Henry Lee: Investigators are still waiting for a DNA hit

The only think I can think of with respect to the nylon cord - could they have found blood (caused by an injury from cutting it)? Did anyone test the blade of BR's Swiss Army Knife found nearby? It'd answer a big question if fibers from the cord were found on the blade or (even better)- someone's blood/DNA.

 

DNA is left simply from touching nylon cord. (It probably has to be a forceful touch as opposed to a glancing touch.) In fact, there's an article from 2008 which deals with just that subject:

Analysis of LCN DNA from synthetic ropes: A practical approach used in real homicide investigation

Abstract

An old woman was found dead in her apartment in the south of Italy. Her arms were tied behind the back with a nylon rope. Due to the absence of any biological or fingerprints evidence, investigations were immediately focused on the rope. Few centimetres of the knot and of the portions not in direct contact with the victim were separately collected. Samples were firstly washed with sterile bidistilled water. The obtained solutions were then submitted to several concentration/filtration steps by means of Centricon™ filters. Hence, the pellets were processed through Low Copy Number DNA adjusted protocols (low reaction volume and “low binding” materials) which included a preliminary quantification of the total DNA by means of Real Time PCR. A complete male 15 STR loci profile was obtained from some of the above reported samples. Thanks to the collaboration with the local law enforcement, reference samples from the relatives of some alleged offenders were collected and submitted to the author's lab. Kinship testing revealed a high degree of parentage with the genotype of the father and the sister of one of the suspects. The efforts of the investigators were then addressed to the latter one, eventually leading to a prosecution for second-degree murder.

It's possible that JonBenet's killer took his/her gloves off to do the weave on the ligature and tie the knots.

 

Could the male DNA found on JonBenet's waistband and in the bloodstain in her underwear come from a police officer or a technician? I read in the Bonita papers that after John Meyer came to JonBenet's house to view her body, Patricia Dunn, his assistant, and Det. Arndt continued an examination on site, removing her longjohns and examining her underwear. Perhaps a male technician did a presumptive test for blood on the spot in her underwear.

I'm sure that they were all wearing gloves, but I don't think that latex gloves, at least at that time, were free of DNA. Don't you just buy them in bulk? While precautions are used in the removal of gloves to avoid contaminating the wearer with bodily fluids, I wonder whether the same precautions were used in putting them on. The same problem might apply to the Q-tip used for a presumptive blood test.

It always seemed a little odd that this male DNA would reside just in that blood drop.

I know the Bonita papers aren't a particularly reliable source, but it does seem likely that some investigation was done on JonBenet's body while she was still in her home.

 

Fr. Brown

After I read the Abstract from your previous note describing the "washing" of the rope and gaining some "loci" from it and then the processing further and catching the perp I thought for sure you would be remarking about why that could still be done on the hand bindings and knot around the broken paint brush. I would imagine it could be done today if there was any interest on the part of LE there. What a clever way to seek cells. I seriously doubt that the perp of this crime used gloves in his/her own house. They could easily explain away why their cells are there from now until the cows come home. The exception would be of course, that their cells or her cells should not have been there in such an abundance inter woven into that mess of a knot if she merely handled it after purchase.

In my next life I would like to be a forensics lab tech and do all of this great and minute examining.

 

I'm not sure the police haven't done it. In fact, I think it's likely they have. They don't have to announce the result.

I think the gloves would probably come off to tie the knots. And since both Ramseys have disavowed the cord, finding either's DNA in certain areas on it would be hard to explain.

 

JAR's semen WAS found on the blanket in the suitcase. That is known. There was NO semen found on JB, her clothes. body, or the blanket she was wrapped in.
You can't assume the lab techs wore gloves. Mayer used the same dirty nail clipper for all 10 of JB's nails, in clear violation of standard sterile autopsy procedures. They may even have been used on other bodies before they were used on JB without being sterilized.

 

Yes, I know about the semen. I'm sorry if I was unclear. (I need to borrow Patsy's style manual. NYT was it?) But I now think that Beckner was just talking about mitochondrial testing of the hair found on JonBenet's blanket (determined to belong to Patsy).

