Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Venom]

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.

Distal stain 007-2 was weak and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. It was observed that these were areas that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase.
Also from page 304-305.

 

[bettybaby00]

Distal stain 007-2 was weak and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. It was observed that these were areas that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase.
Also from page 304-305.

How about being handled strenuously from one the Rs redressing/staging!!!!!!

 

[otg]

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

Lacy also said the following in her press conference (but it okay if you disagree with her):

MARY LACY: “The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all, in... There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else.”
​

http://youtu.be/hD-E03NQ-v8?t=4m36s

 

[Anti-K]

How about being handled strenuously from one the Rs redressing/staging!!!!!!

???!!!
The Ramsey’s DNA was not found, they were excluded as being possible donors of Distal stain 007-2 (the CODIS sample).
How about being handled strenuously from the killer redressing/staging!!!!!!
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Lacy also said the following in her press conference (but it okay if you disagree with her):

MARY LACY: “The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all, in... There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else.”
​

http://youtu.be/hD-E03NQ-v8?t=4m36s

Yes, well Lacey said “artifact,” but I’m not sure if that is what she meant. Artifacts are errors in the electropherogram.

Of course, Lacey is talking about the CODIS sample. She is talking before the discovery of the tDNA. And, she is correct, the DNA isn’t necessarily the killer’s; but, it probably is.

What point are you trying to make?
...

AK

 

[otg]

Yes, well Lacey said “artifact,” but I’m not sure if that is what she meant. Artifacts are errors in the electropherogram.

Of course, Lacey is talking about the CODIS sample. She is talking before the discovery of the tDNA. And, she is correct, the DNA isn’t necessarily the killer’s; but, it probably is.

What point are you trying to make?
...

AK

I don't really think Lacy was talking about "errors in the electropherogram". The word "artifact" has too many meanings/applications (depending on the context) to assume that's what she meant. Did JonBenet's autopsy reveal a "slight drying error in the electropherogram" on the tip of her tongue? Listen to Lacy's comment again. She's not talking about the science behind the DNA, she's saying that the presence of the DNA may be an artifact in the evidence.

More about artifacts:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Premeditated?

 

[otg]

I know better than to try and discuss the finer details of DNA analysis and the subtleties of interpreting the test results. I do know that there is little as far as real evidence available to the public other than what has been written or talked about by people who have had access to the actual reports. So maybe it comes down to the old game show question, “Who do you trust?” Did the reporters, legal “experts” who weigh in on TV, and “book-writers” all have access to the actual evidence -- and more importantly, if they did, did they completely understand the scientific subject matter enough to accurately convey what the evidence really means? Is anyone who discusses this subject being completely objective, or are they intentionally (or even unknowingly) shading what they know with their own biases about the meaning?

Somehow, I think we are all guilty of reading and remembering things that we agree with or that bolster our own opinions (myself included). But I do feel like that regardless of how much we understand about the intricacies of the science (and I don’t claim to have much of an understanding), we don’t have enough objective information that hasn’t been filtered through the media to come to any meaningful determinations about what the DNA evidence actually means. I also think that a lot of what has been leaked about it has been perverted by our own speculation to the point that I’m not sure what is fact and what is factoid.

I’ve tried watching some of Dr. Krane’s videos, I’ve gone through some of his PowerPoint slideshows, and I’ve listened to him on Tricia’s webcast. While I can follow along and somewhat understand what he’s trying to say, I pretty much have zero retention of the information when it’s all done. But there are many good posts by Cynic where this has all been discussed. Unlike me, Cynic isn’t a pea-brained dunce and can speak to someone on Dr. Krane’s level without sounding like a fool. Loci, drop-out, mixed samples, partial profiles, alleles, nucleotides, artifacts, LCN, PCR... it all may as well be Greek to me. And even if we knew all of the information available about the DNA evidence in JonBenet’s case (and we don’t), we still couldn’t be sure that mistakes weren’t made that might account for some of the unexplainable contradictions (artifacts). Just do a search for information on the female serial killer known as the “Phantom of Heilbronn” (unusual circumstances -- but “mierda ocurre”).

