Why the DNA may NOT be important

[BOESP]

I'm skeptical about "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."

I find it out of the realm of reason to believe no Ramsey parent or sibling DNA was found on her, innocently transferred or not. Besides, some of the investigators believed Patsy wore gloves.

Regardless, microscopic particles of spit, slobber, and skin cells easily travel, transfer and land from one unknown subject to another. When such microscopic and minute co-mingled samples are found it causes me to question that method of transfer.

I feel quite sure that miniscule amounts of biological material will transfer from one party to another and sometimes to a third or fourth party, and from someone's hand to cloth.

That aside, you didn't cite your sources for your information but that's okay since this a court of public opinion and not a court of law.

Thanks for the useful response. It was a lot more useful than the ones with sweeping generalizations and ad hominem retorts.

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

Greggory Laberge, Director of the Denver Police Department's Crime Lab.

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.

BBM

Not quite, the amount of DNA recovered is just one element to consider.

 

[2 percent]

Not quite, the amount of DNA recovered is just one element to consider.

I'm on the edge of my seat....what other elements?
Remember, you've already cited FBI standards for codis admission admission (QAS) and the quantity.

I won't include the location emphasis since it does not help the case for foreign DNA being the solution to the case.

 

[CherCher]

Greggory Laberge, Director of the Denver Police Department's Crime Lab.

BBM

Not quite, the amount of DNA recovered is just one element to consider.

How many different DNA profiles were developed from JBR's body and clothing again? How does one decide which of these are relevant, and which ones are insignificant?

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe I had read that Patsy & BR's DNA (possibly TDNA?) were found on the pink nightie that was on the white blanket in the WC. Patsy's would be expected, but not BRs. As with all DNA, there is no way to set a time or date when the donor lives in the home, so there really is no way to link it to the crime at this point.

 

[Anti-K]

I'm skeptical about "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."

I find it out of the realm of reason to believe no Ramsey parent or sibling DNA was found on her, innocently transferred or not. Besides, some of the investigators believed Patsy wore gloves.

Regardless, microscopic particles of spit, slobber, and skin cells easily travel, transfer and land from one unknown subject to another. When such microscopic and minute co-mingled samples are found it causes me to question that method of transfer.

I feel quite sure that miniscule amounts of biological material will transfer from one party to another and sometimes to a third or fourth party, and from someone's hand to cloth.

That aside, you didn't cite your sources for your information but that's okay since this a court of public opinion and not a court of law.

Thanks for the useful response. It was a lot more useful than the ones with sweeping generalizations and ad hominem retorts.

I can provide sources for virtually everything that I make reference to. I don’t mind providing any that you might like to see.
.

One key is in understanding that they only look for DNA in incriminating locations, in the places that the killer – Ramsey or otherwise - is known to have had contact with. Another is in understanding that DNA does not transfer as easily as many seem to believe.

If the CODIS/tDNA DNA in the Jonbenet case came from secondary (or, further) transfer than where is the DNA of the person who transferred it?
I don’t know how many people have tried to play this out step-by-step, but just how does someone’s DNA end up on the INSIDE of the panties, in the crotch, commingled in a victim’s blood and on the OUTSIDE of the side/hip area on a pair of leggings without being present or touching either article?

Theories of secondary or, further) transfer abound. Let’s pick one – Jonbenet transferred DNA that was on the handles of her bicycle and she later transferred the DNA to the inside crotch of her panties and to the outside of her leggings. Does this sound reasonable or in any way plausible (this is an actual RDI theory)? Let’s play it out:

It’s winter but Jonbenet is bare-handed, outside, riding her bike. A stranger’s DNA transfers to each hand. Jonbenet does not transfer this DNA to any of the things or people that she touches between the time she rides her bike and when she is redressed later that night. And, she never picks up any DNA from any of the people that she has contact with that day. Is this believable? Of course not.

If you’re transferring someone else’s DNA then that DNA came from the last person you had contact with or off of the last object you had contact with, and, you’re transferring it to the first person or object that you have contact with.

Okay, I got carried away with this post. Sorry for the length. I know I had more to say!
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

How many different DNA profiles were developed from JBR's body and clothing again? How does one decide which of these are relevant, and which ones are insignificant?

According to Kolar there were six unidentified profiles (all partial) – 5 male and 1 female. The female profile was consistent with Jonbenet’s and is likely hers so that leaves us with 5 male. One under fingernails of one hand, one under the fingernails of the other hand, one on the garrote, one on the wrist ligature and one (3 matching samples) on the panties/leggings.

We decide significance by knowing the location found, and number of matching samples found.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I believe I had read that Patsy & BR's DNA (possibly TDNA?) were found on the pink nightie that was on the white blanket in the WC. Patsy's would be expected, but not BRs. As with all DNA, there is no way to set a time or date when the donor lives in the home, so there really is no way to link it to the crime at this point.

