These are excerpts from PMPT and JBITRI to refresh everyone's memory as to WHAT has been said in the two most often (mis)quoted books. (Please add any other excerpts you may have.)

PMPT pb p 182
"During the same week (note: Jan 1997), the CBI discovered that the stain found on JonBenét's panties contained the DNA of more than one individual. JonBenét's DNA was the major component, but there was a minor componenet consisting of DNA from another person - or possibly more than one. The CBI told the police that the Ramseys' neighbor, Joe Barnhill could not be eliminated if the minor component originated from two or more sources. Further testing would take several months, the lab said."

The CBI tests were PCR (PMPT pb p240) "The CBI had already (note: prior to Feb 1997) determined that the stain on JonBenét's underpants ... was not solely hers. A D1S80 DNA test showed that the stain came from at least two different sources. {Footnote: A D1S80 test is a PCR-based test that measures the genetic marker known as D1S80 on the DNA strand.)"

Then the evidence was transferred for further examination to Cellmark. (PMPT pb p227) "Test results can take from several days to weeks using the PCR method of testing, RFLP typing takes months. In some cases it can take up to ten months to obtain test results because the lab is so backlogged.

ST - JBITRMI, pb p204
"When the preliminary DNA results came back from the CellMark labs, .... That early report was very ambiguous. We would get a more thorough briefing in five months and would hold this early material as confidential." (note: confidential as in out of the hands of the DA's office)

p 298-300
The detectives had consulted a couple of experts in an attempt to answer four questions concerning the DNA issues: What did we have? What did it reveal? Where do we go now? Would DNA solve this case?

A special briefing by molecular biologist Melissa Weber of Cellmark Laboratories and Kathy Dressel of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation provided no miracles. The results remained frustrating and ambiguous, and even the experts did not agree on everything. Among their findings was that the DNA might not be related to the murder at all. Other results were open to interpretation.
· A head hair found at the scene appeared to belong to JonBenét.
· The primary DNA from the panties also appeared to be from her. But a secondary DNA source may have been present. If that secondary material was a mixture from two or more people, then the labs could exclude no one. Faint DNA results may have been due to “technical or stutter artifact.”
It might be as simple as JonBenét having put on a playmate’s underwear in which foreign DNA already existed. On the other hand, the mixture that had been found was complicated by a myriad of technical factors, including quality, quantity, degradation, and possible contamination. That meant that excluding people might be possible, but positive identification was unlikely.
· The fingernails of the left hand presented uncertain technical issues. JonBenét appeared to be the primary DNA source, but the experts could not exclude any male as the donor of a secondary source that was present. Issues included the possibility that multiple DNA had been under her nails for several days.
The experts noted no blood or skin tissue beneath the fingernails, as they often see when a victim has fought an attacker. However, DNA can be deposited by someone merely dragging their nails across their own cheek.

(comment: Big contradiction here – dragging one’s nails across one’s cheek would result in what type of cells under the nails? SKIN CELLS! I believe Steve has spun his own interpretation on the DNA evidence. If the foreign DNA under JB’s nails was not from blood, not from skin, WHAT was it from? If it were semen, we’d have heard about THAT! It COULD have been saliva. Even if the foreign/unknown DNA was from an innocent encounter, it HAD to be from saliva, blood, skin, or semen.

With regard to the “complicated technical factor” of “quantity”, that would only be an issue for RFLP testing, not PCR testing. I think Steve really had trouble following, interpreting, and reporting on what the “experts” were saying.)

· The fingernails of the right hand were equally ambiguous, with JonBenét again appearing to be the primary donor and once again an unidentified secondary male DNA present.
· They drew no firm conclusions regarding the pubic hair. It was deemed, however, that it might not be a pubic hair at all but possibly a hair from a chest or beneath an arm. That would confuse things even more.

