Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Linda7NJ]

Actually, it is quite possible...

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...-literature-help-answer-some-common-questions

Interesting from your link
Due to the variable nature of DNA transfer, it is generally not possible to determine who might have handled an item last or most. For example, just because one person’s DNA profile is more prevalent on an item like a cell phone, does not necessarily mean that they must have handled the phone last. In addition, it does not mean that the phone must be theirs because more of their DNA is present. It could simply mean that one of the factors that tend to increase the amount of DNA transferred (as discussed above) is in play. In fact, three studies have discussed instances wherein the person who touched an object transferred someone else’s DNA to the object.4,10,16


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Remember there are 5 other "intruders" with ALL the DNA evidence. I'm sure that those other 5 can be dismissed as innocent transfer, so what's to say this one couldn't be?

I think Kolar presents a "worst case scenario" with his SFF, 6 intruders parody, and he fails to describe the "best case scenario."

In the interview linked below, Kolar details the DNA evidence. He mentions the evidentiary DNA, isolated in 1997, from JonBenet's fingernail clippings:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2012/07/19/websleuths-radio

...and, from FF:

"DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenét's genetic profile on both sides. In addition to JonBenét's profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1. The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor.)" (Kolar, 2012)​

Per the 1997 DNA lab report, male DNA collected from the left and right hand fingernail clippings, during autopsy, show only consistencies among detectable loci. Thus, the samples are not nearly "unique". So, it's possible these male DNA samples, #1 & #2, belong to not two, but only one man.

As for the female profile, if JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor, then it's possible (probable) this female DNA sample belongs to her.

So, it is quite possible (probable) there exists only one male; just one intruder; one killer.

 

[bettybaby00]

This in itself has to be a lie. Patsy Ramsey claimed she pulled the longjohns on JB that night. Of course, that is only her word, which is worthless, IMO.
However, JR is a different story- he was SEEN by several people, including Det Linda Arndt, to be holding JB's stiff body around the waist when he carried her up from the basement. He was not wearing gloves. His DNA had to be there. So for that statement to be true---well...it isn't possible.

As I noted earlier, all of Kolar's commented wasn't posted. He stated it was rather strange considering they got her ready for bed, and that also BR & PRs DNA was on the nightgown.

 

[Anti-K]

Interesting. And by interesting I mean that the person from Bode does not state the Rs were excluded.


This ...




Is not a statement from Bode. At the end of the article, which is clearly separate from the main body of info, the reporters / the paper have recounted the "evidence" in the case; its a listing made by them / the paper. A list which BTW which contains some errors.

For instance:

*they list shoe impression analysis. To the best of my knowledge the only footprint LE was ever interested in was the Hi-Tech boot print; boots which BR was reported to have owned, but were never recovered by police for analysis.

*They state that "presumably" this analysis was done, as pictures were taken of "footprints in the snow." The fact there were none that morning has been extensively covered by the media..refer to the mocking of police for making the "no footprints in the snow, therefore no intruder" debacle.

*they mention all the fibers recovered from the scene, but fail to mention that fibers consistent with PRs jacket were found on several key items.

*they discuss the RN, and that it was analyzed. They give no mention of any of the results, which there were many.

Regarding the case itself, and their involvement, Bode's website only states the following under their "cold case" section:




ETA: you forgot the rest, where he states it's rather strange considering they dressed her for bed. Or that PR and BRs DNA was on her nightgown.

Hi bettybaby00,
No, I didn’t forget the rest of what Kolar had to say. Those things that you mention (...”strange considering they dressed her for bed. Or that PR and BRs DNA...”) were left out by me intentionally as they are beside the point. The point is that no Ramsey DNA was found on the panties and/or leggings.

If you think that it’s strange that no Ramsey DNA was found on the panties and/or leggings, then you must accept that no Ramsey DNA was found on the panties and/or leggings; right? Or, do you think Kolar is wrong (or is lying)?
I know you’re hung up on this word, “excluded.” I’m not sure why. Excluded, inconsistent, and no match all mean the same thing.

Beckner claims that 200+ people have had their DNA tested, and so far no match has been found. The sample in CODIS is run through the database at regular intervals and so far no match has been found. ALL those people, ALL those profiles were excluded as a possible source.

That’s what “no match” means: excluded.
That’s what “no Ramsey DNA found” means: excluded.

