DNA Questions, "Touch DNA" & "Familial DNA"

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by AMES, Jul 10, 2008.

  1. AMES

    AMES Member

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9833167


    "Touch DNA" a relatively new analysis
    An area a person might have briefly touched, such as clothing, is scraped for cells.
    By Steve Graff
    The Denver Post
    Article Last Updated: 07/09/2008 09:08:06 PM MDT


    Related Articles
    Jul 10:
    There's only one victim in the Ramsey case12-year-old murder case likely to top DA's legacyDA clears Ramsey familyJul 9:
    DA clears Ramsey familyThe fresh DNA evidence prosecutors say clears the Ramsey family in JonBenet's death was analyzed using a new process known as "touch DNA" testing.

    The name "touch DNA" reflects that investigators extract samples from only a few cells left behind by a person who briefly touched an object, such as clothing. Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy decided to pursue the new line of testing in August after learning DNA could be analyzed from areas where there was no observable stain or other indication of DNA.
    Forensic scientists from the Bode Technology Group, the lab that performed the DNA testing, scraped areas of JonBenet's long johns that investigators suggested would be where a person would touch if pulling down her pants.
    Bode informed the district attorney's office in October that genetic material had been identified off the long johns.

    That DNA matched the DNA earlier found on JonBenet's underpants.

    Bode has performed "touch DNA" testing for about three years.

    Linda Wheeler-Holloway, a former Fort Collins detective who became involved in the Tim Masters DNA-based exoneration case, said she and DNA forensic specialists Richard and Selma Eikelenboom of Holland presented "touch DNA" testing to the Boulder County district attorney's office in October 2006.

    The district attorney's office never followed up, according to Wheeler-Holloway. Until Wednesday, she was unaware that Boulder County had pursued such a method.

    "We were hoping the Boulder DA office would try it," Wheeler-Holloway said. "That is the best technology to use to solve that case."

    Steve Graff: 303-954-1661 or sgraff@denverpost.com

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If they can scrape areas of JB's longjohns for touch DNA...then they can scrape....the broken paintbrush, the cord, the spoon, the blanket that she was wrapped in, the shirt that she was wearing, her bed sheets, the Barbie Nightgown that was found with her body, the ransom note, the sharpie pen used to write the ransom note, the remaining size 12 panties that the Ramsey's finally turned over after more than a year.....ETC...ETC...ETC....

    If the "intruder" left touch DNA on her panties...and on her long johns...places that he supposedly touched long enough to pull down, and to pull back up again...then you know that there is "touch DNA" left all over the things that he touched for a longer period of time. The pen, the RN, the garotte...etc. Mary Lacy ...I challenge you to test THESE THINGS TOO!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2008
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    DNA Questions & Familial DNA

    I guess it's time to start this thread. We should go back and collect as many posts as possible on this with info from knowledgeable posters and sources, etc.

    And while I may be walked off the plank for it, I'm STEALING a post by candy at topix which is really...gulp...important to this discussion. She got some answers to questions we've been asking about this "unidentified donor DNA", and I'm going to put her post here...allowing for the fact she may hit full speed ahead and ram us head on.... :pirate:

    One question I've asked: since no expert can say if the DNA in the underwear is FACTUALLY saliva, mucous, etc., but only "possibly", and since Bode Tech has said the "touch" DNA is "most likely" skin, but not ABSOLUTELY skin, could all of these DNA strands be skin or saliva, not both?

    http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T6NFIN0T5KN3CS0JK#lastPost

    candy
    East Lansing, MI Reply »
    |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#1 18 hrs ago
    I asked this question today to a well known DNA expert:

    Can DNA, which was in minute particles of saliva in her panties, when
    dried, equal the skin cell DNA that was found on her waistband, from the
    same DNA donor/profile?

    The answer is YES!
     
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Sorry I haven't been able to get back to this thread before now.

    I asked candy if she'd spew green pea soup if I posted this post of hers here, and she didn't answer me, so I'm taking that as a "go ahead". But you may want to put on your rain gear.

    I actually emailed Bode Tech, asking them similar questions within a week of the "touch DNA" announcement and appearances on TV of their spokesperson/employee, Ms. Williams. They never got back to me. (I was very nice, really, I WAS!)

    But candy got a response, with some questions left unanswered, of course, which she posted at topix:

    http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TIEV9N3UKS5G6OS3J

     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Here is a science article on "touch" DNA, or "low copy number DNA" (found for us by rashomon). The "Cautions and limitiations" section has some interesting information: LCN DNA shouldn't be used as "exculpatory" evidence, for one thing. But I don't pretend to fully understand this science, so do the research and make up your own mind:


    http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cach...low-copy-number+DNA"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I've been studying the old partial DNA reports we have from screen shots, and I have some questions. I know it's been discussed to death, but this has been my weakest area of understanding in this case because...well...highly technical science like this is just tough for me when all we get are sketchy explanations anyhow. So thought I'd put this here and if Moab has time, maybe the screen shots.