We would later discuss the cleanliness of the victim, including not washing her hands, wetting the bed (comment: no DNA concern with that), not wiping thoroughly after a bowel movement, (comment: no DNA concern with that), and hating to have her fingernails trimmed. Weber said that the DNA beneath the fingernails could have come from anywhere, particularly if it had been there for several days, and that degradation was a concern.

They explained that obtaining additional DNA samples from any new suspects would not necessarily assist in identification. (comment: only partially true) Because of the possibility of mixtures from more than one source, conclusive determinations could not be reached. (comment: Steve’s interpretation leaves much to be desired. What does “conclusive” mean? Odds of 1 in X trillion would be pretty conclusive – and that would be the result of a 13 CODIS-specific loci MATCH. Odds of 1 in X millions would be pretty conclusive – and that would be the result of a less than 10 marker MATCH.)

Their results could be argued a number of ways, and defense lawyers surely would say that any unknown DNA found came from an intruder, although in fact hardly anyone could be excluded. (comment – Now here, I know for sure, Steve is WRONG. Exclusion is the easiest result to get.)

We could not determine whose DNA it was, when it was deposited, or if it had been degraded. (comment – WHAT? All along there have been clear statements from posters that have been saying it WAS degraded DNA!)

With those inconclusive findings, the district attorney asked Henry Lee if he would “unravel the DNA mess,” and Lee refused, suggesting that the FBI lab do that. “Adequate and complete testing should have been done long ago,” he scolded.

Hunter then asked what we should do to solve the case and Lee replied that he was only a scientist who could advise on evidence collection, testing, and results. Figuring out what it all meant in the company of other evidence would be somebody else’s job. “This case,” he said, “will be a war of experts.” (comment - hmmm. Still looking for that "this is not a DNA case". Sounds like Lee thinks it could be since he suggests the case will be a "war of experts".)

