Problems with DNA results & DNA tutorials

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by fr brown, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Think the BPD will give them a call? Nah. They might actually SOLVE this case by testing the garrote. Think they want to do that? Nah. Nobody wants to solve this case except people like us.
     
  2. cynic

    cynic Member

    Sound familiar?

    What follows is from a trial that at the time of this writing is still in progress. The defendant, Steven DeMocker, is accused of killing his former wife, Carol Kennedy, by bludgeoning her to death at her home on July 2, 2008
    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/21/20100521democker0519issues.html

    What can happen when a careless coroner handles evidence?

    Overview:
    DNA from 3 unidentified men found in 3 locations:
    • Under the fingernails of the victim’s left hand.
    • On the victim’s left hand
    • On a cell phone held by the victim.
    (The man on trial, DeMocker, was excluded as a possible donor of the DNA.)
    (What would Mary Lacy do in a case like this? (I think we know.))

    September 1, 2010
    A scientist who works at a private laboratory testified Wednesday that Carol Kennedy had DNA from three unknown men underneath the fingernails of her left hand.
    Alexis Brown, a supervisor at the Sorenson Forensic laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah, told a jury in the murder trial for Kennedy's ex-husband, Steven DeMocker, that Kennedy also had DNA from three unknown males on her left hand itself.
    In addition, Brown said, a cordless phone that her laboratory tested showed the DNA from three unidentified males. Tests found that the DNA had not come from DeMocker, she said.
    Kennedy was talking to her mother on the phone in the evening of July 2, 2008, when she suddenly exclaimed, "Oh, no," and the call ended. Her mother, Ruth Kennedy, became alarmed when she could not then reach her daughter and eventually called the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office. A deputy looked into a window of Carol Kennedy's Williamson Valley home and saw her body on the floor of a room she used as an office. A cordless phone lay nearby.
    Brown said tests excluded DeMocker's DNA from the samples taken from Kennedy's hand, nails and the cell phone.

    Previously, Dr. Philip Keene, who performed the autopsy on Kennedy, said the nail clippers he used to clip her nails were pulled from a drawer and might not have been sterile.
    DeMocker, who voluntarily gave a statement to detectives the night of his former wife's death, said that he had been riding his mountain bike on trails near Granite Mountain at the time of her death. He offered to give them blood and DNA samples.
    Det. Luis Huante, one of the initial investigators, testified that DeMocker aroused his suspicions when he came to Kennedy's Bridal Path house that evening after his younger daughter told him that her mother died. DeMocker asked Huante if he was a suspect. Also, Huante noted scratches on DeMocker's arms and legs that DeMocker said came from bushes along the trail.

    http://www.prescottaz.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1086&ArticleID=84882

    In September of 2010, the prosecution was pretty sure that the unidentified DNA that the defense was touting as DNA from the “real killer(s)” was the result of contamination. They were right.
    6 months later the owner of the major DNA profile in the case was identified

    March 21, 2011
    DeMocker trial: Mystery DNA identified

    Results support prosecution's nail clipper contamination theory

    PRESCOTT - The DNA found on fingernail clippings of the victim in the murder trial of Steven C. DeMocker has been identified as being that of a man who may have died prior to or shortly after Carol Kennedy, according to documents obtained by the Courier.
    The results may substantiate claims by the prosecution that the nail clippers used by the medical examiner were contaminated.
    The prosecution in the DeMocker trial on Monday asked Judge Warren R. Darrow to order the Chino Valley Medical Center and the Yavapai Regional Medical Center to release the medical records of Ronald Lloyd Birman, who, the document said, "has been identified as the major donor of the DNA profile, previously unknown" by the Department of Public Safety's crime lab.


    The Yavapai County Medical Examiner, Dr. Philip Keene, did an autopsy and determined Birman bled to death after an arterial graft failed.
    DeMocker is accused of beating to death Kennedy, his ex-wife, on July 2, 2008.