They compared the Ramsey DNA to the DNA that was found on the panties and/or leggings and the possible results were: inconclusive, included, excluded.
If the results were “inconclusive” than they would have had to re-test.

If the results were “included,” then we would say that there was a match. We would say that their DNA was found on the panties/leggings.

If the results were “excluded,” then we would say that there was no match. We would say that their DNA was not found on the panties and/or the leggings.
.

I posted the Williamson quote to show that, according to BODE, the DNA “matched the undergarments." That’s the same reason that I posted the Beckner quote.

I’m not even sure if BODE compared the Ramsey’s DNA to the tDNA; they compared the tDNA (leggings) to the CODIS (panties) sample. The tDNA sample matched the CODIS sample, and the CODIS sample did not match the Ramseys, so there would be no sense in comparing the Ramsey’s DNA to the tDNA.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Just because it's in codis doesn't mean it is from an intruder. Maybe a person of interest, but to claim it's (remember folks it's a partial microscopic sample to begin with) definitely from an intruder is a stretch. Remember there are 5 other "intruders" with ALL the DNA evidence. I'm sure that those other 5 can be dismissed as innocent transfer, so what's to say this one couldn't be? It's not a far stretch to touch the crotch of panties and then the band of longjohns to pull them up. I'm not saying that's what happened but it is possible.
Why is it laughable to be skeptical of a partial microscopic sample when many have provided links as for reasons to be skeptical? I must have missed the joke..... I thought all our theories and thoughts should be handled with respect. :shrug:

Jmo

It’s okay to be skeptical, and I think everyone should be skeptical; but skepticism is about the provisional acceptance (or, rejection) of claims as based on a critical assessment of the evidence. And, I’m not always sure that that is what everyone is doing.

A critical assessment of the evidence includes the DNA evidence. It seems that most RDI are trying to find ways to exclude that evidence. They don’t accept it. They want it gone away.

Some of the objections to the DNA that have been raised are valid concerns. But, they are only valid once the DNA has been sourced to someone because these concerns have to do with the reliability of results, and this is really only of concern to someone whose DNA is found to be consistent with the tDNA/CODIS sample.

People have been excluded - over 200 of them (Ramseys included), so we know that DNA is good enough for that. Still, maybe it means nothing, maybe there is some other innocent explanation, but there could also be a not-so innocent explanation for it. It could be from the killer.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Hm. Isn't it true that there was no Ramsey DNA found on the ransom note, even though both John and Patsy said they had handled it? If so - and that's what I recall - doesn't that mean they could also have touched JBR's pants and leggings that night without leaving DNA?

They didn’t test the ransom note for DNA. But, yes, they could have – and, did – touch the panties (maybe not the panties) and leggings.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

This in itself has to be a lie. Patsy Ramsey claimed she pulled the longjohns on JB that night. Of course, that is only her word, which is worthless, IMO.
However, JR is a different story- he was SEEN by several people, including Det Linda Arndt, to be holding JB's stiff body around the waist when he carried her up from the basement. He was not wearing gloves. His DNA had to be there. So for that statement to be true---well...it isn't possible.

It doesn’t have to be a lie. DNA simply does not shed/transfer as easily as you seem to believe.
...

AK

 

[Meara]

They didn’t test the ransom note for DNA. But, yes, they could have – and, did – touch the panties (maybe not the panties) and leggings.
...

AK

I believe you're right, Anti-K. It was Ramsey fingerprints that were tested for but not found.

 

[questfortrue]

Gonna put my galoshes on and weigh (wade) in here. This is simply a collection of some info which some may find useful. Extracted primarily from the podcast between Dr. Krane, Cynic and Tricia, with a tip of the hat to contribution posts by Bettybaby00 and otg, and Cherokee's comments to Kolar.

IDI assumption: The DNA corroborates the IDI position.

Dr. Krane from Tricia’s podcast: The DNA can only serve as an investigative device; there’s no way to tell when or how the DNA was deposited.

Bettybaby00 Post 256 on mixed DNA: ~Snip~ 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
Quote:
3.5.4.3. Due to the possibility that the minor contributor’s alleles may be shared by the major contributor (and thus masked), determination of a single genotype for a minor contributor may be possible at only some loci (while multiple allelic combinations, or allelic drop out, are possible at other loci).

I believe the above info also considered in OTG’s information per related siblings, Post 323.

