Why the DNA may NOT be important

[CherCher]

Some people need to see the actual lab report before they will believe what has been reported by any LE.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

DNA is not a black hole .It is proof that someone was there. All the falderal and all the pontification does not change the fact that DNA clears the Ramseys in this case. The FBI has it on file. If it pointed to a Ramsey it would not have been a secret.
People can hate ML or AH but in the end the evidence when it comes to the DNA is clear and concise.
It is one thing to not like the Ramseys. It is another to ignore evidence that points to someone else entirely with DNA.

Mmmmmm... Not necessarily.

In 1969, the body of Jane Mixer was found on top of a grave in the Denton Cemetery in Canton, Michigan. She had been shot twice in the head with a .22 revolver and strangled with a nylon stocking. Her own pantyhose (different from the nylon stocking) had been pulled down exposing her genitals but the police and coroner said there was no sign of rape. Her raincoat was pulled up over her face. Though they couldn’t prove it at the time of the investigation, investigators believed she was the third in a series of seven murders committed by the same person during the time period of 1967-1969, which came to be known as the “Michigan Murders”. Eventually John Norman Collins was arrested (because of an eyewitness and other circumstances), tried, and convicted (in 1970) for the seventh (and last) of the murders. He was never charged with any of the other six murders.

In 2001, Detective Eric Schroeder was placed in charge of cataloging evidence from cold cases and he decided to ship evidence in the Jane Mixer case to see if any DNA evidence was found. At the Mixer crime scene back in 1969, a perfectly formed blood droplet had been found on her hand. That blood was collected and preserved. When Schroeder had the Michigan crime lab look for DNA on articles of clothing, they also ran tests on this blood spot -- which had been preserved for over three decades. Because of a backlog of work, it was over a year before test results came back. It (the blood) returned a match to a man named John Ruelas who was currently serving 40 years in prison for beating his elderly mother to death. Other DNA results from the nylon stocking used to strangle Mixer implicated a man named Gary Leiterman who was brought to trial and convicted for the murder. Leiterman’s buccal swab DNA profile was in CODIS because of an earlier Prescription Fraud conviction. The victim’s DNA was not found on the nylon stocking even though it was thought that she had been strangled with it (Reports are unclear, but I think it was left around her neck.). Leiterman’s DNA was believed to be from his sweat. The lab was initially unable to generate a result on its first attempt at testing. A second successful attempt at generating a profile from this sample was later performed. But that further testing found only partial profiles, with anywhere from 2 to 7 out of 13 genetic markers yielding results. But again, the droplet of blood was an exact match to Ruelas with a complete profile.

So why wasn’t the other man (Ruelas) charged? After all, it was his DNA profile that was an exact match (according to the Michigan State Police's Forensic Science Division crime lab) to the blood found on the victim’s hand. Well it turned out that in 1969, at the time of Jane Mixer’s murder, John Ruelas was at home with his mother (who he would years later murder) -- he was only four-years-old at the time of the murder.

Prosecutor Steven Hiller admitted that John Ruelas was not involved in the murder of Jane Mixer (didn’t take a genius to figure out that one) but he was equally certain that the Michigan crime lab didn’t make a mistake in cross-contamination. Hiller contends that even though John Ruelas was only four months shy of his fifth birthday, he somehow had to have been there.

“His blood was on her,” Hiller said. (He might as well have said, “DNA is not a black hole. It is proof that someone was there.”)

The Michigan crime lab’s findings were verified in independent testing at Bode Technologies. However, rather than obtaining new samples from the evidence for additional testing, the same samples originally tested were sent for testing. No surprise then that the original findings were confirmed by Bode.

The Mixer evidence was examined at the same time the evidence from John Ruelas case (matricide) was in the crime lab. No one in the crime lab could account for how any cross-contamination might have occurred.