    The timing of the Birman's death will play a crucial role in DeMocker's retrial, as will the existence of DNA on Kennedy's body from what appears to be a totally unrelated person, which may point to contamination at Keene's office, as previously reported in the Courier.
    Kennedy's fingernail contained DNA from three people, one "major" profile and two "minor" profiles. The DNA test results are believed to refer to the "major" profile, according to testimony quoted in the Courier.
    On Aug. 24, 2010, Dr. Keene testified under examination by Deputy County Attorney Joseph C. Butner III that the clippers used to trim Kennedy's nails for evidence had not been sterilized.

    The prosecution says in the motion that it wants to "corroborate the findings of the DPS crime lab."
    Because a gag order has been imposed on the trial, neither side was able to speak about the motion or the identification made by DPS.
    Scott Orr, The Daily Courier

    http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1086&ArticleID=91964
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  3. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I didn't occur to me before that the DNA on JonBenet's long johns and underwear might belong to another corpse in the morgue, transferred via the gloves of the person who undressed her.
     
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    I'm really disturbed reading all of this important DNA information. Instead of it helping to solve the crime, it appears to be causing nothing but havoc.[​IMG]
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Autopsy photos taken during examination of body and collection of evidence by Dr. Meyers:

    [​IMG]

    Notice the gloved fingers of someone holding the hand open for the photo. If the gloves were contaminated while clipping of the fingernails with a contaminated clipper, the partial (very--only 1 to 3 markers in the fingernail DNA samples were recovered), these gloves could have spread that DNA also to the Bloomies and long johns when pulling them off the body and/or attempting to match the Bloomies blood spots to JB's genital area, which Dr. Meyer said he could not match those spots to the any on the body.

    Also, the unsourced DNA could have been contaminant from the lab, handled by a technician during DNA collection. Obviously the technician would have handled the waistbands of the long johns and Bloomies, as well as the crotch of the Bloomies.

    As much as Team Ramsey want us to believe contamination wasn't possible at different locations on the clothing, it was not only possible, but with current DNA technology, it's highly possible to find contaminate DNA left when evidence was processed. It's become common to find unsourced DNA artifact at crime scenes and on evidence. This has shown up in many trials now. Dr. Meyer admitted he might have used contaminated clippers, did he not? At least, that's how I remember it.
     
  6. mBm

    mBm Banned for Stupidity

    While I am in total agreement with what you are saying, I believe the very evidence that proves the Ramseys' DNA was no part of the so-called "evidentiary DNA", by the same reasoning, John Mark Karr's DNA should be eliminated along with that of the Ramseys. So, IMO, that puts him right back at the top of the suspect list, along with the Ramseys and all other "suspects" that LE might be looking at.

    Karr has said (among his other ascertians about the DNA "evidence") that he doesn't know why his DNA did not match. By this, he seems to be implying that although he expected it to be a match, it wasn't.

    There are still far too many questions about Karr that haven't been answered, and since there is much evidence that LE failed to investigate him AT ALL, much less THOROUGHLY, he's still a very plausible suspect, IMO. And I'm told that some in LE agree.
     
  7. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    It was well known at the time that the coroner in the JB case did NOT follow protocol regarding the nail clippers he used. Not only did he use the same clipper for each hand (instead of proper procedure of a separate sterile clipper for each finger), he may have used the same clipper on other bodies without sterilizing them. This man was no more able to perform a proper autopsy than I am. And maybe less so.
     
  8. cynic

    cynic Member

    The reasons for keeping the Ramseys under the umbrella of suspicion (to use Beckner-speak) and being dismissive of the DNA evidence are numerous.
    The Karr situation is profoundly different, and DNA evidence can be used to exclude Karr and expose him as a liar.
    Not that I usually ever agree with what Lacy has to say, but she makes a valid point here:
    Mary Lacy: So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he (Karr) told the story, it had to be his and it’s not. So once that came back as not a match, he is not the killer.
    Mary Lacy Press Conference Regarding John Mark Karr - 8/29/06

    This is the way he told the story: (My apologies to everyone for giving this perverted freak any attention.)
    He kissed the child's body and massaged her feet. DAXIS performed oral sex on JonBenet Ramsey.
    Arrest affidavit – 8/15/06
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/newworld/johnkarr.pdf