    There are descriptions on one of these DNA reports of bloodstains: from "shirt"; from "panties"; from WHITE BLANKET; from NIGHTGOWN; as best as I can decipher the blurred words. I don't really remember all those bloodstains being on all those items. The only ones that I remember initially being "revealed" were those in the underpants.

    So...is that JonBenet's blood on the WHITE BLANKET, the NIGHTGOWN, and her SHIRT? I don't remember these "bloodstains" on these other clothes/blankets, as per an actual DOCUMENTED SOURCE. But then, I avoided this stuff in detail, for reasons listed above. I remember some dicussion, but just no details about it.

    I hope some of y'all can help me here. I've tried doing a search, but it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. Anyone?

    Here was Margoo's decipher of the screen shots in question, and mostly she did a good job, as this stuff is hard to see:

     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2008
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OOps. I see Margoo left out a couple of words:



    Checking what I got against what Margoo got, I came up with some blanks filled in, which I put in caps and bold:

    LAB CASE XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
    AGENCY NAME – CD0878136 – F2 BOULDER

    __________ ___________ HOMICIDE - WILLFUL KILL - FAMILY

    EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)
    ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)

    SUSPECT (S):
    RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
    RAMSEY, JOHN W/M

    VICTIM (S):
    RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F

    Two lines BLACKED OUT
    DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
    EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
    #5A,5B# Bloodstains from shirt
    #7 Bloodstains from panties
    #14B Bloodstain STANDARD from JonBenet Ramsey
    #14J Swab with Saliva
    #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
    #15A, #15B Samples from tape
    Bloodstains from white blanket
    #17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
    #13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
    Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey
    __________________________________________________ _______________(fold in page??)
     
  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I do not recall hearing much about blood stains on the shirt and white blanket. If the only place JB bled was from her vagina, where would the other bloodstains have come from?

    Blood stains STANDARD only means that blood was taken from a known individual to be used in comparison to crime scene stains. The swab from saliva was probably a standard taken from the cheek of a known individual. O
     
  9. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Agree with Watching You,

    Where did all these "BLOOD STAINS" come from. My recall is suspect at the best on every other day just for kicks...but I also remember there were very tiny blood stains in JBR underpants. And what was this black blanket where blood was found. Also if there were all these different blood deposits why then would Dr. Lee say, "This not a DNA case!"

    Could any of these before unmentioned or unremembered "bloodstains" be part of what was never released to us the public? Could the blood stains from John's black shirt be the "black blanket"? Boy am I confused. OK just went back and reread #13A.."semen"??? stain on black blanket...not blood.

    Also this has been running around in my tiny brain for awhile since we first heard of this newer "touch DNA". As I recall, JonBenet always asked an adult to help clean her after using the potty even at age 6. Could that be the cause of some foreign DNA to be posited on her tights? If she went straight to bed from the party at the Whites then she didn't gt changed for bedtime. Right? If an adult even a man assisted in cleaning her after using the potty wouldn't that be a good source for the different DNA. Very innocently placed there. hmmmmm?
     
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    WY,

    With Dr. Henry Lee saying this was not a DNA case, does he now have to change his opinion through DA Mary Lacy's final decision on the Touch DNA? Does he legally have the authority to query Lacy's decision?
     
  11. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Good point Elle,

    and I wonder what Dr. Lee is thinking about now about Mary "curtains" Lazy? Especially since he is so competent and she isn't???
     
  12. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Chit, no, Henry Lee doesn't have to change his opinion, which was dead on, BTW, on the touch DNA. It's not the touch DNA that's at issue, here (although I suspect it's more of the same BS as before), it's Lacy's flawed interpretation of what it means. Just because foreign DNA is found on JB's clothing doesn't mean the owner of that DNA killed her. There HAS TO BE other, substantial evidence pointing to that person, as well.

    Say they found someone who somewhat (somewhat, because none of the DNA has a complete factor of alleles in order to identify anyone) "matched" the DNA allegedly found on JBR's clothing. Are they going to arrest this person and try him/her for JBR's murder? Not if they have one solitary brain cell in their heads. There is still the ransom note, which is the single, most important evidence item in this case. There is still the total lack of any substantiating evidence. Can they place this mystery person in Boulder the night of the murder? Does this person's handwriting match the handwriting on the note? Can this person answer questions, such as; how did JB's head injury happen? There are so many things that have to come together in order to indict anyone. I don't think even the Boulder DA is so totally incompetent and stupid as to try someone based on the DNA, because the defense would make total fools of the prosecution.