All this DNA evidence has been discussed for years. There are at least several threads devoted to just that. I’ve been reading trying to get a little better understanding, and I’ve found several helpful threads and especially some excellent posts by Cynic. For anyone interested, here are a few:

Posts 1 through 5 of the first thread are loaded with a wealth of information:
DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - RIP Common Sense

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

 

[otg]

From the first link in my previous post, there is this which I’ll copy (with credit to Cynic) for the benefit of anyone wanting to understand (IMO) that big “if” qualifier about the number of contributors to the DNA found in the crotch of JonBenet’s panties:

8. The Mixture Theory:

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Despite having seen this bit of information before relating to the panty bloodstain, which ultimately was also found to contain a 9 ½ marker “intruder” DNA profile, its full significance never occurred to me.

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits. (By way of explanation: #7 refers to bloodstains from panties. #14L,#14M are right and left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.) (From a lab report held up by Erin Moriarty on "48 Hours Mystery”)
http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578

I always looked at this as saying that there was a mix of JonBenet’s blood and an unknown male DNA minor profile, in other words the mystery “intruder” profile.
While true, I overlooked the other possibility which is clearly spelt out:
If it is not a single contributor then a DNA mix involving two of the following people: John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, and Jeff Ramsey may be what produced the minor profile and not an intruder after all.
(At least one of the two people would have to be a male, as there is a Y marker present) This means that the DNA found in the panty blood stain could simply be a mixture of JonBenet’s blood cells and skin cells from JR and PR as one example.

 

[gramcracker]

thank you, otg. the voice of reason and provider of illumination as usual.
and, of course, thank you and a tip o' the hat to cynic

 

[Venom]

From the first link in my previous post, there is this which I’ll copy (with credit to Cynic) for the benefit of anyone wanting to understand (IMO) that big “if” qualifier about the number of contributors to the DNA found in the crotch of JonBenet’s panties:

So the IF qualifier does apply to distal stain 007-2?

 

[bettybaby00]

???!!!
The Ramsey’s DNA was not found, they were excluded as being possible donors of Distal stain 007-2 (the CODIS sample).
How about being handled strenuously from the killer redressing/staging!!!!!!
...

AK

!!!!! it was a joke, although it's possible, of a secondary transfer of unknown tDNA from one of the Rs while redressing/staging.

 

[bettybaby00]

From the first link in my previous post, there is this which I’ll copy (with credit to Cynic) for the benefit of anyone wanting to understand (IMO) that big “if” qualifier about the number of contributors to the DNA found in the crotch of JonBenet’s panties:

I seriously love reading Cynic's posts, and try to go back and do so as often as I can.

I'm not saying I have anywhere near the knowledge he has, or any at all for that matter, but even with my limited knowledge, it seems obvious that when you have a questionable profile (the panties) and declare there was a "match" made with another questionable profile (the long johns) and then turn around and use that "match" to conclude not only that there is conclusive evidence of DNA from the killer, but also to "exclude" people is so far beyond what is considered scientifically acceptable it's laughable.

But that's just me

 

[Anti-K]

I don't really think Lacy was talking about "errors in the electropherogram". The word "artifact" has too many meanings/applications (depending on the context) to assume that's what she meant. Did JonBenet's autopsy reveal a "slight drying error in the electropherogram" on the tip of her tongue? Listen to Lacy's comment again. She's not talking about the science behind the DNA, she's saying that the presence of the DNA may be an artifact in the evidence.

More about artifacts:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Premeditated?

You just said what I just said. But, you didn’t answer my question.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I know better than to try and discuss the finer details of DNA analysis and the subtleties of interpreting the test results. I do know that there is little as far as real evidence available to the public other than what has been written or talked about by people who have had access to the actual reports. So maybe it comes down to the old game show question, “Who do you trust?” Did the reporters, legal “experts” who weigh in on TV, and “book-writers” all have access to the actual evidence -- and more importantly, if they did, did they completely understand the scientific subject matter enough to accurately convey what the evidence really means? Is anyone who discusses this subject being completely objective, or are they intentionally (or even unknowingly) shading what they know with their own biases about the meaning?