If you can come up with an innocent explanation for a stranger’s DNA being inside her panties and on her leggings than it should be child’s play to come up with an innocent explanation for Burke’s DNA being on the night gown!
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

I can provide sources for virtually everything that I make reference to. I don’t mind providing any that you might like to see.
.

One key is in understanding that they only look for DNA in incriminating locations, in the places that the killer – Ramsey or otherwise - is known to have had contact with. Another is in understanding that DNA does not transfer as easily as many seem to believe.

If the CODIS/tDNA DNA in the Jonbenet case came from secondary (or, further) transfer than where is the DNA of the person who transferred it?
I don’t know how many people have tried to play this out step-by-step, but just how does someone’s DNA end up on the INSIDE of the panties, in the crotch, commingled in a victim’s blood and on the OUTSIDE of the side/hip area on a pair of leggings without being present or touching either article?

Theories of secondary or, further) transfer abound. Let’s pick one – Jonbenet transferred DNA that was on the handles of her bicycle and she later transferred the DNA to the inside crotch of her panties and to the outside of her leggings. Does this sound reasonable or in any way plausible (this is an actual RDI theory)? Let’s play it out:

It’s winter but Jonbenet is bare-handed, outside, riding her bike. A stranger’s DNA transfers to each hand. Jonbenet does not transfer this DNA to any of the things or people that she touches between the time she rides her bike and when she is redressed later that night. And, she never picks up any DNA from any of the people that she has contact with that day. Is this believable? Of course not.

If you’re transferring someone else’s DNA then that DNA came from the last person you had contact with or off of the last object you had contact with, and, you’re transferring it to the first person or object that you have contact with.

Okay, I got carried away with this post. Sorry for the length. I know I had more to say!
...

AK

No problem from me on the length of the post. It's informative.

Imo, unsourced DNA in such miniscule amounts just as likely came from transfer rather than direct contact. People at the Whites or objects at the White's or one of the other houses/families the Ramseys claimed to have visited on their way home from the Whites may be a source. It is certain that all kinds of foreign material lodges under fingernails and handshakes, hand-kissing and face-patting are notoriously nasty.

Patsy Ramsey and Linda Pugh suggested JonBenet's bathroom habits weren't immaculate. JonBenet could have used a toilet in the White or Ramsey home that had DNA from one of the many Christmas visitors they had. Who knows whose saliva and skin cells lurked there or in JonBenet's bathroom or basement area.

There are any number of guesses that might confirm or refute what happened with the DNA. It is data that does not include or exclude any individual who may be connected to JonBenet's death. Maybe some day it will. I'd suggest that the transfer came from Patsy or John (maybe Burke) since I don't recall them being tested for DNA until long after they had time to shower or bathe.

I'll happily read or scroll past other posts about this but I'm done posting. :rocker:

 

[CherCher]

If you can come up with an innocent explanation for a stranger’s DNA being inside her panties and on her leggings than it should be child’s play to come up with an innocent explanation for Burke’s DNA being on the night gown!
...

AK

That's the problem here. Most of the DNA evidence was produced so long after the crime (and you have to admit that the crime scene and what came after caused enough confusion) that all of the DNA samples tested are suspect.

Were all of the employees of the ME's office tested to see if their DNA matched any found on the little girl's body?

 

[DeeDee249]

That's the problem here. Most of the DNA evidence was produced so long after the crime (and you have to admit that the crime scene and what came after caused enough confusion) that all of the DNA samples tested are suspect.

Were all of the employees of the ME's office tested to see if their DNA matched any found on the little girl's body?

I believe the ME employees were tested. However, there is someone I have mentioned from time to time here that I do not recall reading much about as far as taking a look at his DNA. When JB's body was transported to the morgue, a young man was in charge of it. He later was arrested for trying to sell the morgue log indicating the transfer of JB's body. I have aways had an uneasy feeling about this person. Someone like that would be exactly the kind of creep who might pull down her longjohns and undies to take a peek. Disgusting, I know, but it happens. I have always wondered whether this person could be the source of that rogue male DNA- it would certainly explain the reason why that DNA does not appear ANYWHERE else in the crime scene.

 

[Anti-K]

No problem from me on the length of the post. It's informative.

Imo, unsourced DNA in such miniscule amounts just as likely came from transfer rather than direct contact. People at the Whites or objects at the White's or one of the other houses/families the Ramseys claimed to have visited on their way home from the Whites may be a source. It is certain that all kinds of foreign material lodges under fingernails and handshakes, hand-kissing and face-patting are notoriously nasty.

