Isnt it intuitively obvious that something is wrong here? We know that three peoples tDNA
should be on the leggings. Even if we discount Patsy because we only have her word that she put the leggings on her, John was seen holding/carrying JonBenet with his hands around her waist. And JonBenet was actually wearing them when she was found dead! While individuals may shed more or less skin cells than someone else, we all shed. Ive seen estimates that we shed anywhere from 1 million to 500 million individual skin cells (keratinocytes) per day. Of course, thats over our entire body. Even taking into account the size of the surface area of a persons hands and divide the lowest estimate by 24 hours, were still looking at tens of thousands of skin cells that should be constantly sloughing off. Its inconceivable that anyone who put the leggings on her, who held her at the waistband, or especially who wore the leggings would
not have deposited enough skin cells that they could be found in effective testing -- even if any single one (not to mention
all) of those individuals were low-shedders. I cant account for why this is, but I know something is not right about it.
Something else occurred to me while writing this. If you think about how many skin cells are shed off onto ones bed sheets while sleeping at night, and then consider that JonBenet would be lying/moving around on those sheets with dead skin cells everywhere, why would the clothes she wore in bed not have had thousands of her own tDNA skin cells all over them? Might this be an indication that the leggings were never even worn to bed? Did investigators consider that this might be proof that the leggings were put on her only after death?
I agree,
AK, that this is probably unlikely. But its just one of the possibilities I mentioned in trying to account for why no Ramsey tDNA when we know it
should be present. But thats the point: It
SHOULD be present.
I think maybe you dont understand something in the process. The two blood spots in the crotch were processed for DNA. So everything in the area that was swabbed to extract DNA was mixed together (commingled is actually a misnomer, but I know it has been used) for testing. In that sample that was tested, two different DNA profiles (JonBenets and the unknown individual) were generated. The time of deposit of JonBenets blood can be surmised by circumstances. But the time of deposit of the unknown DNA is not known. This leaves open the very possible explanation (Dr. Lee's -- not mine) that it was deposited by a manufacturing workers body fluids (saliva/sputum from a sneeze?). That unknown persons DNA might very well be all over the panties, but they werent tested in all areas (as I understand it). The only areas tested were where the two bloodspots were seen, which therefore (coincidentally) had some of that DNA present within the same area (
distal).
Im not clear on whether or not the waistband of the Bloomies was tested for tDNA (as I questioned in another post). Cynic stated on FFJ,
The TDNA found on the leggings/long johns matched the waistband of the Bloomies. (All partial DNA profiles.) (
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - DNA revisited in light of James Kolars book) But I dont know his source for that posit, or if it is (or is not) referring to tDNA on the Bloomies waistband. If we assume that it is correct (and that it is tDNA), that reinforces the possibility that the tDNA may have been transferred to the waistband of the leggings (yes, even on the outside). If it is
not correct, too many questions arise to even attempt to enumerate.
Okay, if the writings and reports of investigators actually involved in the case can be questioned for veracity, I certainly am going to question your source here of someone who wrote a letter to the editor claiming to have as her source the word of a reporter/producer of a TV show about what they were told by someone else. Even assuming it to be correct, if you look at the miniscule number of cells we are talking about the
ten to twelve times that amount is not that significant. As quoted earlier,
In the research setting, PCR allows investigators to genetically amplify the DNA contained in as little as five to ten cells into analyzable quantities. So 50 to 120 cells is not that large an amount to be talking about in the context of trace evidence. If the extraction of tDNA skin cells picks up as few as five, or as many as 120, it is not that significant in the determination of how many were actually
deposited by their owner. It is only the number that was extracted by the technician for a particular sample. It would be an incorrect assumption (IMO) to assume the number of cells extracted in a particular sample on a selected area is an indication of how many were actually deposited in total on the entire garment.
Was the inside of the leggings tested, or did they only test the outside? Did they test anywhere else on the leggings, or just assume that's the most likely place to find something and therefore it wasn't worth spending the extra money to check somewhere else?
And again, why the hell didn't they find Patsy's, John's, or JonBenet's tDNA on the outside of the waistband?
On another subject discussed elsewhere, Ill add this:
Linda7NJ posted links once before that had information on how common secondary and tertiary transfer of DNA is. From one of those sources (or maybe somewhere else I read) there is this quote:
...secondary and tertiary transfer of trace materials as an improbable event---is profoundly naïve,
and just plain FALSE. Reports and a wealth of published research have established inadvertent DNA transfer events as the rule, not the exception.
In 1996, thanks in part to O.J., we had all become aware of DNA evidence -- as were the police. But
"touch"-DNA analysis had not yet been developed. How many times have you seen in a movie or on TV an investigator come across some article of clothing at a crime scene and reach into his pocket to pull out his writing pen to pick it up and place into a plastic evidence bag? When he did, he just transferred his own tDNA (and the tDNA of anyone else who might have borrowed his pen) to the evidence. Sure... his genetic profile would probably be eliminated from consideration if it is generated from the evidence, but the point here is that cops just werent aware back then of just how sensitive DNA testing would become only a decade later. In 1996, evidence just wasnt handled with the same care that we now know has to be given to evidence. Imagine that even in the autopsy room, with gloved hands the coroner and his technicians would be removing, handling, and examining different articles of clothing using the same pair of gloves worn during the entire process. All this adding to the possible sources of secondary and tertiary transfer of trace materials.