Somehow, I think we are all guilty of reading and remembering things that we agree with or that bolster our own opinions (myself included). But I do feel like that regardless of how much we understand about the intricacies of the science (and I don’t claim to have much of an understanding), we don’t have enough objective information that hasn’t been filtered through the media to come to any meaningful determinations about what the DNA evidence actually means. I also think that a lot of what has been leaked about it has been perverted by our own speculation to the point that I’m not sure what is fact and what is factoid.

I’ve tried watching some of Dr. Krane’s videos, I’ve gone through some of his PowerPoint slideshows, and I’ve listened to him on Tricia’s webcast. While I can follow along and somewhat understand what he’s trying to say, I pretty much have zero retention of the information when it’s all done. But there are many good posts by Cynic where this has all been discussed. Unlike me, Cynic isn’t a pea-brained dunce and can speak to someone on Dr. Krane’s level without sounding like a fool. Loci, drop-out, mixed samples, partial profiles, alleles, nucleotides, artifacts, LCN, PCR... it all may as well be Greek to me. And even if we knew all of the information available about the DNA evidence in JonBenet’s case (and we don’t), we still couldn’t be sure that mistakes weren’t made that might account for some of the unexplainable contradictions (artifacts). Just do a search for information on the female serial killer known as the “Phantom of Heilbronn” (unusual circumstances -- but “mierda ocurre”).

All this DNA evidence has been discussed for years. There are at least several threads devoted to just that. I’ve been reading trying to get a little better understanding, and I’ve found several helpful threads and especially some excellent posts by Cynic. For anyone interested, here are a few:

Posts 1 through 5 of the first thread are loaded with a wealth of information:
DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - RIP Common Sense

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

I think the problem that many (most?) people have is that they’re only trying to learn what they need so that they can debunk, disprove or otherwise cast suspicion on the DNA results. Or, in the case of IDI, support the DNA results.

I come at this from a different place as almost all my “knowledge” has almost nothing to do with this DNA, but it is a consequence of an outside interest (and “knowledge”). I’m simply able to apply this outside interest to this case.

Cynic IMO is just another one of those posters struggling to understand something so that he can make it go away. But, he still has done some fine work and many of his comments and remarks are worth reading.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

From the first link in my previous post, there is this which I’ll copy (with credit to Cynic) for the benefit of anyone wanting to understand (IMO) that big “if” qualifier about the number of contributors to the DNA found in the crotch of JonBenet’s panties:

Nope. Cynic has this wrong.

First, let’s remember that the samples referenced in the screen capture used an older technology; and, we’re only talking five (iirc) markers. That’s all they looked for. The 13 STR markers used for the CODIS and tDNA samples were being developed at this time and were not yet in full or wide use.

The Mixture Theory originally posted by Cynic references the 13 STR loci used by CODIS and these are NOT what was used for the results seen in the screen capture; however, it still remains true that family members often share one or more markers.

If the exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were composed of more than two contributors (let’s say 3), than we would have Jonbenet, possibly one other Ramsey PLUS the unknown male.

The marker (one or more) used to determine the presence of an unknown male excludes any and all of the Ramseys, however, one (or more) of the markers believed to be Jonbenet’s could actually be from another Ramsey (family members often share one or more markers).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

So the IF qualifier does apply to distal stain 007-2?

Nope.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I seriously love reading Cynic's posts, and try to go back and do so as often as I can.

I'm not saying I have anywhere near the knowledge he has, or any at all for that matter, but even with my limited knowledge, it seems obvious that when you have a questionable profile (the panties) and declare there was a "match" made with another questionable profile (the long johns) and then turn around and use that "match" to conclude not only that there is conclusive evidence of DNA from the killer, but also to "exclude" people is so far beyond what is considered scientifically acceptable it's laughable.