According to a report in this case by DNA expert Dr. Theodore Kessis:

Error Rates: In the forensic setting, DNA testing results are always associated with the reporting of statistics involving match probabilities. A report may read, for example, that the profile of the suspect and that seen on the evidence match, and that the probability of selecting a random person from the population with the same profile is "X,” typically a very large number.

In this context, the reporting of such statistics is a form of error rate and courts have long required the reporting of such statistics in order to establish the meaningfulness of the term "match" when reporting results. While the reporting of such statistics attempts to establish the probability that an individual has been wrongly associated to evidence in a case, it neglects the very real possibility of a procedural laboratory error.

Today, the random match probability statistic reported in the typical forensic case often exceeds the population of the Earth. Given the complex nature of DNA testing and its susceptibility to all manners of human mistakes, it's reasonable to conclude that the probability of procedural errors must be larger than the typical case associated random match probability.
​

The entire report is well worth reading to understand some of the “complexities” and “susceptibilities to mistake” to which he refers in the above statement, as well as the some of the many possible ways that unreliable results can come from DNA testing (first link listed at bottom).

I’m not saying that we should ignore the reported existence of DNA results because of the possibility of mistakes. But we don’t really know anything about them other than what others have claimed, and we certainly don’t know the circumstances under which the forensics were processed. To ignore the possibility that someone else’s DNA (other than a Ramsey) was present would be as shortsighted as taking the position that the reported DNA results should not be questioned and is proof alone that some unknown intruder committed this crime.


http://www.garyisinnocent.org/web/CaseHistory/NewDNAFindings/tabid/58/Default.aspx

http://www.garyisinnocent.org/web/CaseHistory/NewDNAFindings/DNAisNOTFoolproof/tabid/59/Default.aspx

http://open.salon.com/blog/laura_wilkerson/2012/01/26/the_strange_case_of_jane_mixer_michigan_1969

http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/leiterman-gary.htm

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2013/10/washtenaw_countys_most_notorio.html

 

[CherCher]

otg, wasn't this the first case in American history to use "tDNA" as evidence to convict a person of murder?

 

[CherCher]

DNA is not a black hole .It is proof that someone was there. All the falderal and all the pontification does not change the fact that DNA clears the Ramseys in this case. The FBI has it on file. If it pointed to a Ramsey it would not have been a secret.
People can hate ML or AH but in the end the evidence when it comes to the DNA is clear and concise.
It is one thing to not like the Ramseys. It is another to ignore evidence that points to someone else entirely with DNA.

As you know ( or might remember) I am a house cleaner by trade.

Almost every day I bring home other people's DNA. I walk in their bathrooms and pick up pubic hairs and God only knows what else on my shoes. I change their sheets and sometimes the sheets are dirty, if you know what I mean.

And I'm sure that I leave some of my DNA in their houses. I work up a sweat when I work, and when we sweat we leave more of our DNA behind.

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM

Which deposition is that, please?

Consult ST's sworn deposition (CW v. Rs) and the Ramseys' 2000 ATL interviews.

 

[CherCher]

Thanks Mama. I'd forgotten about ST's depo. Lots of useful information there.

 

[DeeDee249]

Crimes are a "contact" event. Even in a crime where gloves are worn. The hands are not the only way evidence can be left at a crime scene. Every perp leaves something at the crime scene and takes something away, knowingly or not. The tDNA is found only on the body and no where else. It should be everywhere if it is connected to the crime. It should be on the white blanket, on the pink nightie....the only DNA found on the nightie belonged to Patsy and BR. Patsy's forearm hair (also described as an ancillary hair) was found on the white blanket.

 

[Anti-K]

But, is anyone really saying that the DNA results shouldn’t be questioned? Or, that the DNA is “proof alone?” I don’t think so.

I know that I believe that the DNA is the killer’s; but I know that I could be wrong, and, I know that the correct stance is that the DNA represents an individual that must be identified and investigated. And I know that the DNA doesn’t prove anything. It’s just evidence.

