touch DNA info
#1
Angela Williamson is a DNA expert who worked at BODE labs.  On touch DNA she shared this with Boulder DA investigator Horita. 

She once took a swab from a rape victim's pubic hair and from that hair shaft she could pick up the DNA of her rapist.

I thought that was interesting.
Reply
#2
This is from Kolar’s book

There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles – five male profiles and one female profile.
DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides.
In addition to JonBenet’s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)
The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified male #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers)

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Touch DNA (TDNA) testing, all presumably done at the Bode facility revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings – male #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the “garrote” – male #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)

MY COMMENTS - I was very disappointed when I saw the fingernail results, I don't think anything came from those samples.

The fact that the DNA from both sides of the leggings matched the DNA mixed with her blood in her panties is very significant to me.

I have not seen the profiles from tests done on any of the cords and since Kolar has proven himself to be a liar, I hesitate to believe what Kolar shared - I believe he is one of those cops who feels it is OK to say or do anything to advance his personal theory. To tell a lie is nothing.

But if they found male DNA on the cords, had it belonged to a Ramsey it would have been made public LONG ago. It was not - and you can be sure the BORG wouldn't make it public tht it was more evidence of an intruder.

6 and 7 markers, not enough to make a match. Just enough, apparently, to say it can't possibly match (perhaps) but I see nothing that says it could not be a match to the DNA found in her panties. So for now, without seeing some lab report or hearing news from a trusted source, I will say I think Kolar is talking up his sleeve again.
Reply
#3
(09-02-2017, 08:21 PM)jameson245 Wrote: This is from Kolar’s book

There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles – five male profiles and one female profile.
DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides.
In addition to JonBenet’s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)
The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified male #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers)

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Touch DNA (TDNA) testing, all presumably done at the Bode facility revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings – male #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the “garrote” – male #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)

MY COMMENTS - I was very disappointed when I saw the fingernail results, I don't think anything came from those samples.

The fact that the DNA from both sides of the leggings matched the DNA mixed with her blood in her panties is very significant to me.

I have not seen the profiles from tests done on any of the cords and since Kolar has proven himself to be a liar, I hesitate to believe what Kolar shared - I believe he is one of those cops who feels it is OK to say or do anything to advance his personal theory.  To tell a lie is nothing.

But if they found male DNA on the cords, had it belonged to a Ramsey it would have been made public LONG ago.  It was not - and you can be sure the BORG wouldn't make it public tht it was more evidence of an intruder.

6 and 7 markers, not enough to make a match.  Just enough, apparently, to say it can't possibly match (perhaps) but I see nothing that says it could not be a match to the DNA found in her panties.  So for now, without seeing some lab report or hearing news from a trusted source, I will say I think Kolar is talking up his sleeve again.

From Paula Woodwards website

[color=rgba(35, 32, 31, 0.6)]I asked DNA expert Dr. Elizabeth Johnson from Thousand Oaks, California to review the 1997 findings.  She wrote that the minor or foreign DNA was ‘very weak’.  Dr. Johnson indicated that the DNA from all three 1997 samples [panties and left and right fingernails from JonBenét] was from the same person. She added that, if the DNA from these samples was from the same person, it eliminated the Ramseys and their family members as contributors to the mixture.[/color]
Reply
#4
I have the full reports on the fingerprints and while some felt the fact there was something foreign there was important - and I agree it could be - it was so weak I honestly wondered why they mentioned it. Oh, maybe early on it was good to show it could have been an intruder, but when the DNA from the panties was so clear - and matched the DNA from the sides of the long johns - - THAT should have been the focus of all DNA discussions.

Just being honest, I would think any honest lawyer would tell a jury that the fingernail DNA was too weak to be helpful - please focus on what was mixed with her blood from the sexual assault she endured that night.
Reply
#5
Something that is not clear about all of the male results, but especially male #3, #4, and #5, is whether or not they could all actually be the same.  In other words, how many of these are actually provably exclusive to one another? 

It appears that different numbers of markers found are presented by Kolar to create the impression that there are five individuals involved.  That's not necessarily the case at all.  It could be, for example, that any number of these profiles differ only in the number of markers that were identifed.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was determined that Kolar is completely misinterpreting the data. 

Without proof of mutual exclusivity, the profiles should not be called "Male #1," "Male #2," etc. but instead should be called "Male Profile #1," "Male Profile #2," etc. so as not to mislead readers of reports, newspaper articles, books, etc. as well as attorneys, judges, and juries.
Reply
#6
Right, there seems to be 5 male profiles and no information on how well they match each other.

But the important one, that found mixed with her blood, is enough to identify her assailant if it matches any suspect ever.
Reply
#7
Yes, that's absolutely right:

The proper presumption is that male DNA mixed with her blood is extremely unlikely to have any other explanation than that this is the DNA of her killer or an accomplice of the killer. 

A drop of blood don't just so happen to drop only on the single place where there is already male DNA on a young girl's underwear, nor does a male accidentally and innocently put his (perhaps saliva-covered) finger into a drop of blood on a young girl's underwear which has only a drop or so of blood on it. 

If we were talking about a menstruating woman who invited homeless men into her house to wash their faces with her bloody underwear, we would be entitled to make a different presumption.
Reply
#8
That was an image I didn't need. UGH!

But so true.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)