Dr. Krane from Tricia’s podcast confirms info that Bettybaby00 mentions in Post 256: Cynic has been emailing Dr. Krane and now speaks about the “mixed sample” with Dr. Krane. (Cynic knows there were two blood stains and is clearly referencing the one used for the DNA submitted to CODIS.) Dr. Krane understands what a mixed sample is and communicates to Cynic that there is no way a statistical weight can be given to the sample, because it is mixed (even though the major contributor-JBR-is known.) If no statistical weight can be given to a DNA sample, by a preponderance of case law, it cannot be accepted in court.

Dr. Krane from Tricia’s podcast: tDNA evolved out of two terms used in England – LCN and low template DNA. (LCN was deemed to be unreliable.) tDNA scraped from clothing can be reliable, so long as there is enough of a sample. A nanogram sample (which is 1 billionth of a gram) is roughly 100-200 cells. Less than 1/5 of a nanogram is very risky to interpret and may not provide any kind of reliable results. Krane emphasizes that the “quality” of a sample is exceedingly important in evaluating its merits in a court case.

QFT (quoting myself): We do not know anything about the tDNA report.

As I understand Krane’s advisement, there is no way for any of us to know whether there was sufficient tDNA collected form the legging scrapings and whether the report is reliable (per Krane’s definition of the risky area below 1/5 of a nanogram.)

Cherokee from FFJ in a podcast with Kolar: Perhaps unknown to some, Cherokee has familiarity with biology and genetics, and DNA tests. She comments that the appropriate action after the Bode testing would have been for a second independent lab to have tried to replicate the Bode results.

If anyone wants to listen to the podcast with Krane and draw their own conclusions, it can be found here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...as-true-crime-radio-sunday-night-8-pm-eastern

 

[gramcracker]

Books about the case that have made up scenarios... speculation.

not sure I'm familiar with that. which book(s)?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Which source(s) has/have led you to conclude fibers from Mrs. Ramsey's clothing were present in "4 incriminating locations"? I don't ignore this claim, but I don't believe the facts support it.

This information was disclosed during a LE interrogation, via Bruce Levin, right? Then, we have investigators disputing Levin's statements, under oath. What makes you so sure the the words BBM, above, portray the facts?

I've consulted numerous sources, and it seems to me only 4 fibers, red in color, were found to be consistent with clothing Mrs. Ramsey had worn.

The problem with the fibers is they are in her house. They could have been picked up anywhere. All the killer had to do was to put the tape down on a surface that had the fibers and there they stick.

I have only seen the fibers really discussed in a depo and the interviewer would not give up REAL proof they existed or were more than a tactic and the problem is that police can lie. They can say what they want make up evidence to get a person to talk.

I have no doubt there were fibers that belonged to the family but after all that family lived there so..... really, it is like finding their fingerprints in the house. So the fibers for me are useless.

 

[CherCher]

The problem with the fibers is they are in her house. They could have been picked up anywhere. All the killer had to do was to put the tape down on a surface that had the fibers and there they stick.

I have only seen the fibers really discussed in a depo and the interviewer would not give up REAL proof they existed or were more than a tactic and the problem is that police can lie. They can say what they want make up evidence to get a person to talk.

I have no doubt there were fibers that belonged to the family but after all that family lived there so..... really, it is like finding their fingerprints in the house. So the fibers for me are useless.

Don't you realize that in your effort to "explain" the fiber evidence that you are offering a theory?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Don't you realize that in your effort to "explain" the fiber evidence that you are offering a theory?

No. I am not, I am offering a plausible explanation. Not the same thing at all.

 

[CherCher]

No. I am not, I am offering a plausible explanation. Not the same thing at all.

Okay...I think most people with theories believe that their's is a "plausible explanation" but I admire your dignity in the face of other people's (RDIs) plausible explanations of the evidence.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Okay...I think most people with theories believe that their's is a "plausible explanation" but I admire your dignity in the face of other people's (RDIs) plausible explanations of the evidence.

The difference is there is nothing being made up. I am not stating it is how it got there. I am just offering a possible explanation for fibers being on the tape if there was any.

I don't really believe there were fibers that were uniquely PR on the tape. Never seen any proof of it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And DNA gets better and better as the years go by, which is why we have the touch DNA that confirms the DNA that was in her panties.

Both were left by the same source and not an R. That is a big deal. It is a really big deal.

The DNA in this case tells the story..