Trying to sound optimistic at a news conference later, Lee told reporters our chances had risen to fifty-fifty.
(comment – How do you interpret that? I interpret that Lee sees the DNA evidence as RAISING the odds.)
~~~~~~~~~~~

DNA testing has come a long ways since 1997. Dr. Henry Lee’s Interpretation of Complex Forensic DNA Mixtures <1> states: “Forensic evidentiary samples routinely contain DNA from multiple contributors. The interpretation of these mixtures can be a challenging task for the DNA scientist.” He then discusses “Several approaches which have been employed to assess the significance of an inclusion/match when DNA mixtures have been detected in casework samples.” These points Dr. Lee discusses include some of the points Steve Thomas mentions, but concludes “The process of mixture interpretation can be relatively straightforward or quite complex, involving laboratory and statistical considerations. While many of the technical challenges are routine features of forensic laboratory analysis and therefore cannot be eliminated, use of conservative statistical methods should obviate court objections and reduce the difficulties in mixture genotype assignment.” THIS IS IMPORTANT!!

<1> Interpretation of Complex Forensic DNA Mixtures, Carll Ladd, Henry C. Lee, Nicholas Yang, Frederick R. Bieber

DEGRADATION: “The breakdown of DNA into smaller fragments by chemical or physical means.”

http://www.ugc.edu.hk/rgc/rgcnews7/Pages/DNA-E.html

Key Points:

Statisticians at The University of Hong Kong have been helping to solve crime scene complications where potential evidence is stained with DNA from more than one person.

For a positive identification, forensic investigations involving DNA often need at least nine matches at sites, or loci, identified at specific points across the 23 pairs of chromosomes found in humans.

All loci are “non-coding” which means they do not describe the colour of skin, hair, eyes, or ethnic orientation.

“We wanted to find out which sites were the least related. The more unrelated the sites are, the easier the calculation.” With mixed DNA stains from a crime scene, samples found by forensic detectives may include DNA from both the victim and perpetrator.

“In mixed stains, we can identify the DNA fragments contributed by the victim which leaves the remaining DNA fragments for comparison with the suspect.”
Comment: The statistical results from a DNA "match" is what is important. This indicates that the specific loci found to match (between forensic DNA and a suspect's DNA) alters the calculation.

The theorems he obtained can be used in cases where more than 10 people are involved, as well as for multi-ethnic groups and relatives of suspects where DNA similarities may exist.

This would explain WHY the Ramseys have been excluded as donors to the crime scene DNA.

Many posters ask WHY the foreign/unknown/unidentified DNA at the crime scene was termed "degraded/incomplete/fractured/cracked/old/etc" and JonBenét's was not.

We know the autopsy would have given a full/fresh DNA profile for JonBenét and it would have been compared to the DNA fragments she contributed to the mixed stain. The remaining DNA fragments could then be identitied as attributable to an unknown donor.

We don't know IF the DNA was degraded or contaminated (degraded due to environmental issues, perhaps due to urination at death, or mishandling during collection and storage; or contaminated due to errors in collection or errors in handling at the lab).

11. "RE: Answering a BORG question - or 2"
In response to message #10

Someone wondered about Lin Wood's statement that "half a dozen" foreign DNA markers from the fingernails were found to be "in common" with the foreign DNA in the panties. This person's question was "What about the other markers from under the nails that didn't match"? I think that's an EXCELLENT question.
What I believe the answer to that question is:

There were only half a dozen CODIS-specific markers extracted from the foreign DNA under the nails. All of those matched the same six CODIS markers in the foreign DNA found in the panties (if Lin Wood has his information correct and I believe he does - he's a very cautious man IMO).

One should wonder why. We don't really know, but it could be that the kit used to extract the DNA information was designed to only draw information from six markers.

Or, it may have been due to an error (contamination) in the collection of the DNA under the nails AND in the first blood spot (at autopsy, storage of the sample, at the crime scene). It may have been an error (contamination) in handling at the lab. It may have been due to degradation (environment).

The Reporting on the DNA in this case has been VERY poor all around. Given into the hands of us posters, it has been further Misconstrued, IMO.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, most DNA kits used by the labs only look at six (or so) CODIS-specific markers. A "half dozen" markers in common between the fingernail DNA and the pantie DNA would then be all that was established.

Keep in mind that the DNA is not so "minute" that there is nothing there but the six or ten or thirteen CODIS markers. There is a whole lot of OTHER DNA information there. What is extracted for the purposes of a profile for DNA comparison are very specific loci that separate us from each other for identification purposes.

I also believe the first blood spot was not as good a specimen as the second spot and base that belief on recent quotes. I could be wrong.

I think the testing of the DNA is confusing.
