About Touch DNA- Bode Technology
Mame

Evanston, IL

#21 Jul 17, 2008
Indigo,

The way I understand the test so far...is that there are many possible uses...

When used to test for skin cell DNA through clothing requires "force"...so it's natural that DNA labs would attempt to target those areas.

Again, if this test were the only DNA test done IMO it would be far more suspect and more than likely inadmissible in any courtroom. However, the results confirm and strengthen earlier testing on other clothing done by many different labs...with the same result.

Making Dr. Lee's factory worker sneeze theory almost impossible.

I think the questions to be asked relate to the handling of the body and details on the protocol and testing of members of the coroner's office...along with the packaging and storing of the items by the BPD.

Again, I think the biggest questions regarding this type of test are when it is used as the only test...where it's sensitivity could be a negative...
Mame

Evanston, IL

#22 Jul 17, 2008
Sorry for the double post...I got an error message that the post did not go through....

:)
Nelly

Port Orchard, WA

#23 Jul 17, 2008
DNA of 'male DNA' should ALSO be on LOWER LEGS of LONGJOHN'S.
Mame

Evanston, IL

#24 Jul 17, 2008
Here's another article that just came over the wire:

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/255603...
candy

East Lansing, MI

#25 Jul 17, 2008
Thanks Mame! Today I asked a DNA expert this question:

Can DNA, which was in minute particles of saliva in her panties, when
dried, equal the skin cell DNA that was found on her waistband, from the
same DNA donor/profile?

The answer is YES! I'm giving this it's own thread, so people can see this, if they don't see it here.

Since: Jul 08

Evanston, IL

#26 Jul 17, 2008
I just saw it...but, I'm not sure what you're saying? Just give some more details...

Thanks!
candy

East Lansing, MI

#27 Jul 17, 2008
It means the DNA in 3 locations could have come from one source, the panties DNA. When it dries, this expert said, it becomes skin cell DNA.
Nelly

Port Orchard, WA

#28 Jul 17, 2008
candy wrote:
It means the DNA in 3 locations could have come from one source, the panties DNA. When it dries, this expert said, it becomes skin cell DNA.
does that mean it could have been planted? If the DNA was on a fork say, could the fork be wet and rubbed on the obvious spots and transfer the DNA that way?
Indigo

United States

#29 Jul 17, 2008
candy wrote:
It means the DNA in 3 locations could have come from one source, the panties DNA. When it dries, this expert said, it becomes skin cell DNA.
Thanks for the legwork,Candy!
Henri McPhee

Plymouth, UK

#30 Jul 18, 2008
Nelly wrote:
<quoted text>
does that mean it could have been planted? If the DNA was on a fork say, could the fork be wet and rubbed on the obvious spots and transfer the DNA that way?
Thatís a sensible comment for Nelly to make about this Ramsey case DNA business.

I believe that itís theoretically possible to Ďplantí DNA at a crime scene. There is a story that Iíve posted before on JonBenet forums that in the car thief world in Manchester, UK, the police were discovering that car thieves were taking cigarette butts from litter bins and then planting those cigarette butts in stolen cars. The DNA forensic reports would then come back causing mystification and confusion for the police.

I think JonBenet forum poster Evening has adopted this planting DNA theory in the Ramsey case because she has been told over and over again by other posters that Santa Billís DNA was tested, and itís not a match for the Ramsey case DNA.

I have never seen any official confirmation that Santa Billís, or Fleet Whiteís, DNA was ever properly or conclusively tested. Boulder police chief Mark Beckner testified in his deposition that Chris Wolfís DNA was tested.

Ramsey prosecutor Bruce Levin said in Atlanta that the murderer was probably wearing brown work gloves because of brown fibers at the crime scene. Other people have suggested the murderer was wearing rubber gloves. I suppose theoretically he was wearing no gloves at all, but that seems a bit unlikely.

Itís just I donít know what to believe about all that for certain. Police and prosecutors sometimes just make things, and fiber and hair, evidence up, and dare I say lie. I need evidence, and hard and firm supporting evidence.

My own feeling is that if the murderer did plant some DNA in order perhaps to mislead the police and Boulder DAís office he was being a bit too clever by half. His original plan was obviously for the innocent Ramseys to be blamed for the JonBenet murder.

This mystery DNA is a definite stumbling block to any prosecution of the Ramseys, which he wants to happen. It strikes me that somebody implicated, or involved, in the JonBenet murder got a bit careless.
koldkase

Athens, GA

#31 Jul 18, 2008
Uh...candy...if I STEAL your letter from Bode, will it irreparably damage your neck when your head spins?

Appreciate your sharing this letter. I emailed Bode some questions, as well, but as you know, they ignore us Guttah Hags.... I would like to post it...somewhere...though....

Annie Girl

Delta, Canada

#32 Jul 18, 2008
Logic dictates that if the touch DNA of Jonbenet's killer is detected on her clothing ... it could also be detected on the ransom note pages ... the writing tablet ... the pen ... the rope ... the paintbush handle ...

Patsy and John Ramsey both agreed in an interview with Larry King in 2000 that the killer of their daughter wrote the ransom note.
________

Larry King Live
Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?
Aired May 31, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET

KING: We'll get their theory. What's your theory?

THOMAS: My theory is quite simple: Whoever authored the ransom note killed the child, absent some great conspiracy, that they think this intruder came into the house.

KING: So you agree that whoever authored the ransom note probably killed the child?

J. RAMSEY: I agree.

P. RAMSEY: I would agree with that.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/3...

Henri McPhee

Plymouth, UK

#33 Jul 19, 2008
I think Annie Girl was wondering on one of this topix JonBenet threads about the testing of the second blood spot in the Ramsey case.

This is a bit of background information about that fromm a 2003 CNN article.

As far as I can remember Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood was threatening legal action aginst the Boulder police around that time. One of his reasons was their failure to test that blood spot. I think that was one reason why the JonBenet murder investigation was taken out of the hands of the Boulder police. Another reason was the Judge Carnes ruling in 2003:

"Lawyer: DNA from JonBenet's clothes submitted to FBI

ATLANTA (CNN)-- Seven years after the 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey's body was found strangled and beaten in the basement of her parents' home in Boulder, Colorado, DNA found in a blood stain on the beauty queen's underwear has been given to the FBI in a possible step toward identifying her killer, the family lawyer told CNN Friday.

L. Lyn Wood, an attorney for the family in Atlanta, where the Ramseys now live, said he was told about the development recently by Mary Keenan, the Boulder district attorney, who took control of the case last December from the Boulder Police Department.

"The DNA was never pursued by the Boulder PD in terms of tying to get it into any state or national databank," Wood said.

One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.

"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.

Earlier blood tests showed the sample was from a male who was unrelated to the Ramseys, said Wood, who added that neither he nor the Ramseys planned to suggest that the DNA of anyone in particular be compared with the sample.

"We don't feel like we have to tell them who to test. We feel like they will take all the necessary steps to thoroughly investigate all possible suspects and credible leads."

Bill Nagel, who reports to Keenan, said in a telephone interview that he would not comment. "It's been our policy for a good while not to respond to inquiries about the Ramsey case," he said. "That's something we just stick to consistently."

Wood said the Boulder police had not properly pursued the lead, because they felt a Ramsey household member carried out the crime. "They actually spent money and time trying to come up with an innocent explanation for the presence of that DNA," he said. "Any objective investigation into this child's murder would have focused on DNA."

A spokeswoman for the Boulder police did not immediately return a call."
candy

East Lansing, MI

#34 Jul 20, 2008
The reason only one item was sent in for testing: Touch DNA testing is enormously expensive $10,000 per item.
Patricia Fox

Hogansville, GA

#35 Jul 20, 2008
Nothing short of brain surgery should warrant that kind of charge. Sounds to me like this lab just in it for the money.
Right on The Money

New York, NY

#36 Jul 20, 2008
Patricia Fox wrote:
Nothing short of brain surgery should warrant that kind of charge. Sounds to me like this lab just in it for the money.
Or Candy is wrong. I just heard that regular testing is $150.
Patricia Fox

Hogansville, GA

#37 Jul 20, 2008
Right on The Money wrote:
<quoted text>
Or Candy is wrong. I just heard that regular testing is $150.
I believe I read in one of the articles that the
$10,000 is correct. For sure regular testing of DNA is less than $l,000 some places even less than $500 and even though I don't personally know of any that will do a DNA test for $150, I'm sure you are correct that there may be some labs that will.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#38 Jul 20, 2008
No, I'm not wrong:

Touch-DNA testing is costly, however -- about $10,000 per inquest -- and Hayes said he wants to be sure the Boulder County District Attorney could be convinced to issue an arrest warrant based on new evidential information.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/20/n...
Right on The Money

New York, NY

#39 Jul 20, 2008
candy wrote:
No, I'm not wrong:
Touch-DNA testing is costly, however -- about $10,000 per inquest -- and Hayes said he wants to be sure the Boulder County District Attorney could be convinced to issue an arrest warrant based on new evidential information.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/20/n...
She be right. But they say it is about 10,000 per inquest. Is that for one item or a bunch of items for one case? It is not clear. Because if it is for one item, JB will have to wait. Just the kind of excuse Boulder DA needs.
Henri McPhee

Plymouth, UK

#40 Jul 21, 2008
There's quite an interesting little article about the police, and the cost of DNA testing, in today's Times of London, in the UK.

I don't usually have a high regard for the abilities of a lot of police, but I think this statement by a Britisher policeman makes a bit of sense. There is more to a murder investigation than just forensics, or DNA:

"Detective Chief Inspector Tom Harper, who is in charge of forensic purchasing for Essex Police, said that while newer, smarter ways of charging the police for forensic work are to be welcomed, it is often important that forensic work is carried out in conjunction with police investigations.ďThe danger is that we forget about the relationship between the scientists and the police,Ē he said.ďAt a murder scene, it isn't just about analysing the blood on the ceiling, but about how it got there as well.Ē

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mr. Garnett, Impact This Already ! 2 hr Rainbow334 12
The underwear JonBenet was changed out of (Jul '15) 4 hr Green Envelope 13
Jon enter doing work for Jesus 5 hr Green Envelope 21
Patsy's rationale for calling 911 with the body... (Nov '15) 5 hr Green Envelope 53
News Diane Dimond: Still No Justice for JonBenet Ram... (Dec '16) 5 hr Green Envelope 178
Richard Talfryn Jones 6 hr biz 2
News 'Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh!': Burke Ra... 22 hr robert 73
More from around the web