Patsy Ramsey and Linda Pugh suggested JonBenet's bathroom habits weren't immaculate. JonBenet could have used a toilet in the White or Ramsey home that had DNA from one of the many Christmas visitors they had. Who knows whose saliva and skin cells lurked there or in JonBenet's bathroom or basement area.

There are any number of guesses that might confirm or refute what happened with the DNA. It is data that does not include or exclude any individual who may be connected to JonBenet's death. Maybe some day it will. I'd suggest that the transfer came from Patsy or John (maybe Burke) since I don't recall them being tested for DNA until long after they had time to shower or bathe.

I'll happily read or scroll past other posts about this but I'm done posting. :rocker:

Okay. No worries if you wish to step out of the conversation. I’m still going to make a few comments.

First, I want to point out that direct contact and transfer are the same thing. By “direct contact” I think you mean Primary Transfer. Primary transfer is when you transfer your own DNA to an object. Secondary transfer is when you transfer someone else’s DNA. Tertiary transfer is when you transfer someone else’s DNA from yet someone else – Person C transfers DNA to Person B, Person B transfers Person C’s DNA to Person A, Person A transfers Person C’s DNA to object.
.

Substances lodged beneath fingernails tend to stay beneath fingernails. You might pick up DNA, or anything, under your nails, but under your nails is where it stays – you have to dig it out.
.

For secondary transfer to occur Person A would have to have picked up Person B’s DNA without having had contact with Person B. Person A picks it up from a toilet, or a bike, or a christmas gift, or something. They pick it up on BOTH hands (DNA is on BOTH sides of leggings, as it would be if the leggings were being pulled up or pulled down). They don’t touch anything else between the time they pick up the DNA and the time that the victim’s leggings were pulled up or pulled down and when the panties were handled inside the crotch.

For example, Mrs Ramsey pulls down Jonbenet’s pants before putting the leggings on her. She transfers Person B’s DNA to the pants because she handles the pants first! But, most likely she handled or touched many things between picking up Person B’s DNA. And, it’s actually a little more complicated than that.

Theories of secondary (or, further) transfer are all problematic, unlikely and not supported by the evidence. If there is an innocent explanation for this DNA than surely it must lie elsewhere.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

That's the problem here. Most of the DNA evidence was produced so long after the crime (and you have to admit that the crime scene and what came after caused enough confusion) that all of the DNA samples tested are suspect.

Were all of the employees of the ME's office tested to see if their DNA matched any found on the little girl's body?

I don’t think the passage of time makes the DNA suspect – no time stamp; right? In fact, many cold cases are re-opened (convictions overturned, etc) because evidence decades old was tested for DNA, and DNA was found.
.

All that we know is that DNA from the previous 8 autopsies were compared, and the DNA from persons associated with the investigation were compared. That’s kind of vague, but really, how many people do you think could have touched the inside crotch of the victim’s panties?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I believe the ME employees were tested. However, there is someone I have mentioned from time to time here that I do not recall reading much about as far as taking a look at his DNA. When JB's body was transported to the morgue, a young man was in charge of it. He later was arrested for trying to sell the morgue log indicating the transfer of JB's body. I have aways had an uneasy feeling about this person. Someone like that would be exactly the kind of creep who might pull down her longjohns and undies to take a peek. Disgusting, I know, but it happens. I have always wondered whether this person could be the source of that rogue male DNA- it would certainly explain the reason why that DNA does not appear ANYWHERE else in the crime scene.

We don’t know that the DNA doesn’t appear anywhere else in the crime scene. We only know that it doesn’t appear in any of the other places that were tested!
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

A far better question is, why this skilled criminal took his gloves off or never wore any to commit this crime.

 

[CherCher]

I don’t think the passage of time makes the DNA suspect – no time stamp; right? In fact, many cold cases are re-opened (convictions overturned, etc) because evidence decades old was tested for DNA, and DNA was found.
.

All that we know is that DNA from the previous 8 autopsies were compared, and the DNA from persons associated with the investigation were compared. That’s kind of vague, but really, how many people do you think could have touched the inside crotch of the victim’s panties?
...

AK

Well, seeing as how unsterilized nail clippers were used on her body, who knows?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well, seeing as how unsterilized nail clippers were used on her body, who knows?

The nail clippers don't however explain the dna in her panties or on the pants.

 

[CherCher]

The nail clippers don't however explain the dna in her panties or on the pants.

No, but it doesn't inspire confidence in any other DNA collected either.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, but it doesn't inspire confidence in any other DNA collected either.

Where does the information about the nail clippers come from?

 

[gramcracker]

it's only been posted/linked hundreds of times over the years but, never mind. somebody, anybody, doesn't matter who, quick, jump, look it up and post it again

(when I research things I find other things along the way, which I enjoy. but that's just me)