Is the DNA the result of some kind of error? It could be, but there is no reason to believe that it is. In fact, the presumption should be that the DNA is good. Unless one works backwards and let’s theory decide what is and what isn’t evidence. This is what people do, and I’ve seen IDI do it, too (Karr, McReynolds, White, LHP theorists, for example); it is what RDI do. For these people, the DNA must be meaningless, it must be a mistake, it must be a lie, etc. Theory says so.

No one has seen any official documentation or reports about the DNA (unless one considers the Lacey Press Release, or BODE statements as official. are they?). But, no one has seen any official documents or reports about the fibers, and people just love those Ramsey fibers. That doesn’t make sense to me. If someone is okay with Ramsey fibers, than accepting the DNA should be a piece of cake, and, the only intellectually honest thing to do! Every concern one could possibly have regarding the DNA applies, and probably more so, to the fibers!

In any other instance, if we had a Forensic Cage Match between DNA and Fiber, Fiber would be lucky to survive the first round. So, where is your money going to go? DNA; right? Right? But, somehow those Ramsey fibers – we can’t question those! Other fibers, non-Ramsey fibers, we can question the daylight out of those; but not them Ramsey fibers. And, DNA goes down for the count. And how does this happen? Because theory says so. Theory says what is evidence and theory says what evidence isn’t; or, what isn’t evidence.
...

AK

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Crimes are a "contact" event. Even in a crime where gloves are worn. The hands are not the only way evidence can be left at a crime scene. Every perp leaves something at the crime scene and takes something away, knowingly or not. The tDNA is found only on the body and no where else. It should be everywhere if it is connected to the crime. It should be on the white blanket, on the pink nightie....the only DNA found on the nightie belonged to Patsy and BR. Patsy's forearm hair (also described as an ancillary hair) was found on the white blanket.

No. That is not true. It is exactly where it would be found if someone was pulling down clothing to assault someone.

I have not seen any report showing PR or BR dna on anything. Though I would expect it to be around or her. A hug goodnight, Could put that there. '

but not DNA in her panties with her blood and then TDNA that matches that that dna in the panties on her pants.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

otg, wasn't this the first case in American history to use "tDNA" as evidence to convict a person of murder?

No. It was not. And there are other cases where tdna was discovered and used to pinpoint a suspect or even convict.

DNA is not a red herring. It is used every day in the Innocent project to free people that have been convicted on Behavior evidence or eye witness evidence only for it to be proven it was not them.

This is what we have here. We have evidence that excludes the R's from ALL OF IT that night.. And people refuse to believe it. However if they were convicted and this tdna came out that matched the dna in her panties it would be enough to set them free.

Go figure.

 

[Anti-K]

Did they look for DNA on the blanket? I don’t think so.

It doesn’t matter if DNA should be everywhere. They didn’t look everywhere. They only look in incriminating locations.

If DNA should be everywhere and if it transferred as easily as some imagine, then why isn’t the Ramsey DNA everywhere? What about the Whites? Barnhill? The kids Jonbenet had contact with that day, the DNA of anyone who touched or handled or wrapped a present, etc? Where is it all? Nowhere, because DNA does not transfer as easily and readily as some seem to think.

Speaking of where things are, where is the brown cotton whatever? Fibers in the genital area – isn’t that significant? Shouldn’t we wonder about that? I mean, this was a contact event. Those same fibers, on the tape, in the ligatures.
...
AK

 

[otg]

There seem to be at least two things that are paradoxical problems inherent in DNA evidence.