 

[DeDee]

ScarlettScarpetta wrote:

"And DNA gets better and better as the years go by, which is why we have the touch DNA that confirms the DNA that was in her panties."

About 10,000 average-sized human cells can fit on the head of a pin.
A pinhead has a diameter of about 1mm.

~cynic

Yes, there is a small part of a degraded cell comingled with JBs blood being the major contributor to the mixture in the Bloomies.

Was Patsy wearing latex gloves when she put her child's body in the longjohn's, at bedtime, as she swore she did? How did JR prevent his tDNA from being anywhere on JBs bottoms when he is the one who carried her at the waist up a flight of stairs from the basement at arms length?

As much as it is claimed that DNA is the end all for this case, it just isn't. JB had not bathed since the 24th, so fibers, hairs, fur, tDNA, DNA and all kinds of germs were attached onto that child's body. She played with other children. She called out for help when needing help wiping herself. Fibers were found under her gold ring. Her little feet were dirty.

“The science of DNA profiling is sound.
But, not all of DNA profiling is science.
This is especially true in situations involving: small amounts of starting material, mixtures, relatives, and analyst judgment calls.”

http://www.bioforensics.com/downloads/KraneMAAFSDC.ppt
~ provided by cynic

cynic posted the DNA in the Ramsey case: Timeline:

1997 — DNA collected from a blood spot on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear described as contaminated.

1999 — FBI releases new technology called Short Tandem Repeat to profile DNA. It uses 13 markers to raise the probability that a randomly selected individual would match it is one in 1 quintillion.

2001 — The new testing (by Cellmark Diagnostics) is allowed after a legal battle in Colorado's courts, and JonBenet's underwear is analyzed again resulting in between one and two markers out of 13 being defined.

2002 — The Boulder County District Attorney's Office, now led by Mary Lacy, formerly Mary Keenan, takes over the investigation from Boulder police.

2003 — Second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear tested resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined. That genetic fingerprint meets the threshold to be placed into a national database, Combined DNA Indexing System or CODIS, which holds DNA profiles of those convicted in most states of certain crimes. No match has been made.
http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13062285

2008 — Bode Technologies uses Touch DNA procedures on both sides of the waist area of JonBenet’s long johns. The male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched this DNA.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4371478&postcount=4

“I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.”

~ Wendy Murphy

 

[Salem]

If you can't be respectful to one another, I can close the thread.

Please don't be snarky, please do agree to disagree and move on.

Salem

 

[Anti-K]

Gonna put my galoshes on and weigh (wade) in here. This is simply a collection of some info which some may find useful. Extracted primarily from the podcast between Dr. Krane, Cynic and Tricia, with a tip of the hat to contribution posts by Bettybaby00 and otg, and Cherokee's comments to Kolar.

IDI assumption: The DNA corroborates the IDI position.

Dr. Krane from Tricia’s podcast: The DNA can only serve as an investigative device; there’s no way to tell when or how the DNA was deposited.

Bettybaby00 Post 256 on mixed DNA: ~Snip~ 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
Quote:
3.5.4.3. Due to the possibility that the minor contributor’s alleles may be shared by the major contributor (and thus masked), determination of a single genotype for a minor contributor may be possible at only some loci (while multiple allelic combinations, or allelic drop out, are possible at other loci).

I believe the above info also considered in OTG’s information per related siblings, Post 323.

Dr. Krane from Tricia’s podcast confirms info that Bettybaby00 mentions in Post 256: Cynic has been emailing Dr. Krane and now speaks about the “mixed sample” with Dr. Krane. (Cynic knows there were two blood stains and is clearly referencing the one used for the DNA submitted to CODIS.) Dr. Krane understands what a mixed sample is and communicates to Cynic that there is no way a statistical weight can be given to the sample, because it is mixed (even though the major contributor-JBR-is known.) If no statistical weight can be given to a DNA sample, by a preponderance of case law, it cannot be accepted in court.

Dr. Krane from Tricia’s podcast: tDNA evolved out of two terms used in England – LCN and low template DNA. (LCN was deemed to be unreliable.) tDNA scraped from clothing can be reliable, so long as there is enough of a sample. A nanogram sample (which is 1 billionth of a gram) is roughly 100-200 cells. Less than 1/5 of a nanogram is very risky to interpret and may not provide any kind of reliable results. Krane emphasizes that the “quality” of a sample is exceedingly important in evaluating its merits in a court case.

QFT (quoting myself): We do not know anything about the tDNA report.

