Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Tadpole12]

Assuming there's any truth to the article, Tadpole12, it would seem that the "investigators" have finally wised up to what I've been saying for years.

Heyya SD,


Ya, well the truth is out there?

I think so. I found a Twitter from Bail Bonds Bobby Brown who was tweeting about JBR.

ty eileenhawkeye,

I guess, not surprised that its BB,
Self promotion's okay.
NE and the Globe are alligned with the Ramseys.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/special-reports/death-by-the-river/article70594927.html

Death by the River: Is Mark Carver a cold-blooded Killer? Or an innocent man?
April 7, 2016

"Carver’s conviction relied on an innovative forensic technique known as “touch DNA.”In the past, investigators collected DNA from blood, semen or saliva – only if they could see it could they test it. Touch DNA consists of smaller amounts of DNA, for example, microscopic skin cells left behind when a person touches or comes into contact with something.
The technique gained widespread publicity in 2008 – the year Ira died – when touch DNA cleared JonBenet Ramsey’s family in the murder of the child beauty contestant. DNA from an unidentified male was found in cells lifted from her long johns.

But touch DNA is less reliable than DNA gathered by other methods."

​

 

[UKGuy]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/special-reports/death-by-the-river/article70594927.html

Death by the River: Is Mark Carver a cold-blooded Killer? Or an innocent man?
April 7, 2016

"Carver’s conviction relied on an innovative forensic technique known as “touch DNA.”In the past, investigators collected DNA from blood, semen or saliva – only if they could see it could they test it. Touch DNA consists of smaller amounts of DNA, for example, microscopic skin cells left behind when a person touches or comes into contact with something.
The technique gained widespread publicity in 2008 – the year Ira died – when touch DNA cleared JonBenet Ramsey’s family in the murder of the child beauty contestant. DNA from an unidentified male was found in cells lifted from her long johns.

But touch DNA is less reliable than DNA gathered by other methods."

​

Tadpole12,
Touch-DNA swabbing at serious crime-scenes is standard practice in the UK and most of Europe. It allows for cross-referencing of suspects at different locations, e.g. terrorist suspects, and investigators to lead with questions such as have you ever visited this house or been in that car, etc

Apparently the touch-dna found on JonBenet was left nowhere else in the house?


.

 

[CherCher]

Tadpole12,
Touch-DNA swabbing at serious crime-scenes is standard practice in the UK and most of Europe. It allows for cross-referencing of suspects at different locations, e.g. terrorist suspects, and investigators to lead with questions such as have you ever visited this house or been in that car, etc

It is well known at this point in DNA technology that "touch dna" can be very problematic. I and others have posted links upon links from reliable sources that show how easily skin cells are sloughed off onto anything a sweating person has touched. A scientific study was done a while back (it's here in the threads somewhere) that showed a brand new pack of underpants had skin cells on them from the person who most likely packaged them.

Touch dna can be a good tool for LE but it's most likely a red herring in this case.



Apparently the touch-dna found on JonBenet was left nowhere else in the house?


.

Apparently.

 

[CherCher]

Criminy, that came out all wrong. Sorry UKGuy.

 

[UKGuy]

Criminy, that came out all wrong. Sorry UKGuy.

CherCher,
Apparently, LOL.


.

 

[Jolamom]

I was recently reading some of the questions at the FBI page about frequently ask questions regarding CODIS and came across this:
A: On May 1, 2016, the FBI implemented an enhanced search strategy at the national level (NDIS). As noted above, because crime scene samples may be partially degraded and/or contain DNA from more than one individual, a forensic DNA sample may not yield interpretable results at all of the 13 CODIS Core Loci. Historically, a forensic profile required a minimum of 10 CODIS Core Loci to be searched at NDIS. The new searching strategy is designed to search more efficiently and use all information from the DNA profile by considering both the number of DNA loci present and the calculated match rarity of a DNA profile.

Effective May 1, 2016, the NDIS Operational Procedures authorized the uploading to and searching at NDIS, of a forensic DNA profile having a minimum of 8 of the 13 CODIS Core Loci combined with a match rarity of at least one in ten million. Using this new threshold, profiles never searched before at the National level are now eligible. This shift in scoring will result in many new matches, and the matches will be of high quality. Some profiles that do not meet the new rarity requirement will be removed from NDIS, however the high quality matches will allow labs to process potential matches quicker and submit those leads to law enforcement agencies.

I was wondering if this would cause them to go back and try and "scrape" anymore DNA from the garrote in order to get an 8 core loci profile to enter into CODIS. Does anyone know more about this or if it will have any impact on this case?

 

[questfortrue]

I was recently reading some of the questions at the FBI page about frequently ask questions regarding CODIS and came across this:
A: On May 1, 2016, the FBI implemented an enhanced search strategy at the national level (NDIS). As noted above, because crime scene samples may be partially degraded and/or contain DNA from more than one individual, a forensic DNA sample may not yield interpretable results at all of the 13 CODIS Core Loci. Historically, a forensic profile required a minimum of 10 CODIS Core Loci to be searched at NDIS. The new searching strategy is designed to search more efficiently and use all information from the DNA profile by considering both the number of DNA loci present and the calculated match rarity of a DNA profile.

Effective May 1, 2016, the NDIS Operational Procedures authorized the uploading to and searching at NDIS, of a forensic DNA profile having a minimum of 8 of the 13 CODIS Core Loci combined with a match rarity of at least one in ten million. Using this new threshold, profiles never searched before at the National level are now eligible. This shift in scoring will result in many new matches, and the matches will be of high quality. Some profiles that do not meet the new rarity requirement will be removed from NDIS, however the high quality matches will allow labs to process potential matches quicker and submit those leads to law enforcement agencies.