One of the problems is that in order for it to be effective, it needs human discretion in its gathering and interpretation in determining its relevance. As Anti-K points out, “They didn’t look everywhere. They only look in incriminating locations.” For instance, in the collection of tDNA samples a human has to decide where to take a scraping or tape sample. In the case of JonBenet’s leggings, the entire garment was not checked -- only the waistband where some technician felt it most likely that the perpetrator would probably have handled the item. But what if the leggings weren’t even handled by that person? Was JonBenet’s tDNA on them? Patsy said that she had put them on a sleeping (“zonked” was their word) JonBenet. Where was Patsy’s tDNA? And we know that John carried her up from the basement holding her around the waist. So why was no tDNA reported belonging to him? Were all of the Ramseys “low-shedders”? (And tangentially if they were, would that possibly account for a lack of DNA elsewhere?) Or were their profiles disregarded because they would be expected to be there? How about the panties? The only reason the DNA from someone else was found there was because it happened to be within the area of the blood spots in the crotch. Did they test the waistband of the panties for tDNA? Is it possible that the same garment worker who sneezed on that pair of panties at the factory also handled the waistband leaving tDNA that wasn’t tested? And if it was there, could it not have been transferred to the waistband of the leggings because of its proximity? So the paradox here is that the DNA’s reliability is dependant on human interpretation, but its fallibility is also because of that same human involvement.

The other paradox is in the sensitivity of the DNA testing. What makes it so effective is the same thing that also makes it susceptible to mistakes. According to Dr. Kessis:

In the research setting, PCR allows investigators to genetically amplify the DNA contained in as little as five to ten cells into analyzable quantities. The technique's extreme sensitivity, however, is its Achilles Heel, a fact that all scientists using the technique would agree upon. Inadvertent introductions (contamination) of small amounts of exogenous DNA into a sample can just as easily and efficiently be amplified as the DNA truly associated with the sample.
​

I don’t completely discount that there might have been tDNA from some unknown individual on the leggings of JonBenet, or that it might have a certain probability of having shared markers with the DNA profile developed from her panties. And I feel if everything was tested with the proper safeguards in place to prevent mistakes, it might give us a more complete picture along with all the other evidence. But evidence in 1996 was not collected or stored with the knowledge we have nowadays about such things as tDNA, and only some areas of the evidence were selected for DNA testing. Most of the collecting, handling, and storing of evidence was done by the same PD that many here are so quick to accuse of ineptitude. But yet that same inept PD is relied upon to have made perfect decisions on how to handle evidence which was to be subjected to such rigorous and precise testing in a DNA lab. So as it stands now, IMO DNA evidence is not the sole determiner of guilt in this case. Until someone finds that unknown intruder who “matches” the DNA profiles, and whose story about the crime can fill in the blanks of what happened and account for all the mountain of other evidence... until that day, I still see the name Ramsey all over this thing.

 

[questfortrue]

State axes crime lab contract with Bode:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-08-21/news/0508210176_1_crime-lab-virginia-lab-testing

And one other embarrassment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/16/AR2009101603386.html?hpid=sec-metro

 

[Meara]

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

AK, I appreciate your evenhandedness here and elsewhere in the DNA debates. It helps both sides.

 

[chlban]

AK, I appreciate your evenhandedness here and elsewhere in the DNA debates. It helps both sides.

I agree AK. It's refreshing to see something a bit more substantial than "I just don't believe it".

On another note, I was called to jury duty last week and made it to the questioning part. One of the questions they were asking every potential juror
was "Do you believe in the accuaracy of DNA results?". I was astonished at the number of "yes" answers without qualification. I could not answer the same way.

My statement was that I believe in the science of DNA. However, I do not automatically believe every piece of DNA evidence due the possiblility of human error and contamination, either intentionally or unintenionally.

Interestingly the defense excused anyone who answered as I did. They liked the unquestioned "yes" answers. From what I gathered this was to be a retrial of a man convicted many, many years ago. Judging from the questions it would appear that he has gotten a new trial based on DNA evidence.

 

[2 percent]

But, is anyone really saying that the DNA results shouldn’t be questioned? Or, that the DNA is “proof alone?” I don’t think so.

Yes. It has been said the DNA is all we need. I won't name names.

…For these people, the DNA must be meaningless, it must be a mistake, it must be a lie, etc. Theory says so.

