Results 1 to 2 of 2

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default An Intriguing Headline

    An intriguing headline and article in The Daily Camera today -

    Boulder DA: New round of Ramsey DNA tests completed, more could follow
    Boulder police chief 'pleased' with latest results

    By Charlie Brennan


    Well ‘pleased’ almost sounds as though the testing revealed ‘something’. But they are still planning on additional tests.

    After 21+ years, solving the case wouldn’t be anyone’s expectation or prediction, but it is gratifying that they have pursued action with more sensitive DNA tests. DA Dougherty revealed that although they announced testing in December 2016, the evidence to be tested was not forwarded to CBI until mid-2017.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...ests-completed
    My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment

  2. #2

    Default

    There’s a relevant backstory on the DNA testing. Of course many will remember the story by Charlie Brennan of the Daily Camera and Kevin Vaughn from 9NEWS. ( http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...sting-jonbenet ) If our resident Ramsey case DNA scholar, cynic, stops by perhaps he can add to (or correct) any of the following info.

    DNA experts who were consulted suggested that even the DNA discovered in the underwear as well as on the waistband of the long johns could very likely be composite profiles, not from a single perpetrator. Phillip Danielson, one of the experts, opined this may be the reason there have been no hits in the CODIS database. The idea was, and is, blasphemous to those IDI who purport the DNA was a single male profile, and they continue to assert the DNA pointed to the perpetrator of the crime.

    It was also learned in the Daily Camera article that there was no second confirming test by an independent lab of the blood stain #2 from which the UM1 profile was obtained. A second test was a point Phillip Danielson asserted would be standard procedure, in order to have faith in the validity of the CODIS-submitted DNA. Danielson is a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.

    From the article in December of 2016:
    Phillip Danielson, said that new testing makes sense. In 2017, the CODIS lab is going to begin requiring more sophisticated DNA tests that identify at least 20 individual points of comparison — as opposed to the standard of 13 required since 1997. All accredited DNA labs, including the one operated by the CBI, will have to use the new testing kits.

    The testing done at Bode in 2008 was undertaken using a DNA kit known as Identifiler, which has the capability of identifying genetic markers at as many as 16 separate spots, known as loci. Thirteen of these loci comprise the FBI's core requirement for inclusion in the CODIS database.

    The now-contested sample from the Ramsey case that was entered into CODIS in December 2003 had the bare minimum of 10 loci, or genetic markers.

    Experts endorse further testing
    Danielson, one of the experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS, reiterated his belief that JonBenet's long johns and panties should be subjected to DNA testing called Y-STR that identifies only male genetic material.

    "I still think that the best thing they could probably do in the JonBenet case is figure how many males are on the long johns, and how many are in the underwear, 'cause that's sort of a key point," Danielson said. "And the way to do that is to focus on the Y chromosome and amplify that. If there's two males there, we'll see it. If there's one male there, we'll see it."

    Another of the experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS, the University of Colorado's Christopher McKee, concurred.

    "I think that as the original story showed, there is more to be tested, and more, I think, to be learned in this case — from both applying new technology, and also using the Y-STR technology or a new and better kit, to help shed some light on what it is we have here, on these evidentiary items in this case," McKee said.

    The Daily Camera article identified McKee as a former public defender in both Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and director of the Schaden Experiential Learning & Public Service Programs at the CU Law School. McKee also has taught an advanced course on forensic science in the courts at the CU Law School, and teaches on the subject around the country. He’s been recognized by courts and nationally as an expert on the topic.

    CBI spokeswoman Susan Medina said Tuesday that the lab will go online early in January of 2017 with testing kits known as Yfiler Plus. According to DA Dougherty the lab began their testing of the Ramsey evidence last summer.

    "Its greatest strength is that additional areas on the DNA will be tested," she stated in an email. "Over time, the results will be more individualizing to a specific male versus a family."


    In light of Medina’s comments there are some conclusions which will be further elucidated regarding Mary Lacy and her BODE requests. It’s been hinted that the former DA Lacy was concerned about debunking Dr. Henry Lee’s hypothesis that the DNA might be from an Asian factory worker handling the material. An email from Andy Horita, Lacy’s assistant, had alluded to the lab's assignment as an exercise "to validate the existing CODIS profile by eliminating point-of-manufacture controversies." For this reason Lacy asked BODE to test the areas outside of the blood stain. According to the March 24 2008 BODE report, the cuttings outside the blood stain (referenced as 2S07-101-06X) only show a partial DNA profile consistent with the victim. This has fed into the assumption that the blood stain UM1 is a single profile and not from Asian factory handling.

    Now with the highly sensitive Yfiler Plus, the single UM1 supposition will be put to the test.

    A germane footnote:
    As Chief Kolar, former investigator on the case, has succinctly said, the DNA evidence needs to be evaluated in the total context of the crime. It’s also noted that former DA Garnett and current DA Dougherty have both stated that crimes are usually not ‘strictly’ DNA cases.

    My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •