Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Anti-K]

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.

There was a DNA sample taken from the wrist ligature and a separate, distinct sample taken from the garrote.

Too many samples it seems for all of them to be connected to the crime. I think that it is the CODIS and tDNA samples that are the most important because these samples were found on two separate articles of clothing and that all match and corroborate each other.

I think that if the CODIS/tDNA sample was sourced, and if an investigation of that source resulted in a serious suspect than I would be inclined to set the ligature DNA samples aside. But, if the CODIS/tDNA source was cleared of suspicion, than the ligature DNA samples could become a little more important than they currently seem to be.

Kolar’s mistake, and it is a HUGE mistake – an amateurish and foolish mistake – is in declaring that we must accept or reject ALL of the unidentified samples. That’s – excuse me – a stupid thing, it is without basis in reason. The choices are none, some or all; not none or all.
..

AK

 

[Anti-K]

"

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.

You seem to be having trouble understanding the topic in its entirety. If you want me to cite examples than I would have to go back and copy almost all of your recent posts on this thread. I’m not going to do that. I’ve already posted several corrections to your misunderstandings in my replies to those posts. I don’t mean to sound offensive or dismissive, I know that a lot of people have trouble understanding this topic and I’m just trying to help out as much as I can.
...

AK

 

[aussiesheila2]

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.

BOESP why do you continue to use terms such as 'ultra-amplification' to describe what was done with the Ramsey DNA? Both Anti-K and I have told you that this was not the case, that the Ramsey DNA was treated in the normal way. Anti-K even gave you the reference where that was stated officially by the CEO if Bode technology, the company that did the touch DNA on the longjohns. I can't understand why you can't take this on board!?!?! I can't believe I am reading this - your telling Anti-K that he 'failed to realize it required more amplification that higher quality samples in general'!?!?! Of course he 'fails to realise' because it didn't happen and the DNA was just as high quality DNA as 'higher quality samples in general'. Please show me what you have read that makes you think that more amplification was needed and that the DNA was not of 'higher quality'.


I have already explained to you in my post #158 the difference between routine DNA amplification and LCN DNA amplification. How routine samples are put through 28 cycles of amplification, how only LCN is put through the extra cycles of amplification. Did you not understand what I wrote? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't have used the term 'ultra-amplification' in the post I am quoting. I don't get it, others seem to have been able to pick up on what I wrote and have even repeated it to you, yet still you keep repeating your previous nonsense. I don't know where you are getting your information from but a lot of it is plain wrong and you are not the only one spouting rubbish about the DNA. It is overwhelming how much rubbish is written about DNA on this forum. I usually refrain from commenting because it ends up being such a waste of my time, don't know how Anti-K, Scarlett and Mama can be bothered really


I also stated in my post #158 that the panties DNA was not degraded and asked you to give me the reason why you think it was. Nowhere has it been stated officially that it was and there is no reason to believe that it was. I'm repeating myself here, repeating what I have already posted, a post I note that you have not replied to.

 

[DeeDee249]

I wish I could see more of that page. I see an intriguing sentence about a "sperm fraction" that could not be developed into a profile. I had always been under the impression that there was sperm found in ONE place only- the dark comforter/duvet found in the suitcase in the basement and it had been sourced to JAR. If there is an "undeveloped" sperm sample that implies that it had not been sourced to anyone, does this mean there is an ADDITIONAL sperm sample that we are unaware of that may have been found in another location?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Look again, Scarlett. CODIS requires 13 markers minimum to be accepted on a permanent basis. The DNA in this case only had 9-1/2, and THAT was only AFTER DNA testing tech had improved sufficiently to get it. CODIS took it on a renewed basis because Lin Wood was threatening to raise hell about it and the FBI didn't need MORE bad publicity.

I'm not sure where the 13 markers are required by CODIS to be accepted on a permanent basis comes from.

Q: What are the minimum loci requirements for the STR DNA data submitted to NDIS?
A: The minimum CODIS Core Loci required for submission of DNA data to NDIS vary by specimen category. Generally, the 13 CODIS Core Loci are required for submission of convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, and legal profiles. The 13 CODIS Core Loci and Amelogenin are required for relatives of missing person profiles.

All 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted for other specimen categories with the following limited exceptions:

For forensic DNA profiles, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted but at least 10 CODIS Core Loci must have generated results for submission to and searching at NDIS.
For Missing Person and Unidentified Human Remains, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted.

This is from the FBI website. It says that all 13 Core Loci must be attempted but not generated.

I don't understand why people keep saying that 13 markers are needed.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

 

[questfortrue]

I wish I could see more of that page. I see an intriguing sentence about a "sperm fraction" that could not be developed into a profile. I had always been under the impression that there was sperm found in ONE place only- the dark comforter/duvet found in the suitcase in the basement and it had been sourced to JAR. If there is an "undeveloped" sperm sample that implies that it had not been sourced to anyone, does this mean there is an ADDITIONAL sperm sample that we are unaware of that may have been found in another location?

The semen fractions on the dark blanket in the suitcase (exhibits 13A and 13B) were sourced to JAR. So I read that report the way you do. . . what additional sperm samples and where were they found? The line then goes into epithelia fractions (which I took to mean skin cell dna).

 

[bettybaby00]

It's is my understanding that the reason the 13 loci is referenced so much is b/c although 10 is the magic number for CODIS, less then 13 makes it a partial sample.

I of course am no expert, but I've listened to quite a few, and that is what I've gotten out of it. Also, again, my understanding, even though we know that JRB is a contributor in the sample entered into CODIS it's still considered a mixed sample. Hence it's characterization as a mixed, partial profile.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

It's is my understanding that the reason the 13 loci is referenced so much is b/c although 10 is the magic number for CODIS, less then 13 makes it a partial sample.

I of course am no expert, but I've listened to quite a few, and that is what I've gotten out of it. Also, again, my understanding, even though we know that JRB is a contributor in the sample entered into CODIS it's still considered a mixed sample. Hence it's characterization of a mixed, partial profile.

I understand what your saying but that's not the issue that I have. I don't understand people saying things like "CODIS requires 13 markers minimum to be accepted on a permanent basis."

That's not an accurate statement. MOO.

 

[Venom]

I wish I could see more of that page. I see an intriguing sentence about a "sperm fraction" that could not be developed into a profile. I had always been under the impression that there was sperm found in ONE place only- the dark comforter/duvet found in the suitcase in the basement and it had been sourced to JAR. If there is an "undeveloped" sperm sample that implies that it had not been sourced to anyone, does this mean there is an ADDITIONAL sperm sample that we are unaware of that may have been found in another location?

I want to say that I read some discussion about that at FFJ the other day when I was looking. My laptop is broke and I'm kindling it so I can't really go look.

 

[BOESP]

Is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling that a trial might be looming down the road and the defense might attempt to hang it's hopes on the DNA in this case? Maybe feelers are being put out to see how the general public feels about a DNA defense and maybe someone is trying to find out what potholes will need filling?

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

It's just you.

 

[BOESP]

It's just you.

That's what I thought. :floorlaugh:

 

[bettybaby00]

I understand what your saying but that's not the issue that I have. I don't understand people saying things like "CODIS requires 13 markers minimum to be accepted on a permanent basis."

That's not an accurate statement. MOO.

I'm not sure I ever saw anyone here making that particular statement with the emphasis your placing on it.

Also, the long john sample is not in CODIS at this time.

Form Kolar:

The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers, and like the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails, was of insufficient strength to be entered into the state and national databases. Moreover, the sample was so small that technicians were not able to identify the biological origin of the exemplar. Regrettably, they could not tell police investigators if the biological source of the male DNA was derived from blood, semen, epithelial skin cells, or some other genetic material. The challenge to technicians was enhancing the DNA sample so that it could be entered into the state and national DNA databases, and it took a while for this technology to develop. As noted above, the FBI requires that 10 out of 13 genetic markers be identified in order for a sample to be entered into the Forensic Index database.

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.

DNA samples generally consist of 13 Core loci markers, so it is important to note that Distal Stain 007-2 is not a full sample of DNA, and the FBI requires at least 10 markers be identified before an unknown sample can be entered into the national CODIS data base.

Given this, it's not surprising that more than one expert has gone on record saying that it could be relevant, or it could easily be unrelated.