That's a little simplistic.
Most of the DNA has been questioned by experts in one way or another and a single opinion on that DNA seems to be either stated or implied - the experts expected to see more DNA in this case and not seeing more makes them uneasy about a definitive opinion on its veracity. Or maybe it's the relevance of such small samples that makes them uneasy.

No one has seen any official documentation or reports about the DNA (unless one considers the Lacey Press Release, or BODE statements as official. are they?).

Official statements, yes.
Official reports, no.

But, no one has seen any official documents or reports about the fibers, and people just love those Ramsey fibers. That doesn’t make sense to me. If someone is okay with Ramsey fibers, than accepting the DNA should be a piece of cake, and, the only intellectually honest thing to do! Every concern one could possibly have regarding the DNA applies, and probably more so, to the fibers!

One difference, the fibers have been discussed and referred to in official interviews. It's obvious there is a report and several of the conclusions of the report revealed on the record. Not so the DNA.

In any other instance, if we had a Forensic Cage Match between DNA and Fiber, Fiber would be lucky to survive the first round. So, where is your money going to go? DNA; right? Right?

As it stands right now, no.
Fibers on the record, DNA not. DNA isn't even in the cage yet.

But, somehow those Ramsey fibers – we can’t question those! Other fibers, non-Ramsey fibers, we can question the daylight out of those; but not them Ramsey fibers. And, DNA goes down for the count. And how does this happen? Because theory says so. Theory says what is evidence and theory says what evidence isn’t; or, what isn’t evidence.
...

AK

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the fibers. Yes, fibers matching the Ramseys were found in incriminating places and it keeps them as POIs. But in court, since they lived in the house, the fibers could be neutralized as evidence.
But they're evidence, on the record evidence, right now and relevant to the discussion.
I have to say I've never seen anyone "question the daylight" out of non-Ramsey fibers while not questioning Ramsey fibers.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes. It has been said the DNA is all we need. I won't name names.

Pretty sure this refers to me

I don't think that DNA is ALL We need but when we have it, it first has to be investigated and it has to be sourced before we move on. That DNA says someone was there. Some one had access and left their DNA in her UNDERWEAR. And then touch DNA where it is obvious that someone would have had to touch her to expose her.
That is not nothing. It is not something that can be overlooked and it is not something that you can move past. If In fact that DNA comes back to someone who could not have possibly been there, Then you start piling info and evidence and work from there. But when you have DNA THAT is the crowning evidence and that has to be explored and exhausted first. Otherwise you NEVER get a conviction with that DNA and tdna out there. Never.

 

[Anti-K]

There seem to be at least two things that are paradoxical problems inherent in DNA evidence.

One of the problems is that in order for it to be effective, it needs human discretion in its gathering and interpretation in determining its relevance. As Anti-K points out, “They didn’t look everywhere. They only look in incriminating locations.” For instance, in the collection of tDNA samples a human has to decide where to take a scraping or tape sample. In the case of JonBenet’s leggings, the entire garment was not checked -- only the waistband where some technician felt it most likely that the perpetrator would probably have handled the item. But what if the leggings weren’t even handled by that person? Was JonBenet’s tDNA on them? Patsy said that she had put them on a sleeping (“zonked” was their word) JonBenet. Where was Patsy’s tDNA? And we know that John carried her up from the basement holding her around the waist. So why was no tDNA reported belonging to him? Were all of the Ramseys “low-shedders”? (And tangentially if they were, would that possibly account for a lack of DNA elsewhere?) Or were their profiles disregarded because they would be expected to be there? How about the panties? The only reason the DNA from someone else was found there was because it happened to be within the area of the blood spots in the crotch. Did they test the waistband of the panties for tDNA? Is it possible that the same garment worker who sneezed on that pair of panties at the factory also handled the waistband leaving tDNA that wasn’t tested? And if it was there, could it not have been transferred to the waistband of the leggings because of its proximity? So the paradox here is that the DNA’s reliability is dependant on human interpretation, but its fallibility is also because of that same human involvement.

