Did jameson lie about CODIS

jameson has been saying for months that the foreign DNA in JBR's panties was so good it could be CODIS certified. She is the ONLY source for this information that I could find - no articles, no announcements... Funny thing, though, I can't find any of those threads at her forum now. Maybe I just missed them, or maybe her search engine doesn't work right. Whatever, it appears jameson was totally wrong on the CODIS. Or she lied.

http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_2036557,00. html

Evans: We're failing JonBenet
June 15, 2003

DNA is the most effective tool for justice humanity has ever known. Every week it seems DNA either exonerates wrongly convicted people or indicts violent criminals. DNA is like an invisible clue to ugly deeds, because it's all but impossible to remove all its minute traces.

In 1990, the FBI initiated the Combined DNA Index System, compiling a vast database of human DNA. In October 1998, CODIS became operational.

Its intent, according to the FBI, is to blend "forensic science and computer technology into an effective tool for solving violent crimes. CODIS enables federal, state, and local crime labs to exchange and compare DNA profiles electronically, thereby linking crimes to each other and to convicted offenders." (A few state databanks are not yet part of CODIS).

You'd think DNA evidence from every high-profile violent crime would be plugged into CODIS. But it's not. First, the FBI requires that a sample contains at least 10 of 15 clear "markers" before it is entered in CODIS. And sometimes investigators just don't bother.

Take the monstrous murder of JonBenet Ramsey on Dec. 26, 1996. Male DNA has been recovered from her panties, where it was mixed with two spots of her blood. It has been checked against DNA from numerous individuals, including John and Patsy Ramsey, with no matches so far.

Yet incredibly, six-and-a-half years into the investigation (and almost five after CODIS came fully online), that DNA has never been submitted for CODIS analysis, according to Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood (a fact I've confirmed with another source deeply familiar with the investigation). The technical reason may be that the JonBenet DNA contains just nine clear "markers," plus one that comes close to the standard. There may also have been some political resistance to taking this crucial step.

That's an appalling omission. We live in a DNA age, this murder is as high-profile as it gets, and yet the DNA — oh-so-close to the 10-marker standard — has never been cross-checked with CODIS? I'm speculating, but this may be partly why a 1999 grand jury did not produce any indictments: Nobody can explain that DNA — and nobody has seriously tried. Maybe now that the Boulder District Attorney's office has the case, someone will push hard for its inclusion in CODIS.

Some recent news reports have suggested that the alien DNA may have come from a worker at the Asian factory that made JonBenet's panties. Unlikely: the DNA is mingled with her blood, which never went to Asia. Also, investigators never even asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her (though the DA's office now has them, Wood says). Rather than (secretly) touting their "Asian sneeze" theory, investigators should have been pursuing a CODIS analysis.

Even if an eventual CODIS analysis doesn't turn up a match, this still matters. JonBenet's DNA evidence should be part of national and state databases, because it may match DNA collected from some future crime scene or suspect; there remains a killer out there, and CODIS could literally save the life of another child.

Regardless of anyone's theories about this case — I remain agnostic — the lack of a CODIS cross-check is a glaring hole in the investigation. Surely analysis can proceed with nine-plus markers on a case of this profile. Forget politics and technicalities: This needs to be done — now.


To contact Clay Evans

 

I wish reporters would

take the time to think before they write.

Duh, Mr. Evans, her blood may not ever have gone to Asia, but those panties were in Asia. A worker could very well have sneezed on that fabric sometime during the manufacturing process - the cutting of the material for sewing, the actual sewing, the packaging process. The foreign DNA came FROM Asia, JB's blood didn't travel there.

Interesting that the DA's office has those panties 6-1/2 years after the murder. This raises all kinds of questions - did the Ramseys keep those oversized panties all these years and only now turn them in at the request of Keenan's group? The BPD certainly knew about the package of panties and I imagine they collected them as evidence and they were probably right in the BPD's evidence room. Wood's proclamation that the investigators never even asked to see them is most likely more of his "they BPD never looked at anyone else but the Ramseys in this case,: which is a blatant lie.

