touch DNA found in this case exceeds what has been found in other cases. Also hinting that the amount means it must be from the murderer and not contamination.

Quantify that, please.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The DNA was mixed with Mary Lacy who was mixed with Michael Tracey who was mixed with JMK.
There is no getting around that. Lacy is suspected of breaking and entering a restricted area, after hours, unsupervised where evidence was stored. Anything and everything she had access to is then completely suspect and useless in court.

 

[Venom]

I believe Venom is referring to this screen capture of a DNA lab report, circa 1997:

There is no "big If qualifier" pertaining to the CODIS profile.

...

Yes mama, thank you for posting that. My computer is broke so I'm using my kindle.

 

[bettybaby00]

Yes mama, thank you for posting that. My computer is broke so I'm using my kindle.

Regardless of of the date of this lab report, which I've never seen definitively reported, there is still the problem that the sample(s) being discussd are considered partial mixed samples which puts into question the validity of any conclusions regarding the "clearing" of anyone,as well as making any such "evidence" inadmissable in court.

Eta: hmmm, seems posts are disappearing...

Also, Kolar stated the following with regard to the sample that was eventually added to CODIS.

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.

 

[Mama2JML]

You've mentioned the amount amount of DNA several times now, hinting that the amount of touch DNA found in this case exceeds what has been found in other cases. Also hinting that the amount means it must be from the murderer and not contamination.

Quantify that, please.

According to Chief Kolar, on p. 304 of FF, the amount of male DNA isolated in 2003, from a single blood droplet in the victim's panties (distal stain 007-2) was 10 times the amount of DNA collected from "off-the-shelf children's underwear". This profile exists in CODIS. The same profile was obtained in TWO locations on the victim's pants without amplification via LCN techniques. Considering QAS followed, FBI standards for CODIS submissions, and the quantity of foreign, male DNA isolated on these two occasions from these three locations, it is nearly an impossibility this evidentiary DNA is the result of innocent transfer or contamination.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

According to Chief Kolar, on p. 304 of FF, the amount of male DNA isolated in 2003, from a single blood droplet in the victim's panties (distal stain 007-2) was 10 times the amount of DNA collected from "off-the-shelf children's underwear". This profile exists in CODIS. The same profile was obtained in TWO locations on the victim's pants without amplification via LCN techniques. Considering QAS followed, FBI standards for CODIS submissions, and the quantity of foreign, male DNA isolated on these two occasions from these three locations, it is nearly an impossibility this evidentiary DNA is the result of innocent transfer or contamination.

Thank you.. Again.. thank you.

 

[Anti-K]

Regardless of of the date of this lab report, which I've never seen definitively reported, there is still the problem that the sample(s) being discussd are considered partial mixed samples which puts into question the validity of any conclusions as well as making any such "evidence" inadmissable in court.

We should be able to set aside the information in the screen capture – old tests, old methods, not compatible with or comparable to the testing/analysis performed on the panties and leggings.
.

The partial, mixed sample is in CODIS so we know that the results were good and that they will be usable in court. The claim that they would not be usable comes from Dr Krane who was commenting, in general, on mixed samples with drop out. What makes this sample different is that one of the two contributors was identified (Jonbenet) which simplified matters significantly.

The other point which needs to be taken into consideration is that the leggings DNA, matching the CODIS sample, is not reported as being mixed. One corroborates and confirms the other. There’s just no escaping this.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

All DNA is amplified. All of it. The sample entered into CODIS had 9 good markers and one that needed to be tweaked in some manner, but eventually analysis produced a result sufficient for identification and acceptance by CODIS. This is what Kolar has said, so if you believe Kolar than you shouldn’t be having so much trouble with this.

At least we agree that it is not reasonable to believe that “six unknown people were in that household that night.”
...

AK

AK, please advise about what I'm having "so much trouble with." The post you seem to be responding to was not discussing "All Dna." It was a comment on the ultra-amplified DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey case, which you admit was, indeed, amplified but it seems you failed to realize it required more amplification that higher quality samples in general.

Without corroborative evidence, the DNA in this case is data/information only. I have a problem with throwing out all other evidence and finding an unknown Intruder guilty based on degraded, amplified-to-fit DNA that may or may not be related to the case, especially when five other disparate samples also were found.

 

[Anti-K]

Are you talking about the panty/CODIS sample or the tDNA? Because BODE claims that the tDNA was processed in the normal fashion – no more amplification required than normal. Or, are you referring to the 10th marker in the CODIS sample? Was this “ultra-amplified (ever that means!) or did the “tweaking” involved some other step in the analysis? I don’t know, but I do know that CODIS accepted the sample, and that should tell us something.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that any evidence be thrown out. That would be absurd, and yet that is exactly what most RDI propose – the DNA doesn’t fit with the evidence they choose to accept, so they want to dismiss it. Like I said, that’s absurd.