As I understand Krane’s advisement, there is no way for any of us to know whether there was sufficient tDNA collected form the legging scrapings and whether the report is reliable (per Krane’s definition of the risky area below 1/5 of a nanogram.)

Cherokee from FFJ in a podcast with Kolar: Perhaps unknown to some, Cherokee has familiarity with biology and genetics, and DNA tests. She comments that the appropriate action after the Bode testing would have been for a second independent lab to have tried to replicate the Bode results.

If anyone wants to listen to the podcast with Krane and draw their own conclusions, it can be found here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...as-true-crime-radio-sunday-night-8-pm-eastern

BBM

I guess the first thing that I’d like to point out is that it is NOT an IDI assumption that the DNA corroborates the IDI position. This is a fact. And, it will remain so until it sis determined that the DNA is irrelevant. So far, that hasn’t happened.

Statistical Weight
If no conclusive results are given, than no statistical weight can be given. In such cases the courts would not accept the results. This is true as Dr Krane says, but this is not descriptive of the CODIS sample. CODIs samples have statistical weight. Samples wherein only a single marker is identified have statistical weight. The CODIS sample has ten.

On Mixed DNA
From “Mixture Interpretation: Defining the Relevant Features for Guidelines for the Assessment of Mixed DNA Profiles in Forensic Casework”

[I added comments in square brackets. I have a folder of quotes and I just dug this one out. This is from, iirc, a Journal of Forensic Science article that I read a cpl years back. Details forgotten.]

<begin>
Types of Interpretable Mixtures
Resolving Components of a Mixture

A resolvable (or distinguishable) mixture is a DNA typing result from a mixed sample for which alleles can be attributed to a single source(s) [Jonbenet]. This is possible when differing amounts of DNA are donated to the specimen typically by two individuals {Jonbenet plus unknown male], thus resulting in major [Jonbenet] and minor [unknown male], contributions (Fig. 3). All loci for which DNA typing results are obtained (to include the amelogenin locus) must be considered in distinguishing contributors. However, an interpretation of the STR typing results as resolvable (for the major or minor contributors of a mixture) may be limited to only some loci [partial profile]. <end> http://tinyurl.com/l3zvwqf

Sound familiar?

Here’s a case that I just came across – story is today’s date – it’s an ongoing trial in the UK where mixed profiles with allelic dropout are being used as evidence: http://tinyurl.com/nmno9uf

tDNA and Dr. Krane
Krane does say that if BODE’s claim of processing the DNA through the normal means is true than the results should be reliable; Krane explains that 100 cells, almost a nanogram is sufficient for reliable results; see 30:41 and 35:51 mark of radio blogcast. He specifically addresses the jbr touch (leggings) DNA at 35:51. <quote> ...the issue in my mind really just comes down to, well, just how much DNA are we talking about? Is it enough to get a reliable profile from or is it not? And if it’s less than a fifth of a nanogram I’m starting to worry that this is probably better described as low copy number, or low template might be a better term. If it’s more than a nanogram.. and what they’re [BODE] saying is that it might be, that they didn’t do any extra steps to enhance the amplification of the DNA, then maybe it’s not as worrisome.

“We do not know anything about the tDNA report.”
We know that BODE claimed to have obtained a profile. We know that BODE, Lacey, Beckner, Kolar via Horita, etc have all claimed or acknowledged that the tDNA matched the CODIS sample. We have had no reports that the tDNa sample was mixed (Kolar has admitted that no Ramsey DNA was found).

Independent Testing
BODE routinely tests twice, and has stringent protocols in place to guard against and/or detect contamination (see the Chandra Levy case). The CODIS sample, iirc, was processed in a Cellmark lab. Although we don’t know what lab was consulted or what actual work that lab may have done we do know that a different lab was consulted regarding the BODE results (see Lacey Press Release).
...

AK

 

[Meara]

The problem with the fibers is they are in her house. They could have been picked up anywhere. All the killer had to do was to put the tape down on a surface that had the fibers and there they stick.

I have only seen the fibers really discussed in a depo and the interviewer would not give up REAL proof they existed or were more than a tactic and the problem is that police can lie. They can say what they want make up evidence to get a person to talk.

I have no doubt there were fibers that belonged to the family but after all that family lived there so..... really, it is like finding their fingerprints in the house. So the fibers for me are useless.

BBM

Which deposition is that, please?