But that's just me

What’s “laughable” is that you still don’t seem to understand the concept of Exclusion. Exclusion is EASY, it’s DEFINITE, it’s 100%, it’s BEYOND DOUBT. The only thing at issue here should be inclusion.
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

What’s “laughable” is that you still don’t seem to understand the concept of Exclusion. Exclusion is EASY, it’s DEFINITE, it’s 100%, it’s BEYOND DOUBT. The only thing at issue here should be inclusion.
...

AK

Again, I will ask you...where is the proof of exclusion..

 

[bettybaby00]

If the exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were composed of more than two contributors (let’s say 3), than we would have Jonbenet, possibly one other Ramsey PLUS the unknown male.

The marker (one or more) used to determine the presence of an unknown male excludes any and all of the Ramseys, however, one (or more) of the markers believed to be Jonbenet’s could actually be from another Ramsey (family members often share one or more markers).
...

AK

Link?

 

[otg]

So the IF qualifier does apply to distal stain 007-2?

Boy, oh boy. I really didn’t want to get into the DNA stuff that deep. I should know when I’m in over my head. Or as my dad always said, “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you’re stupid than to open it and confirm it for them.” But here goes:

My understanding about the “distal stain 007-2” is this (and if I’m incorrect, somebody/anybody jump right in and correct me). One of the two blood stains that was found in the crotch of her panties was identified as “Exhibit #7” when it was first processed. At that time it was determined that the “major component” (the blood itself) belonged to JonBenet. They recognize that this sample was mixed with a minor component belonging to at least one other person. Their determination at that time was that if the minor component were from only one person, nine named individuals could not be the contributor. But they recognized that if there were more than one contributor, those nine named individuals could not be excluded.

(Here is where my ignorance may show through.) Later with advances in the technology, they were able to separate the minor component from the other blood stain for further testing and managed to “enhance” the results to raise the 9 markers and one faint marker to 10 full markers making the results meet the minimum requirement for entry into CODIS. As I understand all this, that minor component (since it was segregated from the sample identified as #7) was labeled as “distal stain 007-2”. The meaning of the word “distal” I’m not certain of as to how it relates in DNA testing. Is it referring to where it was physically found within the blood stain (on the outer boundaries away from the center), or is it referring to where the elements of the DNA nucleotides are found in relation to the gene sequence (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Distal_promoter)?

Again, I’m getting in way over my head here even attempting to speculate. But it was this segregated minor component that in earlier testing had had the “if” qualifier attached to it. I don’t know whether the later testing was able to determine the exact number of contributors; but from what I understand so far, with so few markers (9-1/2) it seems like a stretch to attach too much significance to it -- especially considering the size of what was found (1/2 ng, or about 100 to 150 cells). Add to this the point from my previous reference to the “Phantom of Heilbronn”. Investigators had used “sterile” swabs for their DNA testing before discovering that “sterile” didn’t necessarily mean free from human DNA. I see too many possibilities for human error in evidence handling (e.g., a lab technician using latex gloves as was acceptable practice in 1996, but handling multiple items of evidence thereby transferring microscopic trace amounts of DNA from one item to another) to think that the reliability of what has been thrown out there by Lacy is sacrosanct. As far as I can determine from looking for a source, she was the only one with access to the evidence who claimed that there was a “match” between the DNA in distal stain 007-2 to the tDNA found on the waistband of the leggings. But even using the word “match” in regards to DNA testing shows a lack of understanding of the process and the science behind it. At most one could say there is a high statistical probability that two samples are from the same person. But considering the fact that in this case, one was a partial DNA profile barely meeting the requirement for CODIS acceptance, and the other was too low to be accepted... Well, you can see the stretch it is to say the two are a “match”. Cynic again discusses this very nicely in his first post in this thread at FFJ (there are also several other noteworthy posts in this thread by him and by KoldKase as well):
DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Forums For Justice

[Note that in Cynic’s Post #12, he mentions that “The TDNA found on the leggings/long johns matched the waistband of the Bloomies. (All partial DNA profiles.)” Could Lacy have confused which of the samples was the “match” that she referred to?]
​