It's also why dr. Krane concluded, "I think that conveys a lack of understanding of what’s involved with those particular types of DNA test results," when asked about MLs actions.

And:
" It’s an overreach in the sense that, again, we’re talking here about something that couldn’t be presented to a jury and it’s an overreach because it seems to be violating, or it has the potential to violate, that axiom that I began with: that the presence of a DNA profile doesn’t necessarily say anything about the time frame or the circumstances. "

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I'm not sure I ever saw anyone here making that particular statement with the emphasis your placing on it.

SBM

It's a direct quote from a post made by SuperDave today so there's no emphasis from me. I'm just saying that it's an inaccurate statement. Here's a link to his post.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Patsy Ramsey

 

[Anti-K]

I'm not sure where the 13 markers are required by CODIS to be accepted on a permanent basis comes from.


This is from the FBI website. It says that all 13 Core Loci must be attempted but not generated.

I don't understand why people keep saying that 13 markers are needed.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

As I remember it, CODIS requires that you test for 13, but will accept 10 in certain cases. Convicted offender profiles must have 13, but unidentified crime scene samples must have at least 10 (you still have to look for 13).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It's is my understanding that the reason the 13 loci is referenced so much is b/c although 10 is the magic number for CODIS, less then 13 makes it a partial sample.

I of course am no expert, but I've listened to quite a few, and that is what I've gotten out of it. Also, again, my understanding, even though we know that JRB is a contributor in the sample entered into CODIS it's still considered a mixed sample. Hence it's characterization as a mixed, partial profile.

Yes, you’re right. Less than 13 makes it a partial profile, and the CODIS sample from this case is a partial profile – 10 out of 13.

However, I’m not sure that you would call this a mixed partial profile. The source was definitely mixed, but the male profile was separated from the female. CODIS didn’t accept a mixed profile, they accepted a separate, distinct, individual (partial) profile.

But, of course the source was a mix and that can be, but is not necessarily a problem. It certainly helped that one profile was known – jonbenet’s.
.

If we use the FBI’s frequency rate of 13.66, then we could say that about one in every fourteen people “share” any one particular marker. In 1996 Boulder had a population of about 300,000 people, so that means the group of people who could “share” a single marker is around 21,428.

If we use the FBI’s frequency rate of 13.66 and FIVE markers: one in 475,612.75. Boulder had a population of about 300,00 back then, so that’s maybe six people who could share those same five markers.

9 markers (out of 13): 1 person in 16,559,846,015.57

10 markers (out of 13): 1 person in 226,207,496,572.73

So, ten markers is pretty good, and you could make a tentative identification with five markers – enough to make someone a suspect and to warrant an investigation. And, that’s the key – identification and investigation of a subject. The DNA is like a pointer – look here, it says; and, don’t look there.

And that’s the real value: exclusion, and you only need ONE marker to do that. Someone’s – a male – DNA is located in incriminating locations and so far 200+ people (Ramseys, friends, associates, persons connected with the investigation, etc) have been excluded as the source for that DNA. So, whose DNA is it? It could be a killer’s.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

One thing I can say about people harping on the DNA being oh so very relevant is that i've learned a WHOLE lot about DNA and TDNA in these threads.

 

[BOESP]

Nice post AK.

The mixed sample when separated, according to the photo snippet from the original report posted here yesterday, stated that the unknown partial profile eliminated Ramsey family members only if that portion was contributed by a single donor. So, are we to assume the profile obtained from the microscopic skin cell was a 10-marker match to the partial profile?

You also said, "If we use the FBI’s frequency rate of 13.66, then we could say that about one in every fourteen people “share” any one particular marker." Isn't that frequency rate based on statistics compiled from a general population and not immediate family members?

Are we also supposed to dismiss the possibility that the garment was mishandled at some point during the chain of custody?

Are we supposed to dismiss any Ramsey DNA (other than JonBenet's) that may appear on the garment? Imo, just because they lived there doesn't prove their innocence.

How can unsourced DNA that was extracted from a mixed, minute sample and a second sample from a microscopic speck of a skin cell prove an unknown person killed JonBenet?

How do those particular samples stand alone to eliminate any Ramsey in the household that night and any possible Ramsey involvement?

I have reasonable doubt.

I have no doubt Patsy wrote the note.

ETA - I just re-read the first page of posts here. Good reading!

 

[Anti-K]

Nice post AK.

The mixed sample when separated, according to the photo snippet from the original report posted here yesterday, stated that the unknown partial profile eliminated Ramsey family members only if that portion was contributed by a single donor. So, are we to assume the profile obtained from the microscopic skin cell was a 10-marker match to the partial profile?

You also said, "If we use the FBI’s frequency rate of 13.66, then we could say that about one in every fourteen people “share” any one particular marker." Isn't that frequency rate based on statistics compiled from a general population and not immediate family members?

I’d suggest ignoring the “photo snippet from the original report posted here yesterday” as that is from results that pre-date CODIS and the development of CODIS standards. Those results would have used a different Kit and would have targeted different markers and fewer markers –probably 5 or 6.

A Full Profile simply means that all of the targeted markers were developed, so if they only looked for 5 and 5 were found than that’s a Full Profile.

Anyway, the DNA that we should be concerned with are those that came after CODIS standards were set in place: the panties and the leggings (and ligature).
.

The frequency rate of 13.66 comes from a FBI Caucasian Population Study as reported in the “Journal of Forensic Science,” Vol 44, number 6. Frequency rates vary for the different population groups and even for the different markers, however, it was concluded that the discrimination (ability to distinguish) afforded by the use of 13 STR loci (markers) negated the need to consult frequency rates specific to each marker and population group.

Are we also supposed to dismiss the possibility that the garment was mishandled at some point during the chain of custody?

Are we supposed to dismiss any Ramsey DNA (other than JonBenet's) that may appear on the garment? Imo, just because they lived there doesn't prove their innocence.

I don’t think we need to dismiss the possibility that the panties or leggings were mishandled at some point, however neither should we assume that they were. The premise should be that they were not. Persons associated with the investigation had there DNA compared and no match was found, so we can pretty much rule out contamination that might have occurred as a result of mishandling. Also, since one DNA sample was commingled in blood and the other samples were not pretty much rules out the possibility that the DNA transferred from one article of clothing to the other.

How can unsourced DNA that was extracted from a mixed, minute sample and a second sample from a microscopic speck of a skin cell prove an unknown person killed JonBenet?

How do those particular samples stand alone to eliminate any Ramsey in the household that night and any possible Ramsey involvement?

I have reasonable doubt.

I have no doubt Patsy wrote the note.

ETA - I just re-read the first page of posts here. Good reading!

As far as we know there was no Ramsey DNA found on the victim, her clothing or the ligature so there’s nothing to dismiss. However, either Ramsey could have innocently transferred their DNA so finding it wouldn’t really tell us anything.

We don’t really know the sample sizes, but we know that they were of sufficient quantity and/or quality to provide results from analysis. How can this prove an unknown person killed Jonbenet? It can’t, it doesn’t. However, this DNA is exculpatory evidence for anyone and everyone that it does not match. That exculpatory value can only be removed by finding an innocent explanation for the DNA. Saying that it COULD have an innocent explanation is not enough because it COULD also be trace evidence left behind by the killer.

The DNA cannot stand alone to convict or excuse anyone.

IDI were around long before the CODIS/tDNA results were known and those results simply corroborates and strengthens their position. The DNA is just one aspect of the evidence in this case – it is a part of the totality (as people like to say), but it is a part of the totality that does not point towards the Ramseys, but points away. The DNA goes towards reasonable doubt, but it is only one part of the case of reasonable doubt.

But, the DNA is more than just exculpatory evidence, it is also incriminating evidence against whoever it matches. That person could still be innocent, but the DNA goes towards their guilt. If this person were identified and investigated perhaps further evidence against him would be developed, and then the DNA would become just one aspect of a case for guilt.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

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".

And that opinion comes from who? Is Kolar a forensic and/or DNA specialist? Or is this an unsourced conclusion?
Not being facetious, I want accuracy.

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.

So, basically, the amount of touch DNA proves there was no innocent transfer or accidental contamination? What was the testing criteria for setting the standards separating what is considered innocent transfer, guilty transfer and contamination? With a link to the testing criteria and results, please.