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

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

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Forensics for Dummies has got a great primer on DNA.
  2. AMES

    AMES Member

    Thank you so much for this post! Do you mind if I take it on over to WBS, with credit to you? There is an IDI on the board, that keeps stating over and over and over again that the Touch DNA that was found belonged to an intruder, and that is why the Ramsey's were cleared by ML.

    Edited to add...Hope that you don't mind, but I couldn't stand it anymore, and went ahead and posted this over at WBS, before waiting for your permission...SORRY! I gave you full credit, with your name bolded and underlined...LOL. I figured that you wouldn't mind...if you do...let me know and I will head back over there and remove it.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2009
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    hahaha I came online for the first time in a couple of days and found this article and came here straight away to post it!

    I should have known you super forum sleuths were all over it!

    Yes, NO WAY that "intruder" DNA could be explained other than HE'S THE KILLER!!

    Mary Lacy, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!! :gavel:
  4. AMES

    AMES Member

    I second that! :gavel:
  5. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I third it! :gavel:
  6. Elle

    Elle Member

    No problem Ames. I received this from a Canadian friend who once posted on the boards, and he often sends me good articles. If anything else is posted like this again, feel free to go ahead and post it anywhere. We're all here for the same cause "justice" for JonBenét Ramsey.

    What puzzles me is in most manufacturing places, gloves are worn, so the DNA couldn't be from the handling of the cotton buds. It's possible this worker could have sneezed over them, but surely this happens to many workers They can't hold back a sneeze(?). I'm amazed we don't hear more stories like this, but I think we will from now on. We haven't heard the ending yet to this story.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2009
  7. AMES

    AMES Member

    Thanks Elle!

    I too, was wondering how the lady's DNA got onto the cotton buds, and wondered if she had sneezed or coughed. The article never did say how it got there. IMO..this just proves that the DNA found on JB's clothing, could have been put there by a sneeze from a panty factory worker. And that theory isn't that far fetched now.
  8. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    No, it isn't that far-fetched.

    This news story proves that contamination happens and can come from unexpected sources.
  9. AMES

    AMES Member

    Exactly!...The Rams have just been lucky...eventually that luck will run out.
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

  11. AMES

    AMES Member

  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I just found this article written by Pat Brown, former FBI profiler, if memory serves, on the "touch" DNA in this case. She also discusses it in the "comments" section.

    This article may not be new here, but for those who missed it, like me, Pat Brown knows of what she speaks!


    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 7, 2009
  13. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Furthermore, skin cells pass easily from one human to another, so that Touch DNA on JonBenét's clothing may have come from someone she touched before she touched herself. Touch DNA, therefore, is better as a test of inclusion rather than exclusion.

    We have also, at this point, only the DA's word that the tests were done properly and that they yielded those particular results. The DNA evidence has not been made public nor has it been examined in a court of law for its validity.

    Lastly, let's say we accept that the DNA evidence came from a third party. It would seem likely that there should be more of that DNA at the scene. Where is it? If the perpetrator was careless enough to not wear gloves while sexually assaulting JonBenét, should we not find many more of those skin cells on her shirt, on the blanket, on the ransom note, etc.?

    While no one is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, the presence of DNA from an unknown source doesn't necessarily prove a one-time suspect innocent either. Of all people, the DA should know this and that letter of apology should have been kept in reserve until enough evidence surfaces to effect the arrest and prosecution of the actual killer of JonBenét Ramsey.


    Excellent article, KK. Thanks for posting, and thanks to Pat Brown for writing it.
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Yeah, I couldn't believe I missed it! Good discussion in the comments section, as well.
  15. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    Good Information...

    Good information, good posts and summaries KK and Cherokee....Thanks for reposting this article and helping to make such good sense of the touch DNA....Especially bring up the question of, where is the other touch DNA that surely would have been present elsewhere at the crime scene if an intruder had truly been in to home committing the murder....

    This subject of touch DNA makes me want to again bring up the subject of exhumation....Somewhere along the line, if this investigation does indeed continue on to a conclusion, it is my opinion that JonBenet's body will need to be exhumed for further testing. This would be especially true if the authorities will base their findings on touch DNA. Wouldn't touch DNA still be present on the long buried body of JonBenet?

    If this is such an important avenue of investigation and/or acquittal of suspects, it seems that careful inch by inch examination of the corpse for touch DNA would be a mandatory approach.

    I think I have asked this question before but cannot now remember the answer given. Does the family of the murder victim have the authority to refuse exhumation of the victims body....Who does have the authority to order exhumation?

  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    I don't recall reading this excellent article, KK. Thank you for posting it.
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    The BPD would get a subpoena, I'm thinking, Voyager, and the DA would have to be in on that, as well. They would have to have evidence that this is justified before a judge would issue the order, and a family might try to stop it, but they shouldn't be able to do so if the subpoena was in fact justifiable.

    The family can have the body exhumed themselves, for their own private investigation, I think we once learned, but memory fails me as to the process that involves. The issue at the time was the "stun gun" claim of Lou "Psychic" Smit and the marks on the body.

    The problem with examining the body for any DNA at this point is that the body was washed and prepared for burial, including dressing it, so lots of "touch" DNA could be found on it, if it wasn't degraded too much. The dress JonBenet was buried in was also bought from another mother whose little girl had worn it. So you get to the problem of any "touch" DNA left on it, or deposited during dry cleaning, etc.

    On the other hand, any DNA at all may have degraded too badly to get a profile, especially at "touch" DNA levels.

    See, that's why "touch" DNA isn't the godsend the RST wants it to be: it's so incredibly minute, infinitesimal, really, that it becomes a red herring, because there is no way to know how it got there.

    As for other "touch" DNA that should have been found, as well, of course it was. I remember the Bode Tech representative giving a news reporter a tour, complete with quickie demonstration/breakdown of how she processed the longjohns, and I REMEMBER her saying during that process she DISCARDED or ELIMINATED OTHER DNA blahblahblah. At the time I thought, WAIT! WHAT?! Run that by us again! Of course, she didn't, she just kept on going and was never asked about it--EVER.

    So we expect Patsy's "touch" DNA to be on those longjohns, on the Bloomies, etc., because Patsy said she dressed JonBenet while the child lay in bed sleeping. That took a lot of tugging, didn't it? What we don't expect is John's or Burke's, or anyone else's. If there is other UNKNOWN DNA on those longjohns or on other clothing from the crime scene, etc., (not matching the alleged "intruder" DNA Team Ramsey has been thanking god for) which was found using the "touch" process, then it seems to me that would tell us something about how important that "touch" DNA really is.

    I'd bet money we'll NEVER know the answer to this.
  18. whitewitch1

    whitewitch1 Senior Member

    I'd like to see if there is DNA on that scarf JB was buried with that matches the rest of the "foreign DNA" found on her clothing. If so, I'd love to see JR 'splain that one.
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    Good thinking WW, the Ramseys sure were over anxious to take JonBenét's body away from Boulder.
  20. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Me too WW1, and welcome to the forum!
  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