I won't assume that the lab techs wore gloves, though I think it's very likely that they wore them in the lab and morgue. I don't know how often they changed them.

But my recent point was about how the male DNA could have gotten on the longjohns and in the drop of blood in her underwear. I've always assumed that her body lay on the floor in the living room all those hours without being touched by anybody besides the coroner. I think this is an unwarranted assumption. Those longjohns probably went down and up at least once. They were searching for evidence; they'd need to have an idea what happened to her. I doubt that anybody was worried about leaving DNA on the waistband.

 

I agree.
However, there is another way the DNA could have gotten in both areas. Touch DNA is skin cells, and easily transferrable. That DNA could have belonged to ANY male that was at either JB's house that day (BR had some friends over that day) or at the White's. It is a mistake to assume that the unknown male DNA is from an ADULT male. We simply don't know that as a fact. Both Patsy and JR handled the longjohns and/or panties. Any one of several male guests that day could be the donor, and either parent could have gotten the skin cells on themselves that way. Then, this was transferred to the longjonhs and panties by one (or both) of them that night.

 

All skin cells aren't created equal. What I've heard Selma Eikelenboom say is that a "forceful touch" is required for touch DNA and the reason, I believe, is that easily shed skin cells have been deprived of their blood supply as they travel up the epidermal strata. As a result they have degraded DNA. This mat of dead and dying skin cells is, according to wikipedia, 25 or 30 layers thick. These cells are easily transferrable, but don't have intact DNA. I think this makes the mode of transfer you are suggesting somewhat less likely.

I'm not assuming, of course, that the DNA is from an adult, but the particular scenario I put forward requires one.

 

You know, you raise an interesting point here about the gloves. What if the unknown DNA was present on the latex gloves used by an examiner or detective, etc.?

These gloves, as you say, are simply pulled out of a box which contains multiple pairs....anyone could be handling them in packaging, getting them out of the box, etc.

At any rate. I saw a very interesting 48 HOURS tonight where a daughter was convicted of murdering her mother by stabbing. Much evidence pointed toward the daughter. She had a fresh cut on her hand...a video camera showed her buying bandages, etc...in the early morning hours when her mother was killed....mother and daughter was fighting about daughter's partying....daughter told friends her mother was a boetch, etc. etc....

However, there was unknown DNA at the crime scene, in mothers bedroom where she was murdered..and it never has been matched to boyfriends, family acquaintances, acquaintances...etc.....

Yet, the daughter was convicted and is spending 20 years in prison...

Investigators said that unknown DNA could have gotten there in a number of ways.....

 

Maybe it's more likely that the cells were transferred directly from fingers by virtue of the "forceful touch" reason I mentioned above. Dead skin cells in the outer layers of epidermis have had their cytoplasms replaced by keratin. (I'm just going by wikipedia here.) I surmise that their nuclei have also been at least partially replaced by protein. A forceful touch then might be required to transfer living skin cells with intact DNA.

But I don't think it's impossible that a criminalist or a police officer who has been wearing the same pair of gloves for a while--rubbing his nose, scratching his face--might transfer his own DNA which is now on the outside of his gloves to other items. Or he might transfer someone else's. Maybe he's not even wearing gloves.

In any case, I've assumed that JonBenet's longjohns were essentially untouched after she was brought upstairs, but I'm not sure this assumption is justified.

 

daughter that murdered mother

I watched that show too and of course the defense tried to say that since there was unknown dna on the mom's bed that it belonged to the REAL killer. The dna could not be matched to anyone but it can't be dated either can it? I wonder how long it lasts?

 

It lasts until it is rubbed or washed away, but it will degrade over time. Here we also have the same problem. The DNA in the mother's bed does not prove it was left by her killer, just as the DNA on JB's clothes does not prove it was left by HER killer. Could that person have been there? Not at the time of the crime(s) without leaving some other evidence (hair, fibers, etc.) behind.

 

There will never be an anwser to the DNA question IMO. What a waste of time they are spending.