DNA Test from CBS Special
#1
On the CBS television show The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, “pseudo-expert” Henry Lee [1] performed DNA tests on some brand new underwear fresh off the shelf.  The test consisted of:

1) Spraying the underwear with chemicals to locate regions that may contain DNA.

2) Cutting out the identified regions.

3) Submitting the cuttings for DNA testing.

It was reported that female DNA was found.


This is an incompetently designed test.

What should have been done:

1) Randomly drop colored solution or other easily identifiable markings on the crotches of the underwear --- no more than a few such drops per piece of underwear, similar in size and distribution as the blood spots found on JonBenét's underwear.

2) Cut out these randomly identified regions.

3) Submit the cuttings for testing for the presence of male DNA, not female DNA – that is, ignore findings of female DNA.


Spraying the underwear with chemicals to locate regions that contain organic material is a stupid mistake that shows the sloppiness that “pseudo-expert” Henry Lee brings to many of his cases.  The relevant question is not: “Can we find DNA somewhere on these panties?”  but rather: “How likely is it that a spot of blood would land on a region that contains male DNA?”

Claiming that finding female DNA somewhere on the panties is significant is just another erroneous conclusion of the error-prone “pseudo-expert” Henry Lee.  Throughout the history of the garment industry, females dominate production.  The likelihood of male DNA landing on garments compared to the likelihood of female DNA is and always has been far, far lower.  Again, the question isn't “Can we find DNA somewhere on these panties?”  but rather: “How likely is it that a spot of blood would land on a region that contains male DNA?”

Even though this test is incompetently designed, the approximate likelihood of finding male DNA in a region of 0.5 inches in diameter that is randomly chosen can be confidently stated as zero, based on the information provided in the show regarding this test.  The sample size would need to be vastly increased to distinguish, for example, “one in a million” from zero.  Because this incompetently designed test has been not only been performed, but publicized in the popular press, it should be replaced by a relevant test like the one that I have described above, performed by competent personnel at an independent laboratory.

[1] Description of Henry Lee quoted from: STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 3RD CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE
BURKE RAMSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CBS CORPORATION, CRITICAL CONTENT, LLC, JIM CLEMENTE, LAURA RICHARDS, A. JAMES KOLAR, JAMES R. FITZGERALD, STANLEY B.BURKE, WERNER U. SPITZ, and HENRY C. LEE, Defendants.
Reply
#2
Henry Lee was once the most respected man inhttp://www.webbsleuths.org/newreply.php?tid=675 his field.

And when I spoke to him myself, he was very professional and a gentleman who seems to want nothing more than to find the truth in this case.

I don't want to knock his reputation but it seems to me no expert can do a good job without access to the truth, all of it. I think he was hand fed just certain bits of "evidence", led down a merry path - - and he came to bad conclusions.

After the lawsuit, I hope he will go public with his story. I am sure it will be interesting.
Reply
#3
Henry Lee has fooled a lot of people.
Reply
#4
I honestly want to give Henry Lee the benefitof a doubt. Just me but I watched the show again and it looks so "choppy" to me. I think they mayhave taped a hundred hours and then made a script from what they had.

I don't see it happening but wouldn't it be great if we all got to see the entire 100 hours unedited?

I can just imagine the conversations caught accidently in the background. "Let's make some really stained sheets and add those to the show, supporting the wet bed theory. But we have photos of her bed and sheets. Yeah, but look at them, the bed wasn't wet or stained. We need wet and stained pictured. Well how do we stain the sheets? Lemon JELLO!

Seriously sick stuff - and I hate to think Henry Lee would go along with that.
Reply
#5
I agree that the show is absolute crap.  Henry Lee may or may not approve of it.  Henry Lee may be sincere or he may be a hired gun.  He may be somewhere in-between the two, and that is my impression based on what he's said and done over the past few years.  However:

The important issue that caused me to create this thread is that Henry Lee did some testing that doesn't prove at all what he claims, namely that the DNA evidence has no forensic value because he found female DNA somewhere on panties from a package of them.  As far as we can see from what was presented, it shows practically the OPPOSITE of his claim if it shows anything at all.  He is making mistakes that are orders of magnitude off, that is more than one factor of ten off.  It's like having the IRS tell you that instead of $10,000 of taxes for 2016, you owe them $10 million.  Or they send you a refund for $9,990.  That's how far off he is.

Given that he testifies at trials to determine people's fate, leading to the possibilities of death sentences or life without parole for innocent people and killers going free, this is very bad news.
Reply
#6
I believe the other panties from that package were never tested and ....IDI or BORG.... all have to agree that was a mistake.

Maybe that is something they want to do in the new tests.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)