In fact, Wood's statement won't wash, because I heard about this theory about the DNA in those panties possibly being DNA from the Asian factory where they were made long before Keenan ever took the case over.

What liars.

 

and

this is what stood out to me:

"The technical reason may be that the JonBenet DNA contains just nine clear "markers," plus one that comes close to the standard. There may also have been some political resistance to taking this crucial step."
political

 

Sorry

WY, didn't see you had started a thread on the topic already. so i thought i'd just post my reponse again.

The article from Daily Camera confirms what many of us have believed in regards to the absurdity of the so called "Foreign DNA" that the ramseys harp about.

I think the fact that the DNA found on JonBenet isn't suffcient enough to enter into the national Combined DNA Index System says it all. THE DNA SAMPLES ARE TO POOR. If the DNA samples cant even get into the national database, how in the hell would they stand up in court. Good Luck Woody.

Don't you just love how Woody remarks that the DNA samples having not been entered are most likely due from political reasons, despite the fact the samples didnt meet the 10 maker entry level.

 

Can I say something? I am getting so frustrated with the complete lack of understanding about DNA from people like this writer and Linn Wood that I could just about hurl.

DNA is so TINY it is stored in the mitochonria of a single cell--and a cell is so TINY that it is cannot be seen with the naked eye.

If the markers on a DNA strand can't be READ completely, what does that tell us? That there wasn't even a complete skin cell mixed in that blood. So what was mixed in the blood was so incredibly minute--it's almost beyond comprehension.

So you have this tiny bioloogical fragment, far smaller than a eye of a pin, mixed in the blood and this guy says it's unlikely that it couldn't be hanging on an underwear fiber, and couldn't have gotten mixed in the blood? Trace DNA is at EVERY CRIME SCENE.

Why do so many people have so much trouble comprehending this?

This was an incredibly brutal crime with strangulation, blunt force trauma to the head, manual strangulation, and repeated savagery to the vaginal area. And YET NOT ONE COMPLETE SKIN CELL, NO SEMEN, NO SALIVA, NO HAIR BELONGING TO ANY OUTSIDE PERSON WAS FOUND ON THIS CHILD OR AROUND HER BODY. If such biological material was there, we'd have a clear DNA reading and John and Patsy Ramsey would be completely exxonerated.

 

Furthermore

Remember how Lou Smit suddenly magically changed his theory to two intruders a few weeks ago? Anybody wondering why he just suddenly changed up?

Well, reading between the lines I would certainly say that since he now has access to the police file, he has learned that the DNA in the underwear is different than the DNA under JBR's nails! What else would it be? So voila! Instead of saying the decomposed DNA artifacts probably came from different places and were unrelated to the crime, he just molds his intruder theory to the evidence!

That apparently makes more sense to him than saying the DNAa in the undies probably came from the Asian factory, and the fingernail DNA came from, say, touching a door knob or getting a secondary transfer from a toy.

You know all kidding aside about his age, Lou Smit seems to be a good guy and sincere, but it makes me angry that he croaks on and on about "clear evidence of an intruder" like the palm print, but when that is explained away he just acts like it doesn't matter. If some semen or saliva were found on that child that came from some other person, the police would NEVER have focused on the parents.

 

DNA Confusion

Firstly BobC i thought both DNA samples taken from JonBenet excluding the auxillary hair found, were DNA from the nucleus not from Mitochondria organelles. I think the auxillary hair was Mitochondrial DNA. I'm a bit fuzzy so i'd like you to correct me if i'm going in the wrong direction.

Secondly, regardless of what kind of DNA was taken from JOnBenet and tested, you still pose a valid and important question, that its amazing how an 'intruder' couldnt even leave one tiny complete skin cell on his victim or surrounding areas of general contact. Thanks to BObc for pointing out, that this fact alone makes it incrediable hard for pro rams to dismiss rameys involvement considering the great lack of biological evidence.

I Still cant get my head aorund the fact they ramseys can sit thier and shrug 'foreign DNA'. it just amazes me. I love for them to go on a talk show and get a DNA expert to explain to them the absurdity of this foreign dna, then let them wiggle.

Thanks bobc

 

Thanks, you guys

BobC and Charlie, thanks for being our very own Scheck and Neufeld.

I don't think Lou is decent or smart. Any homicide detective these days goes through numerous DNA courses and has plenty of experts at his or her disposal for things not understood. Any credible DNA lab would go to the mat to help detectives in this case, if they felt it was an honorable investigation. Smit is an advocate, period. And for someone who professes to have religious integrity, he should be soundly condemned for what he's attempting to do in this case. It's despicable.

If there is such a small sampling, the prosecution needs to wait for an arrest so that the defense team can observe or be a part of any testing.

All this Clay Evans column about is blather hand rolled from the enemy camp. Notice that their spin team only picks on idiot reporters to try to influence, Plasket, Hartman and now Evans. If they tried to approach Charlie Brennan, Owen Good or Marilyn Robinson I doubt they'd have much success.

Clay Evans is also the doofus who used a bird-brained pseudonym in Schiller's book, 'member?

 

Don't you remember

what Steve Thomas said about that DNA? I don't have the exact quote with me right now, but he said that IF that foreign DNA had its source from more than one other person, then John Ramsey could NOT be eliminated as a donor. The RST, including Smit, has tried to discredit ST on this, as with everything else Steve said, but Steve was telling what the report from the lab said.

Now we see Smit saying there could be two intruders? Even though Smit would rather give up his right testicle than use any evidence that might point to a Ramsey, there must have been more testing done on the DNA - perhaps new techniques that weren't available when the first tests were done - that may have verified that DNA came from more than one person, just as ST said it could have. And in that case, JR couldn't be eliminated. Imagine that.

BobC, I don't think the level of degradation in DNA has as much to do with quantity as it has to do quality and the general conditions surrounding the DNA. There can actually be many cells present, but the general conditions to which those cells were subjected before being collected would have degraded the quality of all of them. IOW, there could be a huge bloodstain, which would yield plenty of cells for testing, but the whole thing could be worthless because of environmental conditions and general degradation of the sample itself.

I told mame a long time ago about her stupid flesh and fresh DNA under JBR's fingernails bullchit. Fresh DNA is just that - fresh. Flesh would yield a wonderful sample which would have been, in this case, perfect for testing. The DNA under the fingernails of JBR was old, cracked, and degraded. Mame inflated just about everything she told us. She's not credible and never has been.

 

WY

On Jan Scotts Journal, he states

"Lou Smit said they now have some good DNA with good markers, and that he knows who the killers are by their DNA markers alone. That's big...and it's new. They have just finished a round of DNA testing with new technology that came up with the markers. He said, "we have tested and retested DNA and there is a lot more to do. But I am convinced it is our killers."
He also said Fleet White has been tested and he is eliminated contrary to what Lee Hill told me. Lou told me that some day we are going to catch this guy, and it's going to be the DNA that catches him. "

June 2, 2003
"More Ramsey Case NEWS: Now last week we (me) were the first to report that new DNA markers and testing have identified the killer. According to DA detective Lou Smit "we got our killer." At least 4 members of the DA's office are working the case every day.Lou Smit told me something else that is fascinating: He said that he and the other investigators have "mounds of material and people to check out." He said they are working on it and that it is going to take time, but when we finish I believe we'll will find our killer." http://www.geocities.com/jannscottl...klyjournal.html

 

Interesting, Charlie

Now, is it "killer" or "killers?" Lou can't seem to decide, LOL.

 

If the new testing produced enough markers, how come it's not uploaded to CODIS?

I smell Lou Smit verbal vomit again.

 

I really don't understand all the hoopla over the DNA. Whatever
the truth about it, it won't change Ramsey-convicting evidence.
In short, one thing is for certain, it didn't come from a non
existing intruder. I put it in the same category as the "intruder
evidence" of shoe print and palm print. Its just one more
absurdity of the unknown as evidence. Hell, contradiction is all
the RST has. What else can they claim in support of the factually
unsupportable conclusion of Ramsey innocence?

 

Random Evidence

Exactly! The DNA, contrary to what some would have us believe, is inconsequential. If they haven't got enough to identify after 7 years of trying, then it can hardly be attributable to the killer manhandling JonBenet.

As you note, even if they could identify it, it would have no bearing...at least not enough to make a difference. If it did belong to the Ramseys, it would merely support the rest of the evidence against them. If it doesn't belong to the Ramseys, it's not enough to disqualify all the other evidence against them.

 

The "hoopla" is that most people don't or can't understand how tiny DNA is and how easily secondary tranfers can happen. You can only see DNA strand with an electron microscope--it's far smaller than even a skin cell or piece of dust. So a damaged strand showed up in JBR's underwear?

All it takes is one dense juror, or 12 in OJ's case, to get a hung jury. It's not as complicated as it sounds.

While DNA is a huge boon to crime solving it's a double edged sword. Artifact DNA is at every crime scene, and as is the case here, a devious defense attorney can spin a whole web around something that means nothing.

How funny that Patsy's fibers, which are hundreds of times the size of a DNA strand, means nothing to Lou Smit, but this partial DNA strand is proof positive of an outside killer.

 

The problem with the DNA is in the mixing, I think. If MIXED DNA were to point to a suspect, the defense attorney could shoot it down on the basis of how unreliable a mixed batch is, for distinguishing between the markers of one individual from those of the other. Now either it's unreliable or it's not. You can't just say it's reliable simply because you believe it would point to a different individual.

 

I don't understand what you mean when you say "mixed DNA."

 

According to Schiller's "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", the DNA that was found, was mixed--at least one other individual's (and possibly multiple people's) DNA mixed with that of JonBenet. According to the book, CBI said that would be a problem in isolating which markers belong to which individuals.

 

It seems to me

they had this discussion in the Simpson trial. Remember the blood inside the Bronco? If I remember right, they easily identified Nicole's blood, but there was partial DNA from another donor that could have been and probably was Ron Goldman's, but because they didn't have all the markers, they couldn't say conclusively it was his.

I watched as much of that trial as I could, and I was fascinated by the DNA experts. I understood that they can differentiate between donors, but I think it's only if they have samples to compare them to. IOW, they had a sample of JBR's DNA, so if they had all the markers from, say, the blood in her underwear, then they could compare it to her known sample and say, okay, that's JBR's blood. If they had someone they suspected of the murder and had other evidence, and 9 of his markers matched the nine they can identify in the alien DNA in the underwear, they could say that, but they could not positively identify him as the donor. I have a vague recollection that in the Simpson Bronco, there was a third contributer to the DNA, also, maybe Simpson's DNA, can't remember.

I think the foreign DNA was in such bad shape, they really couldn't tell if there were one or two donors. To take it a little further, say they had a DNA sample from John Ramsey, which they did. And, they have this foreign DNA in the underwear. By comparing to John Ramsey's sample, they probably saw that some of the markers matched his known sample, but there were some that did not. Therefore, they said, IF there were only one contributor to the DNA sample, then John Ramsey was eliminated, but if there were two contributors to the DNA, then John Ramsey could not be eliminated as a donor. Clear as mud?

I liked it when Smit and his brain dead companion at the swamp said the DNA was male and it was Caucasian. Hello? At the time I asked my boss, who is a DNA expert and microbiologist, if they can tell race from DNA. Nope. Couldn't be done at the time, but they were working on it. They just keep spinning away.

 

Adrian

I thought CellMark, the labs the undertook the dna testing in the JBR case concluded that either the samples " was mixed--at least one other individual's (and possibly multiple people's) DNA mixed with that of JonBenet" OR The stutter effect produced the appearnce of another individuals DNA due to the PCR amplification?