I was wondering if this would cause them to go back and try and "scrape" anymore DNA from the garrote in order to get an 8 core loci profile to enter into CODIS. Does anyone know more about this or if it will have any impact on this case?

Interesting, Jolamom. Since I view the DNA as nothing but a red herring, it’s difficult to be too excited about this, even though I appreciate the Information.

There exist protocols now for collecting evidence which weren’t followed back in 1996/1997, because obviously no one knew back then about tDNA. As a research tool, it’s possible it could identify possible suspects. I like the subtle comparison DNA expert Dan Krane suggests in the Ramsey DNA situation, as far as using it to develop leads: Well, you could use a ouiji board to develop leads as well.

Others in the ws neighborhood have more depth of knowledge about DNA than I, and may view this differently; however, here’s a couple thoughts about your query.

The lab Bode Technology Group discovered 7 markers on the garrote and 6 on the wrist bindings. All partial profiles. It’s unlikely BPD would have the garrote scraped again for various reasons.

The FBI website does indicate that they would allow some profiles with only 8 markers into the NDIS database. (From their website by way of explanation, the National DNA Index System or NDIS is considered one part of CODIS, the national level, and it contains the DNA profiles contributed by federal, state, and local participating forensic laboratories.) But, as you pointed out, they are considering not simply the number of DNA loci present but also the calculated match rarity of a DNA profile. The match rarity would attach more quality to the sample. It doesn’t appear as though 8 markers will allow a profile to automatically remain in the database, only if the profile also exhibits the match rarity factor. Here’s a website which speaks about forensic probabilities: http://dna-view.com/index.html

You likely already know that Kolar was never able to find out how many markers were present, i.e., the strength of the tDNA in the panties and leggings which ML claimed matched the DNA in the crotch of the panties (Distal Stain 007-2) and which was used to ‘exonerate’ the Rs. These Bode Technology tests I’m sure will never be made public.

Were this same lab to attempt to scrape more tDNA, there are two requirements which Bode Cellmark Forensics (their new name; they were sold to Labcorp in 2014) could not meet to enter these tDNA samples into NDIS. In order to enter profiles into the NDIS database, the FBI requires that the laboratories performing the testing are federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies, iow, public entities. Bode Cellmark Forensics was and is a for profit company (i.e., not government controlled) traded on the stock market. Another FBI requirement is that the laboratories submitting DNA records undergo an external audit every two years to demonstrate compliance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards. As a private lab, I doubt Bode participates in that audit.

 

[CorallaroC]

Hi Qft, great post good info. Only question I have is - if Bode Cellmark is traded in the US Stock Market, would that make them a "public" company by definition? Or does it simply mean that their financial information is public knowledge? IDK, curious if you know...

 

[questfortrue]

Hi Qft, great post good info. Only question I have is - if Bode Cellmark is traded in the US Stock Market, would that make them a "public" company by definition? Or does it simply mean that their financial information is public knowledge? IDK, curious if you know...

Because of your question I clarified my answer pertaining to the understanding of private vs. public entities. As Bode Cellmark is traded on the stock market, this makes them a public for profit company. (I was using a common vernacular applied to some organizations which are public/private entities, meaning they operate on both public (government) funds and private funds. Sorry for the confusion.) When a company goes public their financial records and their corporate executives can be viewed. Records of board meetings might also be viewed. Any DNA reports produced by Bode would still be kept confidential.

 

[Tadpole12]

I was recently reading some of the questions at the FBI page about frequently ask questions regarding CODIS and came across this:
A: On May 1, 2016, the FBI implemented an enhanced search strategy at the national level (NDIS). As noted above, because crime scene samples may be partially degraded and/or contain DNA from more than one individual, a forensic DNA sample may not yield interpretable results at all of the 13 CODIS Core Loci. Historically, a forensic profile required a minimum of 10 CODIS Core Loci to be searched at NDIS. The new searching strategy is designed to search more efficiently and use all information from the DNA profile by considering both the number of DNA loci present and the calculated match rarity of a DNA profile.

Effective May 1, 2016, the NDIS Operational Procedures authorized the uploading to and searching at NDIS, of a forensic DNA profile having a minimum of 8 of the 13 CODIS Core Loci combined with a match rarity of at least one in ten million. Using this new threshold, profiles never searched before at the National level are now eligible. This shift in scoring will result in many new matches, and the matches will be of high quality. Some profiles that do not meet the new rarity requirement will be removed from NDIS, however the high quality matches will allow labs to process potential matches quicker and submit those leads to law enforcement agencies.

I was wondering if this would cause them to go back and try and "scrape" anymore DNA from the garrote in order to get an 8 core loci profile to enter into CODIS. Does anyone know more about this or if it will have any impact on this case?

Ty for the info, Jolamom,
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/ndis-procedures-manual

"If a forensic DNA profile from a serious violent crime, otherwise generated in compliance with Federal law as described in Section 5.0 above, does not meet the required minimum number of CODIS Core Loci for uploading the DNA profile to NDIS but does contain at least 7 CODIS Core Loci and satisfies a statistical threshold for match rarity based upon the search criteria by locus of one in ten million."
In all other cases, NDIS participating laboratories shall use the routine upload for searching their DNA records at NDIS.
All requests for manual keyboard search shall be processed through the State CODIS Administrator to the NDIS Custodian. The State CODIS Administrator shall contact the NDIS Custodian for the specific requirements for such requests.