The other paradox is in the sensitivity of the DNA testing. What makes it so effective is the same thing that also makes it susceptible to mistakes. According to Dr. Kessis:

In the research setting, PCR allows investigators to genetically amplify the DNA contained in as little as five to ten cells into analyzable quantities. The technique's extreme sensitivity, however, is its Achilles Heel, a fact that all scientists using the technique would agree upon. Inadvertent introductions (contamination) of small amounts of exogenous DNA into a sample can just as easily and efficiently be amplified as the DNA truly associated with the sample.
​

I don’t completely discount that there might have been tDNA from some unknown individual on the leggings of JonBenet, or that it might have a certain probability of having shared markers with the DNA profile developed from her panties. And I feel if everything was tested with the proper safeguards in place to prevent mistakes, it might give us a more complete picture along with all the other evidence. But evidence in 1996 was not collected or stored with the knowledge we have nowadays about such things as tDNA, and only some areas of the evidence were selected for DNA testing. Most of the collecting, handling, and storing of evidence was done by the same PD that many here are so quick to accuse of ineptitude. But yet that same inept PD is relied upon to have made perfect decisions on how to handle evidence which was to be subjected to such rigorous and precise testing in a DNA lab. So as it stands now, IMO DNA evidence is not the sole determiner of guilt in this case. Until someone finds that unknown intruder who “matches” the DNA profiles, and whose story about the crime can fill in the blanks of what happened and account for all the mountain of other evidence... until that day, I still see the name Ramsey all over this thing.

If there was a mountain of evidence against the Ramseys they would have been arrested, tried and convicted long ago. The only way that one can say that there is a mountain of evidence against the Ramseys is if they let theory determine what it (or, isn’t) evidence.
.

I happen to be one of those who thinks that the one thing BPD did a good job of is the evidence collection.

As for the handling and storing of DNA-related articles, I think that law enforcement in general learned a few lessons from the OJ trial. But, of course there’s always cause for concern. The concern would be 1) preservation, 2) contamination, and 3) chain of custody; and, perhaps, something else I’ve forgotten or haven’t considered.

Chain of custody isn’t being questioned; preservation seems to have been adequate (they got results from testing), and I think that contamination has been reasonably ruled out.

Contamination is usually found out (see the Levy case, and Jane Mixer). Contamination is the inadvertent introduction of DNA to a crime scene sample. It happens during the collection and/or testing/processing stage. Along with safeguards/protocols in place BPD/DA compared samples with persons associated with the investigation and autopsy. Contamination could still be the cause, but it is made very unlikely.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

There seem to be at least two things that are paradoxical problems inherent in DNA evidence.

One of the problems is that in order for it to be effective, it needs human discretion in its gathering and interpretation in determining its relevance. As Anti-K points out, “They didn’t look everywhere. They only look in incriminating locations.” For instance, in the collection of tDNA samples a human has to decide where to take a scraping or tape sample. In the case of JonBenet’s leggings, the entire garment was not checked -- only the waistband where some technician felt it most likely that the perpetrator would probably have handled the item. But what if the leggings weren’t even handled by that person? Was JonBenet’s tDNA on them? Patsy said that she had put them on a sleeping (“zonked” was their word) JonBenet. Where was Patsy’s tDNA? And we know that John carried her up from the basement holding her around the waist. So why was no tDNA reported belonging to him? Were all of the Ramseys “low-shedders”? (And tangentially if they were, would that possibly account for a lack of DNA elsewhere?) Or were their profiles disregarded because they would be expected to be there? How about the panties? The only reason the DNA from someone else was found there was because it happened to be within the area of the blood spots in the crotch. Did they test the waistband of the panties for tDNA? Is it possible that the same garment worker who sneezed on that pair of panties at the factory also handled the waistband leaving tDNA that wasn’t tested? And if it was there, could it not have been transferred to the waistband of the leggings because of its proximity? So the paradox here is that the DNA’s reliability is dependant on human interpretation, but its fallibility is also because of that same human involvement.