We have the crime scene DNA (fingernails, panties). We have been led to believe it is degraded or contaminated in some way. The reason/s for this vague reference (degraded/contaminated) could be due to a number of possibilities - environmental factors, mishandling in collection, mishandling in the lab. The good news, however, is that the DNA has enough (10) of the (13) REQUIRED/SPECIFIED CODIS-required markers to check it against the databanks.

Most, if not all, of the suspects have had their DNA compared to the crime scene DNA. My guess is that for financial reasons, some of them may have been tested on a preliminary basis - starting with blood type - and may have been excluded from further comparison on that basis (maybe not). Most, if not all, were compared by way of kits that compare only 5 or 6 of the 13 specific CODIS-required markers. If NONE of those match, exclusion. If 5 of the 6 do not match, exclusion. If 1 of the 6 do not match, exclusion. (On the other hand, if 5 of the 6 match, they can conclude they have the wrong man, but they might be on track for a genetic family relationship).

Say they get a match of all 5 or 6 markers from that kit's test/comparison (the 5 or 6 specific markers from the crime scene DNA match the same 5 or 6 specific markers from the suspect). Other kits would be used for that sample to see if ALL of the markers match. If the crime scene DNA gives only 10 very specific CODIS-eligible identifiers/markers and a suspect's DNA matches those same 10 very specific markers - Bingo! Step two is a mathematical calculation is done to establish the odds of that kind of match 'randomly' occurring (usually in the 1 in X (edited to) trillions range).

Convicted violent offenders' DNA entered into CODIS will be the full 13 CODIS-selected genetic markers (arrived at through fresh DNA collection). They are CSF1PO, FGA, TH01, TPOX, vWA, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51 and D21S11.

If the 10 Ramsey crime scene markers (10 of those 13 listed above) match a suspect or a felon in the database, you have a HIT.

Over the course of 7 years, DNA testing has improved, particularly with smaller samples and degraded and mixed samples. Who knows what tests have been conducted and what 'refined' methods have been applied in the Ramsey case. We are given the impression the BPD did not keep up with the evolving DNA testing improvements and left the crime scene samples basically sitting on a shelf. We realy don't know exactly what they have or have not done. There has been much confusion in the Reporting of the DNA information perhaps due to the Reporter not being clear on its meaning and having difficulty with Intepretation. Too many unsourced statements and too many out of context statements have been circulated IMO.

Another problem may have been that the crime scene DNA profile simply did not get entered into the state databanks due to some reason that deemed the profile 'unsuitable' and no one cared enough to carry the ball and ensure its value was refined and redefined. JMO!

I hope some day we find out the details that will explain this long delay.

Rainsong

Question: Could the fact that the suspect DNA was either degraded or contaminated result from it having been donated long before the killing of JonBenet and then transferred to the crime scene?

First someone wanting to plant evidence is going to do a real good job of it and plant a whole lot, so as to make sure.

Second, degraded dna can easily result from the actions of bacteria from the urogenital tract.

Third, if it is a scratch that drew blood and intruder put his hand to the wound thus getting finger slightly bloody and transferring that to the panties, then fingernails would have epithelial cells and panties would have blood cells. Someone who planted the evidence would have to have obtained each substance from some unknown 'contributor'.

Some new kits will combine amplification of 8 STR loci (rather than 6) PLUS gender identification (amelogenin). Just add the DNA extraction into a pre-made mix and get results in just a few hours (like a cake mix, it just keeps getting easier and easier ...)

I would also guess that if anybody who has given a sample for genotyping has matched by now, then there would be no need to enter the perp's genotypes into CODIS unless they are trying for some reason to find out if the perp has committed other crimes as part of building a case?????? But only if the perp is already locked up, for surely they wouldn't let him be on the loose if they had a match.

Here's part of what you helped get from that screen capture, about single individual vs. 2 or more (WebbSleuths topic # 1661) (I've added some stars to highlight the relevant part):

DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997

EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
#13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey
_________________________________________________________________(fold in page??)
LABORATORY REPORT

BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
??????? Section Testing WB

BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
WB WB

BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
WA WB WB W18 (?)

THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.

(the left side of the page seems to be cut off and starts with)
FED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX-
(left side cut off) COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. ****IF THE MINOR
(left side cut off) 5 (or S or?) #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
(JOHN is cut off) ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, JEFF
RAMSEY (blacked out)
(cut off??) EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED.*****

Thanks, Saluda. I think you have made a good point. If you notice, this report was dated Jan 13/97 and would have been the earliest testing at CBI. We DO KNOW, however, that MELINDA Ramsey IS excluded, as are all females (and yet this report says she would not be excluded if the minor component were from more than one donor), so I wonder about Schiller's reporting in PMPT as to whether or not he is referring to Barnhill's DNA being inconclusive after the testing at Cellmark. Perhaps CBI did not do gender testing, while Cellmark or the FBI lab did (I'm thinking of Beckner's deposition in naming the FBI lab) much later when the GJ was sitting(?). I don't quite know what to make of Schiller's reference to Barnhill in this context. This is part of what I was referring to with regard to the Reporting of the DNA over the years. BPD asked for Ariana Pugh's DNA well AFTER (Apr 99 - while the GJ was sitting) these initial tests were done, so THAT is a puzzler, too.

I think we can safely conclude that the Ramseys' DNA does not 'line up'. Only a single allele in the minor component would be required for exclusion and the fact that they have not been indicted would suggest the DNA is definitely foreign.

I have always thought that the Grand Jury played a BIG role in straightening out some of these DNA questions that existed prior to and during their sitting (Sep 1998 - Oct 1999) . I believe they demanded more tests be done and I seem to recall someone in the persecution team stating (in April??) that the GJ was waiting for some more tests (although the "tests" were not specifically identified as DNA tests, but Ariana Pugh's DNA was collected in Apr 99). This public announcement was made right after Lou Smit and John Douglas managed to get the ear of the GJ, so I suspect they contributed to the GJ's request for more information that was not all Ramsey-damning. In the end, they were unable to indict anyone (despite the best efforts of the persecution) and additional DNA test results may have contributed to that decision. Speculation on my part.

I would also guess that if anybody who has given a sample for genotyping has matched by now, then there would be no need to enter the perp's genotypes into CODIS unless they are trying for some reason to find out if the perp has committed other crimes as part of building a case?????? But only if the perp is already locked up, for surely they wouldn't let him be on the loose if they had a match.

The only way the perp's typing would be in CODIS is if he was convicted of a violent crime and the state in which he was convicted entered his data into their databank.

edited to add: PMPT was copyrighted in 1999. Its writing was most likely ongoing from shortly after the crime (starting early 1997) and continued during the GJ hearings (ending late Oct 99).

I know there are various different procedures as to is sampled and what is done with those samples if there is no later conviction. I think one problem may be the rather vast and oft-mentioned delay in processing evidence.

I wish we could find out for sure if Gary Oliva is in fact in the database. I have always assumed that he is, but sometimes prosecutors accept a plea to a burglary rather than go to trial on a rape charge. This can have an affect on dna submission in some states.

I can not see some down-and-out type having done this and never having before come in contact with law enforcement, probably on some serious charges. Now I don't know if those charges would have resulted in dna sampling or not.

Some have theorized a 'survivalist-type' might be responsible. Alot of those people lead lives that are "off paper". They don't get into databases much at all.

Those who have speculated that the perpetrator might be a disgruntled former associate of a prior business entity somewhat along the lines of the musician let go by the Beetles prior to their becoming famous would be most comfortable with the perpetrator not having his dna in the CODIS database because they don't view the perpetrator as some violent career criminal but a man who had a specific grudge and might well be otherwise rather law-abiding.

Perhaps the best step for the investigators might be to campaign for a clearing away of the massive dna backlog. The crime labs want to hire career employees rather than bring in temporary molecular biologists. This means the backlog will not get caught up.

Consider perhaps David Westerfield: He was not in any dna database. He had not even had much of a criminal history. Perhaps the cops might have been suspicious of his nocturnal birdwatching, but he was never arrested for it. The Yosemite handyman with years of a desire to rape and decapitate women was not in a dna database.

CODIS is, I'm sure, a great investigatory tool, but it has a considerable element of 'locking the barn door' to it. Most of those convicted of rape are serving prison terms, if there are any CODIS hits for them, it would be for prior offenses.

My point in the previous post was that K & C should have been able to compare Ramseys, Oliva, Colfax, McReynolds, etc., etc. to the perp's good CODIS-eligible genotypes by now. If anybody under the big umbrella were a match, there would be no obvious reason to submit the perp's good CODIS-eligible genotypes to CODIS. I am not suggesting that they would think anyone else's DNA (anyone else who might be under the umbrella) to be in CODIS. K & C don't have to submit Oliva's genotypes to CODIS to compare them to the perp's, for example. They can do that right there in perfect city.

I don't know if I'd go that far ...

Mame has indicated that (inside) information she has implies there were INCONCLUSIVE results on some of the suspects compared. I think I'd also be somewhat reluctant to say that BEFORE the files were all turned over to Keenan's office that ALL tests that needed doing had actually been done. (Didn't I read a statement from Bennett - recently - that the first months were spent sorting through all the files and getting tests done that needed doing - or something along that line?)

Well, it is entirely possible that the samples obtained by BPD are problematic. For one, it seems they did a lot of mouth swabbing, rather than drawing blood. I cannot imagine why they would swab rather than draw blood. Drawing blood would definitely be the preferred way to go, and this was known by 1996. They would get much, much more DNA from blood than from scraping the inside of the mouth. This would allow more tests as the science got better. Plus the mouth has lots of bacteria, which is a major source of degradation. Bacteria like to have DNA for breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner, midnight snack, etc.

So, one problem that Keenan may have is that there are big problems with the samples collected by BPD. Helgoth is dead (never sampled), and Santa McReynolds has died. Do they need to try to resample people? We can't know because Keenan is keeping (blabber/leaking) mouths closed, which is possibly for the best.

Santa McReynolds' genotypes could probably be reconstructed, if needed, from the genotypes of Janet McReynolds and their children and other relatives.

I do worry, however, that the case will never be solved BECAUSE DA Keenan is keeping so much information unavailable to the public, who could help solve the case. The old-fashioned forensics method is to keep information secret and not available to the public, in order to prevent potential harm to the prosecution of a case. But that approach is not always the way to go now that DNA is going to be a major piece of evidence that convicts - and, I have posted cautions about the potential for abuse of this. In 1996, I don't think most perps were savvy enough to know enough about planting DNA. But LE personnel and experts available to defense attorneys were.

I think Keenan should get as much information as possible out to the public, to let the public help with solving this crime. Boulder could redeem its sinful handling of this case by encouraging its citizens and others to help solve the crime. Other times I think, no, Boulder just wants it to go away, keep pretending they are the perfect town, keep letting parents send their kids to college there by keeping a lid on everything, never solving the crime, and just letting it quietly fade away.

I would strongly advise any parent from letting a child go off to college in Boulder. There are equally attractive and safer alternatives. For assertive undergraduates or graduate students or faculty who like to climb rocks or ski, this crime and the shameful way the investigation was handled - it probably won't make much of a dent.

But I hope that the more the public becomes aware of what happened in Boulder and what continues to be the case in Boulder, the worse it is going to be for Boulder. Because that will be the main press that causes this crime to be solved. And I pray that the DNA that has been sent in to CODIS is really the perp's and not some lying, false (i.e., let's put this poor, street person's DNA into CODIS) DNA. I don't think it is.

That's how I understand it. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if there is still DNA left untested locally, but they decided to go ahead and submit to CODIS while they finish up any tests they have in CO. You'd think they would be done with that by now, but you never know.

TO CONSIDER

1. A poster or two has referred to URINE or FECES - from secondary transfer in JonBenét's travels into washrooms in the days leading up to this crime - as a possible source of the DNA. Urine is NOT a good DNA source. It is not the urine itself that will provide DNA evidence, but shed epithelial cells IN the urine that might give (weak) forensic hope. A 'drop' of either feces or urine under the nails would not be of much forensic value IMO.

2. The common refrain for dismissing the significance of the DNA as having forensic value has been that it was 'degraded'. Questions arise as to 'how' it could have degraded in a 12-24 hour period. We don't KNOW if it was degraded or contaminated. JonBenét's own urine may have contributed to degradation/contamination. Collection procedures may have contributed to degradation/contamination. Lab procedures may have contributed to degradation/contamination.

3. Multiple donors to the mixture found in this case has been speculated upon. Labs deal with this 'problem' all the time. Dr. Henry Lee and others have provided forensic DNA specialists with ways in which to evaluate a multiple donor mixed DNA sample. It is not an insurmountable problem at all.

Rainsong

DNA is loaded with genetic information. Some seem to think that the "10 markers" is ALL that was there (in the forensic sample). That is what some seem to mean when they say "such a MINUTE amount".

Of course there was more genetic information in that sample than the 10 CODIS-specific markers. Tons more.

Rainsong