    Oh, that's right. Lacy has done that all on her own, dumbbitch.

    ANYONE, including Henry Lee or Mickey Mouse, is entitled to question Lacy's decision. It's nothing but her own convoluted opinion, based on pure stupidity.
     
  13. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    For clarification purposes - if the Boulder DA had a ton of other evidence leading to the arrest of a suspect, including a handwriting sample that matched the so-called ransom note, then, and only then, would the DNA analysis they currently have be a factor - if they matched.

    On its own, the alleged (I say alleged, because I do not trust Lacy to tell us the whole truth on that DNA), DNA will never be enough to convict anyone.

    As I told my daughter this past weekend, JB's killer is dead, IMO; however, there are still some live ones who know exactly what happened that night.
     
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Elle, and Zoo, in response to the Ramsey "touch" DNA spin, Dr. Lee said that the Ramseys were "cleared" when the grand jury didn't indict, so this is nothing new. Yeah, he said that in several sources. Since Dr. Lee said in his book that HE ADVISED HUNTER NOT TO INDICT because they didn't have ENOUGH evidence to win at trial, I think Dr. Lee has confused some issues here. But he, like most professional forensic people who have been involved with this case, have many, many other cases they work on, unlike US, so they really don't keep up on it as much as we do. WHO COULD? I know I'm crazy for still being here. :stupid1:

    At this point, I also think the Ramseys are reaping the rewards of time: I can't remember my own posts from long ago, anymore. I've forgotten more than I remember. Lacy and Team Scamsey can pretty much say what they want now, as they have the case files on lockdown and all we get is what they want us to hear. Since no one who knows the truth will come forward and witness for this abused and murdered child, the RST pretty much has the whole playing field to themselves. Let's face it: they got away with murder, and now they want us to feel sorry for THEM...NOT JONBENET.

    But...back to the DNA. Thanks for helping out on this, WY. You and a few others are our source for understanding this science as best we can.

    I remember brief discussions of the BLOODSTAINS on the white blanket, nightgown, and the star shirt when these screen captures were published, and also when Wood asked Beckner about "DNA-X", as they called it, under oath in the Wolf deposition. Beckner did identify it as "not belonging to JonBenet", if memory serves, but all I THINK I got from this exchange was they had identified the donor for "DNA-X". The way Beckner danced around the facts in his deposition made me believe that to whomever this "DNA-X" belonged, he didn't want to open THAT can of worms. No one on the forums seems to know much about any of this or they're not telling, so the discussions are usually thin and eventually dropped.

    Since the lab obviously tested these biological samples, what we don't know is whose blood it was. Was any of it JonBenet's? Did they do "touch" DNA testing on those items, too? If there was BLOOD there, why wouldn't they? Along with the garrote, including all the cord and handle, and along with the writing utensils...and the writing pad...etc. Who ELSE'S DNA did they find on the longjohns? Surely Patsy's was there. How about John Ramsey? Burke?

    Zoomama, JonBenet is said to have worn those HUGE Bloomies to the Christmas party by Patsy, but under her black velvet pants. But Patsy also said she didn't really know much about them, that JonBenet had put them on herself, opened the package herself, or they were in the drawer...or something.... But it's silly to think JonBenet would have done that, as they'd have fallen to her feet before she could have pulled her pants up! That's why all this is so silly about proving this "touch" DNA was an "intruder's". PATSY LIED about those Bloomies. She changed her story RIGHT THERE IN THE INTERVIEW with LE in Atlanta in 2000 several times about how those HUGE Bloomies got on JonBenet. What Patsy said is completely NOT credible on several levels. DOES ANYONE HERE THINK, WHEN UNDRESSING HER, PULLING HER PANTS DOWN, THEY'D NOT NOTICE THEIR CHILD WEARING UNDERWEAR BIG ENOUGH FOR A CHILD TWICE HER SIZE? Look at my avatar, a model created by Jayelles using measurements from a child the same age, size, and weight as JonBenet, with Bloomies bought in New York and the same size as the Bloomies on JonBenet. The underwear would UNDOUBTEDLY have come off of JonBenet when Patsy pulled the black velvet pants off of her while JonBenet "slept". Patsy didn't notice THEN? Then Patsy pulled the longjohns on her; Patsy didn't notice THEN?