    Saliva left as a consequence of his alleged sex act would have left his DNA profile behind. What Karr failed to realize by being so fixated on his sick fantasies is that this little detail painted him into a corner. There is simply no way that Karr’s DNA profile would not have been found if he did what he claimed. Not only were the bloodstains from JonBenet’s panties tested, multiple swabs were taken from the pelvic region of JonBenet. Where is Karr’s DNA? It’s not there because he was not there. Being there in imagination only doesn’t count.
    (Just as a side note, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that any of the sampled DNA in this case comes from saliva. Because the sample sizes were both small and degraded they were unable to determine, definitively, the origin of the DNA cells. This makes it highly probable that the source was skin cells and quite probably the result of contamination or some other means of adventitious transfer.)
    DNA aside, and I’m not interested in hijacking a thread and certainly not to devote time to Karr, there were multiple problems with Karr’s “confession.”
    He was brought back solely in an effort by Mary Lacy to pin the death of JBR on anyone with a pulse that wasn’t a Ramsey.
    It was a completely baseless arrest. Nothing that he said with respect to case facts was unique or new, it was all from information that was openly available in the public domain. Interspersed with that were the sick fantasies of a twisted pedophile mind.
    What makes the whole event incredible is that despite the fact that Karr mentioned things that were completely untrue with respect to the crime, his “confession” was deemed by Lacy to have merit.
    I will give two examples:

    1. “Karr said he waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenets bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair.”
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/newworld/johnkarr.pdf
    Alright, let’s think about this. He expects us to believe that he just waltzed into JBR’s room and proceeded to essentially go on a little “date” with her in the basement. JonBenet allegedly goes along with this, offering no resistance.
    Sure, I might have been born at night, but not last night.

    2. “Karr added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by Karr was several sizes too large for JonBenet.”
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/newworld/johnkarr.pdf
    If this isn’t a red flag that this guy is lying, I don’t know what is. I will spare you a replay of a full discussion of the oversized Bloomies, but there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the panties that JBR was found in were panties that were purchased by Patsy Ramsey and not brought into the home by an outside party.

    Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start with what - I will make it very simple for you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you in possession of or what do you know about the underwear that your daughter was wearing at the time she was found murdered?
    A. I have heard that she had on a pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
    Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
    A. Bloomingdale’s in New York.
    Q. Who purchased those?
    A. I did.

    Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
    A. It was, I think, November of '96.

    Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something –
    A. Right.

    Q. - that was in the house.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
    A. Correct.

    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000
     
  9. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thank you, Cynic, for your most excellent post that states the facts clearly and concisely. You have shown why JMK cannot be considered a suspect in the Ramsey case by using both documented evidence and JMK's own words. Bravo!
     
  10. cynic

    cynic Member

    Thank you for the kind words, Cherokee. :blush:
    I consider it one of life’s simple pleasures to rebut anything to do with Michael Tracey.
    It’s disappointing when anyone gives him, or anything to do with him, any credence.
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Amen to that.
     
  12. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Isn't THAT the truth!

    I think it's the height of irony Michael Tracey taught classes on ETHICS IN MEDIA at Boulder. Tracey wouldn't know ETHICS if it took him to dinner and asked to have his baby!

    Tracey is all about Tracey. His ego is bigger than his weasel nose, which is saying a lot! He STICKS that weasel nose where it doesn't belong and makes up stuff to get attention and accolades. The crocumentaries he did for UK television are so full of lies, half-truths and false insinuations, it would make a career criminal blush, but Tracey is proud of them! Tracey literally destroyed one innocent man's life by falsely painting him as a suspect in the Ramsey case. That same crock would have been shown here in the US if it hadn't been for the efforts of Tricia Griffith and FFJ. Once US media learned that Tracey's shoddily-researched crocumentary accused innocent people, and that they could be sued because of it, Tracey's dreams of big money in the US went up in smoke!

