Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Anti-K]

Per Request by Venom, the following response to a post re: DNA, # 270, written this evening on the thread: Boulder police chief exonerates Fleet and Priscilla White in death of JonBenet Ramsey by I Must Break You will also now be available on the DNA thread.







Any questions?

Yes, I have a question: are we supposed to believe this nonsense?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVHo1Pjf210&feature=youtu.be

7:15: “...and we also need to figure what fraction of the relevant pool of alternative suspects might be excluded...

25:51 “...combined probability of inclusion, sometimes laboratories like to talk about its reciprocal combined probability of exclusion...”

And, what’s he talking about beginning at the 37:00 mark? Exclusion, exclusion, exclusion...
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Indeed, very good job, DeDee!

DA Garnett has tacitly said that the DNA did not exonerate the Rs. But this “exclusion” seems like a myth that has been promulgated by the media, LW and is still stated on the H law firm website. Here’s a question: Is it simply easier for Boulder officials to let people believe the Rs are exonerated via DNA, so the pressure is off, until or unless a ‘smoking gun’ happens? moo

The Lacey exoneration of the Ramseys wasn’t based solely on the tDNA. It was based on the tDNA plus “the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence,” and with “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.” Quotes form the Lacey Press Release
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I know we have discussed tDNA to death.
Would someone please source for me the actual documents that show all the tDNA that was found on JBR. I am having trouble finding the sources.
TIA.

No such actual documents have ever been publicly released. The information comes from sources such as the Lacey Press Release and the Kolar book.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

This should be interesting.

There is only one "report" showing items where DNA was found and tested.

It's really just a summary, and it's only based on the "strongest sample". it gives no data about which loci were identified, or which alleles are represented.

Now the arguing begins. One set of people will believe there is DNA not related to the Rs, end of story, there was an intruder, and that's that. Oh and the DA "exonerated" the Rs on this evidence.

Others will argue that it's not so black & white. The report mentioned above has a HUGE IF qualilifier, which in and of itself is cause for another argument. The sample was mixed, again more arguing, and the report states, IF minor component is a mixture, Rs wouldn't be excluded.

The argument stems from the idea that this was a "partial (only 10 loci), mixed profile.

This offers an excellent review of how mixed samples are analyzed. Yes we know JRB was the main contributor, but we don't know with certainty whether not the other minor component was from more than one contributor. That is b/c



The "thus masked" is the problem. When this happens a 3 person sample can present as a 2 person sample, and therefore the lab should only state "at least" 2 contributors," which of course is not an absolute. Added to this is the issue of working with only 10 loci, instead of 13, which although acceptable, provides less info. This is why I believe there is the IF qualifier on the report.

Anyway that's the long and short of it from the prospective that the DNA proves nothing, but I'm sure there will be loads of counter arguments.

Very good site here about analyzing a mixed sample.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/swgdam-interpretation-guidelines

Beginning at section 3.5

You’re confusing the report as seen in the 48 hors screen capture with the CODIS sample which was generated using a different technology and in the years subsequent.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Scarlett could you please source that. I would like to see the report. I am having a hard time finding it.
TIA

See Kolar; p. 140.
...

AK

 

[Charterhouse]

See Kolar; p. 140.
...

AK

Do you believe Kolar is a reliable source?

 

[CherCher]

Actually the only ones who do not get DNA are the ones here trying to explain how in this case, the only one in history that DNA just doesn't matter.

Not that "DNA doesn't matter", but the DNA doesn't fit the whole corpus delecti. There are plenty of cases where DNA just isn't enough.

For example, back in 2006 in Ipswich UK, the Suffolk strangling cases of prostitutes. The 2nd suspect was linked by DNA to 4 of the 5 prostitute victims. BUT because the suspect was a known frequenter of prostitutes, the DNA was not enough. That's right. NOT enough evidence. They had to find something else. They finally found "fiber evidence" that linked him to the murders, and a small amount of blood evidence.

 

[CherCher]

As an addendum to the above I'd like to add that DNA technology is a wonderful (and maybe the best) investigative tool. But it is not the be all and end all of evidence. From all of the wonderful links that everyone has posted we can see that there is more to it than that. Especially in this case, where several of the top suspects live in the house where the murder occurred.

 

[bettybaby00]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVHo1Pjf210&feature=youtu.be

7:15: “...and we also need to figure what fraction of the relevant pool of alternative suspects might be excluded...

25:51 “...combined probability of inclusion, sometimes laboratories like to talk about its reciprocal combined probability of exclusion...”

And, what’s he talking about beginning at the 37:00 mark? Exclusion, exclusion, exclusion...
...

AK

Watched it, watched it, watched it.

Not apples to apples, b/c we know nothing about the JRB DNA tests.

What type of sample is Krane talking about? Blood, semen? Also, he didn't make any assumptions about the sample in his presentation. These things matter.

& all krane tells us is that in his presentation is they are looking at 15 loci sample.

We have zero factual information regarding the CODIS sample in this case, except that it's 10 markers. Were assumptions made? It matters.

