Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Anti-K]

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.

I hope, and think, that most everyone understands this: DNA isn’t enough.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

I think you missed the point that I was trying to make. I used the video simply because you linked to it. The point was more in response to the I Will Break You nonsense about DNA never being used to exclude, etc. Krane, in the video, mentions DNA exclusions several times. It disproves I Will Break You’s nonsense.

Nowhere in the video does Krane mention or make any reference to the Jonbenet case so I’m a little confused by some – a lot - of your post.  Much of it reads as if you watched something completely different from what you (and I) linked to!!!

I think the “exoneration” came from the media.

“That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.” – Lacey Press Release. If it doesn’t belong to anyone in the Ramsey family than everyone in the Ramsey family was excluded. So, that’s where it is said that the DNA excludes them. No one associated with the investigation questions this! It is an accepted fact by everyone (except a few forum posters).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

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!!

This is why we consider ALL the evidence. As it stands the DNA simply corroborates the IDI position.
...

AK

 

[CherCher]

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?

Is that what I said?

 

[CherCher]

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

Search for who? As far as I know, BPD DID suss out many other "suspects" and for many reasons they didn't pan out. The DNA is in CODIS and has been for years, and so far nary a match.

 

[CherCher]

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

Just because the tDNA results have been entered into the CODIS database doesn't mean the FBI thinks the DNA belongs to the killer.

 

[Charterhouse]

Do you?
...

AK

Sorry Anti-K, I don't play that game.

 

[2 percent]

BBM

This is why we consider ALL the evidence. As it stands the DNA simply corroborates the IDI position.
...

AK

bbm
I don't see that with IDIs

 

[CherCher]

bbm
I don't see that with IDIs

Yes. I've read through the IDI only threads and Gosh darn if there aren't many more crazy (imo) theories than I've seen anywhere else. I mean really...the perp learned how to write like Patsy disguising her handwriting? Or my personal favorite ...there actually WERE 6 different perps which explains the 6 unknown dna deposits.

They say they go by all of the evidence. Not so much in reality. They love the DNA.

 

[Anti-K]

Just because the tDNA results have been entered into the CODIS database doesn't mean the FBI thinks the DNA belongs to the killer.

The tDNA is not in CODIS; the panty DNA is in CODIS.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Sorry Anti-K, I don't play that game.

So, it’s legit when you ask if I find Kolar to be a reliable source, but a “game” when I ask you the same question?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

bbm
I don't see that with IDIs

Yes, I realize that. However, you’re wrong.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Yes. I've read through the IDI only threads and Gosh darn if there aren't many more crazy (imo) theories than I've seen anywhere else. I mean really...the perp learned how to write like Patsy disguising her handwriting? Or my personal favorite ...there actually WERE 6 different perps which explains the 6 unknown dna deposits.

They say they go by all of the evidence. Not so much in reality. They love the DNA.

They’re crazy theories everywhere. One of them is that “the perp learned how to write like Patsy disguising her handwriting.” Another one is that “there actually WERE 6 different perps which explains the 6 unknown dna deposits” Both of these are crazy claims that I’ve only seen come from RDI!
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

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."

"The DNA profiles developed from exhibits 7 (the panties), 14L and 14M (the left and right hand nails) revealed a mixtured of which JRB was the major component. IF the minor component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M were contributed by a single individual, then the Ramseys would be excluded."

I and others have discussed the issue of a mixed, partial profile. Given how much tDNA was found at the scene mixtures are more than likely.

We know nothing about the testing that came after this one. How it was done, which alleles at which loci "excluded" them. If any assumptions were made--which is often the case, and can be very faulty. Most experts talk about successfully analyzing mixed samples when the MINOR COMPONENT is the victims. We have the exact opposite here.

And of course, isn't it funny how the Rs leaked this info to the media, but not the newer results which Lacy used to base her assertion.

An assertion where she fails to use the word "exclude," which has been referenced in particular as being the key phrase.

 

[bettybaby00]

The tDNA is not in CODIS; the panty DNA is in CODIS.
...

AK

And yet this is what was used as confirmation of an intruder by ML.

From Kolar...

Reporter James Baetke, a staff writer at the Boulder Daily Camera, went on to report that touch DNA wasn’t necessarily new, but technology had improved its ability test for “increasingly small genetic samples.”