The other paradox is in the sensitivity of the DNA testing. What makes it so effective is the same thing that also makes it susceptible to mistakes. According to Dr. Kessis:

In the research setting, PCR allows investigators to genetically amplify the DNA contained in as little as five to ten cells into analyzable quantities. The technique's extreme sensitivity, however, is its Achilles Heel, a fact that all scientists using the technique would agree upon. Inadvertent introductions (contamination) of small amounts of exogenous DNA into a sample can just as easily and efficiently be amplified as the DNA truly associated with the sample.
​

I don’t completely discount that there might have been tDNA from some unknown individual on the leggings of JonBenet, or that it might have a certain probability of having shared markers with the DNA profile developed from her panties. And I feel if everything was tested with the proper safeguards in place to prevent mistakes, it might give us a more complete picture along with all the other evidence. But evidence in 1996 was not collected or stored with the knowledge we have nowadays about such things as tDNA, and only some areas of the evidence were selected for DNA testing. Most of the collecting, handling, and storing of evidence was done by the same PD that many here are so quick to accuse of ineptitude. But yet that same inept PD is relied upon to have made perfect decisions on how to handle evidence which was to be subjected to such rigorous and precise testing in a DNA lab. So as it stands now, IMO DNA evidence is not the sole determiner of guilt in this case. Until someone finds that unknown intruder who “matches” the DNA profiles, and whose story about the crime can fill in the blanks of what happened and account for all the mountain of other evidence... until that day, I still see the name Ramsey all over this thing.

A few questions posed:
Was Jonbenet’s tDNA on the leggings? No one associated with the case has said that it was, so, as far as we know: NO.

Where was Patsy’s tDNA? Not on the leggings; not on the ligatures.
Why wasn’t Mr Ramsey’s tDNA on the leggings? Because DNA does not transfer as readily as some seem to believe.

Were all of the Ramseys “low-shedders?” No one knows. Transfer is never certain, and shedder status is only one of several factors to consider.

Were there profiles disregarded because of expectations? This would be very unlikely. We know where Ramsey DNA was found (nightgown), where Ramsey fibers were found, Ramsey prints, etc. None of these were disregarded.

“The only reason the DNA from someone else was found there was because it happened to be within the area of the blood spots in the crotch.” Otg

Nonsense, the DNA was commingled in the victim’s blood, not “within the area.”

Did they test the panty waistband? Probably. Several areas were tested, and in the Smit deposition it is said that traces were found – none sufficient to identify any markers, but indications of some sort.

Letters to the Editor
From the week of 12/07/2006
Great, funny article. I e-mailed 48 Hours because I had problems with statements like "the evidence shows blah-blah" without the show telling us what that evidence might be. The producer and Erin Moriarty both wrote me back. The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount. That was news to me.
Carol Martin
Walnut Creek, California
http://www.westword.com/2006-12-07/news/letters-to-the-editor/

While traces of DNA have been found on new clothing, it isn’t found in amounts large enough to produce a profile. Could DNA transfer from the waistband of the panties to the exterior of the leggings? Maybe, but wouldn’t it be more likely to transfer to the inside of the leggings? This tDNA was found on the outside.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

State axes crime lab contract with Bode:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-08-21/news/0508210176_1_crime-lab-virginia-lab-testing

And one other embarrassment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/16/AR2009101603386.html?hpid=sec-metro

Old news, but maybe new news to some. So, thank you.

These articles – there are more detailed reports that should still be available somewhere online – demonstrate exactly what I’ve been saying. Contamination is generally found out; errors do occur but there are standards, protocols, etc in place to safeguard against, and detect them.
...

AK