Mary *IM NOT GOING TO REVEAL THAT THERE WERE SIX DIFFERENT OTHER tDNA PROFILES FROM THE CRIME SCENE* Lacy didn't give specifics, nor did she mention the other profiles.

How come we've never heard an expert--either scientist or LE--state that she was correct in making such a declaration? Why did SG essentially revoke it?

So all we've got is the word of Mary *"I DONT WANT TO HARM MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RAMSEY'S"* Lacy about the the results.

"Significant new evidence . . . convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime," Lacy wrote.

This significant new evidence (tDNA) has it's limitations, and it's critics.

And, getting back to your quote from the video, where does she state that the tDNA evidence excludes them? Without that word we have no idea what the evidence actually is. I don't see the word exonerated in that letter either. That's a Ramsey spin team phrase.

 

[2 percent]

As an addendum to the above I'd like to add that DNA technology is a wonderful (and maybe the best) investigative tool. But it is not the be all and end all of evidence. From all of the wonderful links that everyone has posted we can see that there is more to it than that. Especially in this case, where several of the top suspects live in the house where the murder occurred.

There was a case a few years back where , a known rapist was convicted of the rape and murder of a teenager. He confessed, giving details not known to the public. Later, he was exonerated of the rape with DNA although he described the crime scene to a tee.

So...how did he know how, where and when she died?

Because he murdered, but didn't rape, her. And he got away with it. Eventually.

DNA evidence is not perfect!!

 

[Mama2JML]

There was a case a few years back where , a known rapist was convicted of the rape and murder of a teenager. He confessed, giving details not known to the public. Later, he was exonerated of the rape with DNA although he described the crime scene to a tee.

So...how did he know how, where and when she died?

Because he murdered, but didn't rape, her. And he got away with it. Eventually.

He=??? Her=???

DNA evidence is not perfect!!

What evidence is (perfect)?...

 

[Mama2JML]

As an addendum to the above I'd like to add that DNA technology is a wonderful (and maybe the best) investigative tool. But it is not the be all and end all of evidence. From all of the wonderful links that everyone has posted we can see that there is more to it than that. Especially in this case, where several of the top suspects live in the house where the murder occurred.

Not just the "top suspects", but the BPD's ONLY suspects. It is difficult to find someone when refusing to search...

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Not just the "top suspects", but the BPD's ONLY suspects. It is difficult to find someone when refusing to search...

Why does DNA that point's to someone other than a Ramsey matter if the focus by LE and others is only on the Ramsey's?

The answer is it doesn't. MOO.

 

[bettybaby00]

:sigh:

Unbeknownst to the media, however, was that by the time the Ramseys gave their first official interview with police on April 30, 1997, the thirty or so Boulder investigators assigned to the case had already interviewed nearly 400 people. The list included those who were thought to be witnesses who could provide background information, as well as those whom police considered to be potential suspects. By that time, investigators had also collected sixty-three (63) sets of handwriting exemplars, sixty-four (64) sets of fingerprints, forty-five (45) DNA / blood samples and fifty (50) sets of hair samples. One (1) polygraph examination had been administered to a non-familial suspect. In spite of their assurances of wanting to continue to cooperate with authorities, John and Patsy Ramsey wouldn’t participate in another law enforcement interview for another fourteen months.

As part of the presentation to convene a GJ:

A synopsis was provided that detailed the BPD’s efforts to clear all of the registered sex offenders who resided in the area, and other suspects who had come to attention of authorities during their investigation.

Over the course of the first twelve years that Boulder Police had investigated the case, they conducted 590 interviews, collected handwriting and non-testimonial samples of evidence from 215 people, and had travelled to 17 states and 2 foreign countries in their pursuit of the perpetrator. They thoroughly vetted well over 100 possible, viable suspects. In addition, they received approximately 6500 telephone tips and over 5000 letters that purported to identify people involved in the murder. Over 1500 pieces of physical evidence were collected, and 64 experts were consulted from a variety of fields. The investigative file, which I came to describe as a library, exceeded 60,000 pages of reports and documents. These were the details that emerged as I began to explore the steps that had been taken to investigate this murder. This is hardly the picture the Ramsey camp has liked to paint about the Boulder Police Department’s search for the murderer of JonBenét.

Or put another way...

Topic: December 17, 2001
City of Boulder Ramsey Expense Memo
On the above captioned date, Chief Mark Beckner released a summary of expenses as they related to the JonBenét Ramsey homicide investigation. The department had been providing this information on an annual basis to the media and the following is a year-by-year summary of total expenditures:

1996: Overtime Expenses: $20,340.80 Travel Expenses: $248.38 Investigative Expense: $788.55 Total Expenditures: $21,377.73

1997: On-duty Salary Expense: $308,630.81 Overtime Expense (3,929.5 hours) : $134,621.66 Travel Expenses: $57,392.46 Investigative Expenses: $30,830.08 Total Expenditures : $531,475.01

1998: On-duty Salary Expense: $562,149.72 Overtime Expense (954 hours) : $37,541.46 Travel Expenses: $11,319.01 Investigative Expenses: $19,946.74 Total Expenditures: $630,956.93

1999: On-duty Expenses: $220,780.16 Overtime Expenses (218.75 hours) :$10,554.11 Travel Expenses: $3,842.91 Investigative Expenses: $3,010.70 Total Expenditures: $238,187.99

2000: On-duty Expenses: $133,648.28 Overtime Expenses: $4,898.78 Travel Expenses: $3,157.00 Investigative Expenses:$4,369.25 Total Expenditures: $146,073.31

2001: On-duty Expenses: $133,624.66 Overtime Expenses: $3,005.59 Investigative Expenses: $550.00 Total Expenditures: $137,180.25

The report indicated that total expenditures related to the Ramsey homicide investigation for the years 1996 through 2001 were $1,705,251.21.

I guess ML didn't provide this info to the public after she took over in 2002. She probably wasn't too keen after it was disclosed that the JMK debacle cost the DAs office nearly $35,000.

 

[questfortrue]

The Lacey exoneration of the Ramseys wasn’t based solely on the tDNA. It was based on the tDNA plus “the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence,” and with “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.” Quotes form the Lacey Press Release
...

AK

DA Garnett was interviewed by Peter Boyles after the release of the True Bill. He spoke very carefully, but very clearly when asked about ML’s “exclusion/exoneration”. He said that as a DA ML would have known about the True Bill from the GJ. He also said to the effect, “Well you know the office of the DA is a ‘Bully Pulpit’” and you can say what you want,” though you are accountable to the people of Boulder. He went on to clarify that until there’s a conviction no one is excluded.

Sound a bit familiar? It should. Here’s what ML said August 28, 2006: “You know, no one is really cleared of a homicide until there's a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think you will get any prosecutor ... unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime ... to clear someone."

ML had that DNA sample from the 2nd blood spot in JB’s panties 3 years earlier (2003). It was the tDNA from 2007 which was the ‘smoking gun’ to her, saying it matched the sample from the panties. Still, Kolar indicates in his book that details are still missing about this tDNA. He indicates, he was never able to find out the amount of markers from the tDNA on the leggings, other than it did not meet CODIS requirements.

As far as the other “exculpatory evidence”, on which she based her exclusion of the Rs’, well it’s unknown what that is. ML gave a press announcement, and we’ve already gone through how facts can be distorted in a press announcement. Lest anyone forget, ML was mentored by AH who, in his famous announcement at the conclusion of the GJ, stated that the GJ had completed its work and there wouldn’t be any charges. No one knew a True Bill had been placed in a safe at the DA’s office. moo

 

[aussiesheila2]

The funniest part of this is that the FBI has a full sample in CODIS. Enough said.. Really.

They would not have anything there that had no evidentiary or real value.

I just don't think those people at the FBI understand DNA as well as some of the posters here Scarlett.

 

[aussiesheila2]

This should be interesting.

There is only one "report" showing items where DNA was found and tested.

It's really just a summary, and it's only based on the "strongest sample". it gives no data about which loci were identified, or which alleles are represented.

Now the arguing begins. One set of people will believe there is DNA not related to the Rs, end of story, there was an intruder, and that's that. Oh and the DA "exonerated" the Rs on this evidence.

Others will argue that it's not so black & white. The report mentioned above has a HUGE IF qualilifier, which in and of itself is cause for another argument. The sample was mixed, again more arguing, and the report states, IF minor component is a mixture, Rs wouldn't be excluded.

The argument stems from the idea that this was a "partial (only 10 loci), mixed profile.

This offers an excellent review of how mixed samples are analyzed. Yes we know JRB was the main contributor, but we don't know with certainty whether not the other minor component was from more than one contributor. That is b/c



The "thus masked" is the problem. When this happens a 3 person sample can present as a 2 person sample, and therefore the lab should only state "at least" 2 contributors," which of course is not an absolute. Added to this is the issue of working with only 10 loci, instead of 13, which although acceptable, provides less info. This is why I believe there is the IF qualifier on the report.

Anyway that's the long and short of it from the prospective that the DNA proves nothing, but I'm sure there will be loads of counter arguments.

Very good site here about analyzing a mixed sample.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/swgdam-interpretation-guidelines

Beginning at section 3.5

Please bettybaby, can you post the actual quote in the report that states "and the report states, IF minor component is a mixture, Rs wouldn't be excluded."

 

[aussiesheila2]

Not that "DNA doesn't matter", but the DNA doesn't fit the whole corpus delecti. There are plenty of cases where DNA just isn't enough.

For example, back in 2006 in Ipswich UK, the Suffolk strangling cases of prostitutes. The 2nd suspect was linked by DNA to 4 of the 5 prostitute victims. BUT because the suspect was a known frequenter of prostitutes, the DNA was not enough. That's right. NOT enough evidence. They had to find something else. They finally found "fiber evidence" that linked him to the murders, and a small amount of blood evidence.

Are you saying that if an adult male is one day found whose DNA matches the salivary DNA that was in JonBenet's panties and the skin cell DNA that was on the waistband of her longjohns, that he might have an explanation as to how it got there by innocent means?

 

[Anti-K]

Do you believe Kolar is a reliable source?

Do you?
...

AK