The article included an advisory note of caution about touch DNA from an Oakland, California forensic mathematician, Charles Brenner: “Some controversy surrounds this kind of collection; the sample can be so small, it’s hard to be reliable.”

It was not disclosed during the task force presentation the exact strength of these markers, or how they compared to other samples previously discovered on JonBenét’s body.

As of this writing, I have been unable to determine the strength of the genetic markers that were identified as the Touch DNA samples found in the leggings worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body. Horita reported that they were weaker than the partial sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The DNA exonerates the intruder and implicates Lacy/Hunter.

 

[Anti-K]

"The DNA profiles developed from exhibits 7 (the panties), 14L and 14M (the left and right hand nails) revealed a mixtured of which JRB was the major component. IF the minor component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M were contributed by a single individual, then the Ramseys would be excluded."

I and others have discussed the issue of a mixed, partial profile. Given how much tDNA was found at the scene mixtures are more than likely.

We know nothing about the testing that came after this one. How it was done, which alleles at which loci "excluded" them. If any assumptions were made--which is often the case, and can be very faulty. Most experts talk about successfully analyzing mixed samples when the MINOR COMPONENT is the victims. We have the exact opposite here.

And of course, isn't it funny how the Rs leaked this info to the media, but not the newer results which Lacy used to base her assertion.

An assertion where she fails to use the word "exclude," which has been referenced in particular as being the key phrase.

Now, you’re confusing the report as seen in the 48 hors screen capture with the tDNA samples which were generated using a different technology and in the years subsequent!! Please, stop doing this.
.

There are no reports, comments from persons associated with the investigation, etc that support your contention that the tDNA was mixed. You’re making that up.

Lacey, and others associated with the investigation (Kolar, for example) all acknowledge that the tDNA and CODIS samples did not come from the Ramseys. That means they were excluded. It doesn’t matter which marker excluded them (or how many).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

And yet this is what was used as confirmation of an intruder by ML.

From Kolar...

Yes, Lacey believed that the tDNA confirmed the IDI position which was based on “the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence,” and with “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.” Quotes from the Lacey Press Release

It's okay if you disagree with her.
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

Now, you’re confusing the report as seen in the 48 hors screen capture with the tDNA samples which were generated using a different technology and in the years subsequent!! Please, stop doing this.
.


...

AK

Please don't tell me what I should or should not do.

I'm not confused. Someone asked about the 48 hours test report, and I quoted it.

Those samples are mixed. My point being that mixed results can be very unreliable, especially when starting out with less than at least 10 markers. Panty sample started out as a 9 marker sample. And it was mixed, and the major contributor is the victim. We have no idea if there were additional contributors.

As such, I question, and I will continue to question Lacys "exoneration" which was based on the tDNA from the long johns "matching" the panties. How reliable can that be IMO when you are matching a very, very, very small --can't be entered into CODIS small--sample with the panty profile which could very well be a suspect sample/profile?

Yes, Lacey believed that the tDNA confirmed the IDI position which was based on “the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence,” and with “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.” Quotes from the Lacey Press Release.

Just b/c you keep posting those 2 statements from Lacy doesn't make them any more believable. All of a sudden we're supposed to believe there is this type of evidence pointing to an intruder? When her predecessor never removed "the umbrella of suspicion," and it's been reported he privately believed PR responsible?

No.

But thank you for letting me know I don't have to agree with her. I don't.

 

[Anti-K]

I’m not trying to tell you what to do, I am trying to help you understand something that you are clearly confused about.

The tDNA and the CODIS sample are not shown on the 48 Hours screen capture. The DNA seen in the screen capture predates STR, and CODIS and only used 5 (or, maybe 6 – I forget) markers. No one really cares about the samples in the screen capture anymore. We care about the tDNA and the CODIS sample.

You are making a huge error when you continually reference the screen capture when discussing the tDNA and/or the CODIS sample. One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

I understand your reservations, mixed samples can pose problems, but so far, in this case, it has not been shown that there is anything wrong with it, and the fact that CODIS accepted it and the fact that two other samples – the tDNA (not mixed!) – match it tells us that the results from the mixed sample are good.

You don’t have to believe Lacey, but she has clearly stated that the exoneration (or whatever you want to call it) was based on much more than the tDNA, it was based on her interpretation of and consideration for all of the evidence. And, that’s the only pint being made – she based the exoneration on the tDNA PLUS “the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence,” and with “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.”
...

AK