And, of course, there is corroborating evidence – for example, the nature of the assault. If someone pulled down and replaced the victim’s leggings and panties and sexually assaulted her than there is a chance that that person left trace evidence behind on one or both of those articles of clothing and/or in the genital area. We have unsourced DNA on the panties and the leggings and we have unsourced fibers in the genital area (these fibers match unsourced fibers found on the ligatures and tape). We have unidentified handwriting, we have unsourced hairs in the victim’s hands and on the tape, we have items brought into the home and items removed from the home. We ahev a crime for which the parents would have no motive and the contradiction between fake kidnapping and body in the house (people don’t report fake kidnappings unless they‘ve first disposed of their victim). Etc....
...

AK

 

[questfortrue]

Much as I enjoy a good DNA (food fight?), er-r discussion I wasn’t going to post, but I can’t help but wonder about the DNA found on one of the instruments of killing – namely on the ligature* which ended JB’s life. Now ML claimed she was out of the office and didn’t know about the other samples of DNA at the crime scene. And guessing that the sample on the ligature could not be or was not amplified to enter into CODIS. My question remains, who’s to say that the DNA from the panties represents the killer (also referred to by AK as DNA-man. He could simply be DNA-man the “spectator-perv”.)? What about the DNA on the ligature which does not match the DNA in the panties? Wouldn’t a logical thought be that the DNA on the ligature represents a killer?

(BTW, there is not yet an absolute conclusion regarding secondary and tertiary TDNA transfer, But there are plenty of questions about it, both by scientists and lawyers. Obviously, the inadvertent transfer of DNA is an area that should be further studied. Since so many of the available journal articles present conflicting information, more work is needed to see how likely it is to both transfer and detect DNA in a secondary or even a tertiary fashion, especially considering the sensitivity of modern forensic DNA analysis. - http://www.lawofficer.com/ )

*From Kolar: Touch DNA testing discovered the presence of two additional, unknown samples of male DNA on the implements that had been used to kill JonBenét.

And also from Kolar: I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, James Kolar, page 305

OK, my 2 cents. Carry on.

 

[BOESP]

"

Are you talking about the panty/CODIS sample or the tDNA? Because BODE claims that the tDNA was processed in the normal fashion – no more amplification required than normal. Or, are you referring to the 10th marker in the CODIS sample? Was this “ultra-amplified (ever that means!) or did the “tweaking” involved some other step in the analysis? I don’t know, but I do know that CODIS accepted the sample, and that should tell us something.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that any evidence be thrown out. That would be absurd, and yet that is exactly what most RDI propose – the DNA doesn’t fit with the evidence they choose to accept, so they want to dismiss it. Like I said, that’s absurd.

And, of course, there is corroborating evidence – for example, the nature of the assault. If someone pulled down and replaced the victim’s leggings and panties and sexually assaulted her than there is a chance that that person left trace evidence behind on one or both of those articles of clothing and/or in the genital area. We have unsourced DNA on the panties and the leggings and we have unsourced fibers in the genital area (these fibers match unsourced fibers found on the ligatures and tape). We have unidentified handwriting, we have unsourced hairs in the victim’s hands and on the tape, we have items brought into the home and items removed from the home. We ahev a crime for which the parents would have no motive and the contradiction between fake kidnapping and body in the house (people don’t report fake kidnappings unless they‘ve first disposed of their victim). Etc....
...

AK

I want to know what I'm "having so much trouble with" based on what you said, which was, "you shouldn’t be having so much trouble with this.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Much as I enjoy a good DNA (food fight?), er-r discussion I wasn’t going to post, but I can’t help but wonder about the DNA found on one of the instruments of killing – namely on the ligature* which ended JB’s life. Now ML claimed she was out of the office and didn’t know about the other samples of DNA at the crime scene. And guessing that the sample on the ligature could not be or was not amplified to enter into CODIS. My question remains, who’s to say that the DNA from the panties represents the killer (also referred to by AK as DNA-man. He could simply be DNA-man the “spectator-perv”.)? What about the DNA on the ligature which does not match the DNA in the panties? Wouldn’t a logical thought be that the DNA on the ligature represents a killer?

(BTW, there is not yet an absolute conclusion regarding secondary and tertiary TDNA transfer, But there are plenty of questions about it, both by scientists and lawyers. Obviously, the inadvertent transfer of DNA is an area that should be further studied. Since so many of the available journal articles present conflicting information, more work is needed to see how likely it is to both transfer and detect DNA in a secondary or even a tertiary fashion, especially considering the sensitivity of modern forensic DNA analysis. - http://www.lawofficer.com/ )

*From Kolar: Touch DNA testing discovered the presence of two additional, unknown samples of male DNA on the implements that had been used to kill JonBenét.

And also from Kolar: I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, James Kolar, page 305

OK, my 2 cents. Carry on.

In all my life, All these cases I have never seen one case where a detective finds DNA in the underwear of a murdered molested victim and wants to throw it out as irrelevant. To me Kolar only does this to make his book relevant. I have never ever seen a case like this when it comes to DNA. That DNA matters. That DNA does not match a Ramsey. If it did I bet he'd be all over it mattering.. JMO

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

That DNA. That DNA.

You keep calling it "that" DNA as if you understand what it is.

You should call it: fragmentary, incomplete profile, illegally handled and presented by Mary Lacy who with Michael Tracey brought us JMK DNA.