    Several of us have entered formal complaints regarding Tracey's crocks with the UK board that governs their TV media, and except for one showing last year (I believe) from a minor channel, all of them have been shelved for now. Since the person Tracey accused is American, it is difficult for him to sue Tracey in UK courts. Tracey KNEW that, and that's the reason he had them shown there first. He HOPED he could get by with selling them to US media, but we stopped him cold.

    Oh dear, you shouldn't have gotten me started on Michael Tracey! Just thinking about the damage he, Mary Lacy and Lou Smit have done to the Ramsey case (and to the innocent lives they trashed) makes my blood boil!

    Okay, back to the DNA, which not one of them - Tracey, Lacy OR Smit - ever understood or ever WILL understand. It's beyond their capabilities. All they know is their beloved Ramseys HAVE to be innocent, and everything else, all evidence and scientific facts, must be made to BEND to that erroneous foregone conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2011
  13. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Don't get you or me started on Tracey. What a delusional ego-maniac. I agree: Tracey either doesn't know the meaning of the word "ethics," much less practice it, or he's simply a scoundrel out for personal gain and self-promotion who doesn't care that his body of work is primarily represented now by hypocritical crocs which a 10 yr. old can see are based on speculation about manufactured evidence created by an old fool looking for his last 15 min's. of fame, Lou Smit.

    You said a mouthful there!
     
  14. cynic

    cynic Member

    Playing fast and loose with DNA:

    • Here is Lacy paving the way for potentially prosecuting Karr on the off chance she might be able to connect him to the case despite the fact his DNA didn’t match. The DNA is deemed to be meaningless.
    "The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."

    "Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.
    Mary Lacy Press Conference Re: John Mark Karr, August 29, 2006


    • With time running out in her reign of incompetency, and no more "Karrs" to conceivably pin the crime on, she decides to do a “presidential pardon” of the Ramseys. The DNA is deemed to be unassailable.
    Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence.
    Mary Lacy, Letter of exoneration to the Ramseys, July 9, 2008

    • In the final year in office, she tries to do damage control on her pathetic legacy and pretend that she is a tough DA. The DNA is back to being meaningless.
    Mary Lacy: "If I found out tomorrow that this has been a big charade, and that John Ramsey was involved in any way with this murder, I wouldn't hesitate to review it for the death penalty," she said.
    December 26, 2008

    http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_12953394#axzz1OXrl8DES

    This is Lacy in full bipolar splendor. Although “there can be no innocent explanation” for the DNA, there could foreseeably be a trial in which Boulder prosecutors would seek the death penalty against John Ramsey???
    Simply amazing.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  15. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Thanks for taking the time to put this excellent post together.
     
  16. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Thanks, Cynic, for posting that excellent DNA article. It goes to show how easily DNA can be transferred from one item to the next. The victim, of the sad story you presented, had three sets of DNA under her fingernails. The best profile came from the contaminated clippers. The more degraded could have been picked up by the victim several days before her murder. Handwashing probably accounts for it's degradation.

    It just stands to reason that if I can touch a phone and leave a flu virus on that phone; and if you can come along two hours later and get that flu virus on your hand after picking up the same phone, then, skin cell DNA is all over the place. It would be transferred in the same manner. You go to a movie theater and rest your arm on the arm rest. Chances are, you have someone's DNA on your clothing or arm. With every technological advancement, there is a resulting danger or drawback. The harvesting of minute skin cell DNA will, no doubt, result in correct convictions that would never have taken place. But, it will also allow others to get off the hook when unknown DNA shows up.

    I tend to believe this unknown JBR DNA came from something the child got for Christmas, a doll or bicycle. It may have come from the morgue but surely they would have been able to track down a match if that were the case.
     
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I may be wrong, but I don't know that in 1996--in fact, not even today--that DNA was automatically processed for every body that came through the morgue, even those autopsied. I do think a blood sample is collected and kept on file, but I'm thinking it would be rather expensive to process DNA for all. Plus labs are backed up so far with criminal case samples, that in itself has become a problem.

    Just some thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong about that and someone can bring me up to speed...?
     
  18. cynic

    cynic Member

    You’re welcome, I’ve been following the DeMocker case for a while, that was a very interesting development.
    This tidbit from an older study fits in well, I posted this over at WS about a year ago:
    A 2006 study by Poy and van Oorschot showed an example of secondary transfer when a mixed DNA profile was found on a swab taken from an examination magnifying lamp. This profile was searched in the lab's database and a match was found with a case that had been worked on the bench-top with the magnifying lamp. It was determined that DNA was transferred from the item being examined to the analyst's gloves and then onto the top of the magnifying lamp.
    Journal of Forensic Identification Volume:56 Issue:4, July/August 2006 Pages:558 to 576
    Trace DNA Presence, Origin, and Transfer within a Forensic Biology Laboratory and Its Potential Effect on Casework, Adam L. Poy ; Roland A. H. van Oorschot

    That depends, see below.
    Not all autopsies are done for forensic reasons. Non-forensic autopsies do not require blood and other samples to be stored for potential future tests. If the nail clippers were not sterilized following a non-forensic autopsy (to check fingernails for evidence of long term drug use, for example) there would be no way to eliminate that decedent as a source of contamination short of exhuming the body which is obviously not going to happen. There are a lot of variables here, the foremost being how frequently the clippers were sterilized.

    Hospital Versus Medicolegal (Forensic) Autopsies:

    In most hospital autopsies, no blood samples (of any type) are collected or retained.
    In medicolegal autopsies, it is not only necessary to collect and retain blood samples for toxicology testing, but it is prudent to also collect blood (or bone or tooth) samples specifically for potential DNA testing.

    Specialized collection cards are commercially available, which allow for safe, convenient collection and storage of blood drops for potential DNA testing. These specimens should be maintained indefinitely.

    Checklist for Medicolegal Autopsy Performance
    ❐ Obtain all available historical information prior to autopsy.
    ❐ Obtain required consent from medicolegal death investigation official (coroner/medical examiner).
    ❐ Assure the positive identity of the decedent.
    ❐ Collect appropriate evidence, in cooperation with the investigating police agency. Certain types of evidence require collection prior to disturbing the body (sexual activity kit, trace evidence).
    ❐ Perform a complete external examination, including the back, the hands, the neck, the conjunctiva, the anogenital area, and the oral cavity.
    ❐ Photograph, as dictated by case type. At the very least, an identification photograph is required.
    ❐ Perform x-rays, as warranted by the case.
    ❐ Perform complete autopsy (head, neck, chest, abdomen), including specialized examinations, as warranted.
    ❐ Properly collect and submit (or retain) samples for toxicology testing.
    ❐ Perform complete internal exam, including various specialized techniques, as warranted by the case (tongue, anterior neck, posterior neck, eyes, spinal cord, leg dissection).
    ❐ Collect and retain samples for potential DNA testing (blood spot card, hair sample).
    ❐ Check with investigation agency for latest information before signing case out.


    Basic Competencies in Forensic Pathology, Joseph A. Prahlow, MD
    http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/cap_press/basic_competencies_forensic_pathology_chapter3.pdf
     
  19. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    There is a little-known incident that has never been investigated as far as the morgue and DNA. There was a young man who worked transporting bodies to the morgue, and JB was one of them. He was found to have stolen the morgue log that showed a written entry of the receipt of JB's body. He has tried to sell the morgue log. I believe he may have been arrested for it. Well, any creep that would try to sell a morgue log simply because it was connected to this case is creepy enough to have "taken a peek" (or worse) at the "murdered beauty queen".
    Not to disparage all morgue workers, but some people seek those jobs because they have a "thing" for dead bodies, and necrophilia is not unheard of among that particular group. I am not saying he sexually abused her corpse, but he could have looked where he wasn't supposed to. He could have pulled her pants down. And that could be the male DNA that is present. I do not know if he was ever tested for a match, but I have not seen that he was.
     
  20. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Yea, I was wondering just how easily they could have tracked down a possible contamination back then. If the clippers were the instrument of transfer or contamination, then, I would think they could have narrowed that down easily. But if it was a case of some article of clothing or, whatever, it might have been tougher because, as you say, there might have been nothing to match with barring an exhumation, etc.
     
  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