    Even if Patsy "didn't notice", she surely would have had to rearrange the Bloomies before pulling the longjohns back up, don't you think? So if there was "foreign DNA" in the underpants from an innocent source at that time, maybe from dragging on the bathroom floor when she pulled them down to use the bathroom at the Whites, why wouldn't it have been possible for Patsy to touch it and then leave it on the waistband when she pulled up the longjohns? Maybe JonBenet got the DNA off the floor herself when pulling up the Bloomies, if she in fact had them on that night. There are COUNTLESS ways that DNA could have gotten on those clothes. WE'RE TALKING A FEW CELLS THAT SCIENCE CANNOT EVEN IDTENTIFY AS SKIN, SALIVA, OR MUCOUS.

    Of course, speaking of cellular sized "evidence" and DNA...most people really do NOT know how off the charts tiny this is. To find a FEW CELLS is NOT like finding CHUNKS OF SKIN, or BLOOD DROPS, etc.

    Not to mention, THE RAMSEYS THEMSELVES WITHHELD THE PACKAGE OF BLOOMIES FOR FIVE YEARS FROM LE, KNOWING HOW IMPORTANT THAT EVIDENCE WAS. They only finally turned it over when Lacy took the DA wheel. WHAT DID THE DA FIND IN TESTING THOSE? Was any of that "touch" DNA in those Bloomies? Did it match the "touch" DNA in JonBenet's Bloomies or longjohns? Seems like that would be critical to test. But then again, since THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE BLOOMIES PACKAGE AS EVIDENCE is so questionable, it's pretty useless at any trial, except THE TRIAL OF AN INTRUDER, when it would be requested in discovery and testing DEMANDED by the defense. And they'd get it, too. And they'd argue nobody really knows if that is the same package of Bloomies from which those on JonBenet came or not. And they'd be right.

    Really, does ANYONE think that Boulder, rich as it is, has the resources to try anyone in this case now? Think about it: any "intruder's" defense would be demanding testing of so much of the evidence for this "touch DNA", and they'd find plenty, you can bet on that. The world is AWASH in organic DNA. How many cells of unidentified donor DNA did that lab eliminate because it wasn't the Bloomie underwear DNA, after all? We'll never know, because THAT they're not telling.

    Okay, back on my soapbox...got myself started again. Sorry.

    Anyhow, I think it's important to have this thread here for info and discussion on this that's not spun by Team Ramsey.
     
  15. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    From KK...Dna1
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    From KK...DNA2
     

    Attached Files:

  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I found this last night and thought it would be good to put here. It's actually a really fun animation comparing different organic cells to the head of a pin and a human hair. Don't miss using the "magnification" arrows to move from smallest to largest for comparison with the pin head.

    http://www.cellsalive.com/howbig.htm

    And here is another interesting graphic animation, which shows inside a CELL how small the DNA actually is. Click on the "nucleus" and you'll see what I mean:

    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/cell/

    [Hope this isn't too "high school", but I'm so out of my element here, things like this help me, so maybe some others will find it helpful, as well.]
     
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks so much, MOAB, who is HANDS DOWN THE BEST MOD ON THE WHOLE INTERNET!! :luv:

    These "DNA lab report" screen captures are really fuzzy, but you can compare them with Margoo's "transcription" (and my additions) and if you use your magnification, you can see we can decipher them fairly well.

    [Message for Margoo: If you don't want your hat used in association with your transcription of the lab report, let us know and I'll take it down and just put up mine, which I already had done before I found yours again while looking for an online copy of the screen captures to post. I checked mine against yours and thought I should give you credit since you put yours online some time ago. If you have no objections, TIA.]
     
  19. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    That's an interesting question, WY.

    I'd GUESS they were from JonBenet, but here we have MARK BECKNER UNDER OATH stating that at least ONE DNA SOURCE AT THE CRIME SCENE WASN'T FROM JONBENET, BUT HE SAYS IT WAS FROM AN UNKNOWN DONOR, TOO. Now, if that unknown donor did not "match" the underwear DNA, WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD ABOUT THIS UNKNOWN DONOR before? I think we can deduce, from the lastest round of Ramsey spin heralding "three sites" from which they got a few cells--the one in the underwear not even a complete strand of DNA, and the other two being from the "sides" of the longjohns, THAT THIS UNKNOWN DNA DONOR IS NOT THE SAME AS THE UNDERWEAR/LONGJOHN DNA.

    It raises questions, again, as to how Lacy was able to determine that the underwear DNA belongs to the killer, but not THIS DNA from an unknown donor. Was this "DNAX", as Wood names it, from the nightgown or white blanket? Seems important in the context of this newest Team Ramsey spin.

    Well, here is the LONG exchange between Wood (Q = Wood) and Beckner (A = Beckner). Miller is Beckner's lawyer, BTW. Get comfy, as Wood is really a maniac when he's trying to wheedle info out of someone:

    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm

     
  20. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Well said
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice