BODE technology - Chandra Levy case

BODE technology - Chandra Levy case

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

#1 Oct 20, 2009
HOW INTERESTING for we Ramsey case followers. The AP has corrected it's story that an FBI analyst got their own DNA mixed in with crime scene evidence in the Chandra Levy case. IN FACT, IT WAS BODE TECHNOLOGY, THE SAME COMPANY THAT 'FOUND' THE TOUCH DNA in the Ramsey case.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ap/correction... #
candy

East Lansing, MI

#2 Oct 20, 2009
The same company whose report Lacy used to clear the Ramseys.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#3 Oct 20, 2009
candy wrote:
HOW INTERESTING for we Ramsey case followers. The AP has corrected it's story that an FBI analyst got their own DNA mixed in with crime scene evidence in the Chandra Levy case. IN FACT, IT WAS BODE TECHNOLOGY, THE SAME COMPANY THAT 'FOUND' THE TOUCH DNA in the Ramsey case.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ap/correction... #
I'm not surprised at all.
BrotherMoon

Littleton, CO

#4 Oct 20, 2009
The correct word thingy would be "How interesting for US Ramsey case followers." Not we.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#5 Oct 20, 2009
candy wrote:
HOW INTERESTING for we Ramsey case followers. The AP has corrected it's story that an FBI analyst got their own DNA mixed in with crime scene evidence in the Chandra Levy case. IN FACT, IT WAS BODE TECHNOLOGY, THE SAME COMPANY THAT 'FOUND' THE TOUCH DNA in the Ramsey case.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ap/correction... #
Candy, BODE is NOT known for it's, ummm, I'll just call it accuracy.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#6 Oct 20, 2009
Quote: Candy, BODE is NOT known for it's, ummm, I'll just call it accuracy.

Are you kidding? It was the discovery from Bode Technology of some touch DNA in the Masters case in Colorado, that freed Tim Masters from prison after 10 years! OF COURSE they are known for their accuracy, like every other DNA lab. When you screw up like this, in a high profile case, it CERTAINLY casts doubts on the results in the Ramsey case, if THAT is the result of contamination, ESPECIALLY since there has been no confirmation of the minute DNA being present on items directly associated with the murder, like the garrote, rope, ligatures, paint brush.
BrotherMoon

Wheat Ridge, CO

#7 Oct 20, 2009
OK, so the new investigation tosses the DNA along with Lacy and concentrates on linguistics. Good!

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#8 Oct 21, 2009
The DNA certainly can't be "tossed." And I don't even know if BODE even had the panties in its possession. They might have had just the long johns for testing. The profile will no doubt remain in CODIS.

No one's ever been convicted on linguistics alone. No one ever will be. Just like the DNA, linguistics needs corroborating evidence. More, in fact.

Oh, a LOT of DNA labs are very, very sloppy, just like a lot of labs doing testing for human medical conditions are sloppy. Until you've worked in one, you have no idea.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#9 Oct 21, 2009
MORE INFORMATION: Tomorrow, October 22nd, the Washington Post will come out with a correction to it's original story, and say that not only did the Bode Technology analyst get their own DNA on the crime scene evidence in the Chandra Levy case, BUT AN ADDITIONAL FBI ANALYST WAS FIRED FOR USING THE WRONG PROCEDURE TO ANALYZE THE DNA. These are now two HUGE ERRORS involving a high profile case, crime scene DNA, and two of the most respected DNA labs in the country. This has HUGE implications for DNA analysis and reliablity of that analysis.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#10 Oct 21, 2009
Well, the correction is up on the Post website, and all they did was tack a small correction onto it's original article. TOO BAD. We want the DETAILS of what happened in EACH mishap:

Correction to This Article

The article incorrectly said that a forensic analyst who lawyers say got some of her own DNA on the evidence worked for the FBI. The analyst worked for Bode Technology Group.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
candy

East Lansing, MI

#11 Oct 21, 2009
Some other interesting facts: No DNA from Chandra Levy was found on her own clothing, nor from her alleged killer, just this Bode tech's DNA.
fr brown

Walnut Creek, CA

#12 Oct 21, 2009
I started wondering about Bode when I saw the ubiquitous Angela Williamson doing her q-tip thing on an envelope supposedly handled by the Zodiac or a Zodiac suspect. Can't remember. The program was pretty much trash.
learnin

Valley Falls, KS

#13 Oct 21, 2009
Moral of the story. HOW EASY IT MUST BE TO GET ONES DNA ON SOMEONE ELSES CLOTHING!

This is what some of us have been arguing for quite some time. The technology has progressed so far that contamination, secondary transfer, etc., is a growing possibility.

I'm beginning to wonder if this BODE lab even found similar DNA on those longjohns.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#14 Oct 21, 2009
CSIEngland wrote:
The DNA certainly can't be "tossed." And I don't even know if BODE even had the panties in its possession. They might have had just the long johns for testing. The profile will no doubt remain in CODIS.
No one's ever been convicted on linguistics alone. No one ever will be. Just like the DNA, linguistics needs corroborating evidence. More, in fact.
Oh, a LOT of DNA labs are very, very sloppy, just like a lot of labs doing testing for human medical conditions are sloppy. Until you've worked in one, you have no idea.
You should be tossed. Wazza matta, Frenchie can't get it up? Go away.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#15 Oct 21, 2009
learnin wrote:
Moral of the story. HOW EASY IT MUST BE TO GET ONES DNA ON SOMEONE ELSES CLOTHING!
This is what some of us have been arguing for quite some time. The technology has progressed so far that contamination, secondary transfer, etc., is a growing possibility.
I'm beginning to wonder if this BODE lab even found similar DNA on those longjohns.
I've told you all along secondary or even tertiary transfer was a very real, viable possibility.

"Touch" DNA is not reliable. All it takes are a FEW CELLS. Unless you just took a Clorox bath, you have the DNA of several other people on you.
Paris Shillton

Sherman Oaks, CA

#16 Oct 21, 2009
candy wrote:
Some other interesting facts: No DNA from Chandra Levy was found on her own clothing, nor from her alleged killer, just this Bode tech's DNA.
Her body and clothing was exposed to the elements for a year.

They take DNA samples from those handling evidence just to be able to cross check them to any DNA found.
No one should be surprised that someone handling the evidence might get some of their own DNA on it. She didn't transfer someone else DNA on it or they would have mystery DNA.
They know it's her DNA, no surprise at all because they know it's hers.
They took DNA samples from those who handled JBs evidence and no matches to the Mystery DNA man.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#17 Oct 21, 2009
Paris Shillton wrote:
<quoted text>Her body and clothing was exposed to the elements for a year.
They take DNA samples from those handling evidence just to be able to cross check them to any DNA found.
No one should be surprised that someone handling the evidence might get some of their own DNA on it. She didn't transfer someone else DNA on it or they would have mystery DNA.
They know it's her DNA, no surprise at all because they know it's hers.
They took DNA samples from those who handled JBs evidence and no matches to the Mystery DNA man.
If BODE only had the long johns in its possession and not the panties, that would rule out a BODE technician. A BODE technician could have transferred his DNA to the long johns in BODE's possession, but not the panties, provided they were never in BODE's possession, and I don't think they were. I think BODE just compared the long john profile to the panty profile, but I may be wrong on that. I can't find a source right now.
Shill it like it is

Sherman Oaks, CA

#18 Oct 21, 2009
CSIEngland wrote:
<quoted text>
If BODE only had the long johns in its possession and not the panties, that would rule out a BODE technician. A BODE technician could have transferred his DNA to the long johns in BODE's possession, but not the panties, provided they were never in BODE's possession, and I don't think they were. I think BODE just compared the long john profile to the panty profile, but I may be wrong on that. I can't find a source right now.
So your point is that a Bode technicians DNA is not the mystery DNA on JB's long johns and we don't even have to compare any Bode techs DNA to the sample DNA because the panties DNA was analyzed before any Bode tech was brought in for testing, ruling out a Bode tech contamination.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#19 Oct 21, 2009
Shill it like it is wrote:
<quoted text>So your point is that a Bode technicians DNA is not the mystery DNA on JB's long johns and we don't even have to compare any Bode techs DNA to the sample DNA because the panties DNA was analyzed before any Bode tech was brought in for testing, ruling out a Bode tech contamination.
Since I'm not in possession of every fact, I can't say the BODE technicians' DNA shouldn't be compared. But if they never had the panties in their possession and didn't touch them (and I have no idea if they did or not), then surely the DNA on the long johns isn't the result of BODE contamination.
fr brown

Walnut Creek, CA

#20 Oct 22, 2009
CSIEngland wrote:
I've told you all along secondary or even tertiary transfer was a very real, viable possibility.
"Touch" DNA is not reliable. All it takes are a FEW CELLS. Unless you just took a Clorox bath, you have the DNA of several other people on you.
I've seen Angela Williamson of Bode demonstrate how you gather DNA from an object a couple of times. Other than wearing gloves, she didn't seem to be taking any precautions to avoid contamination.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

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
News Judge Allows $750 Million Lawsuit from JonBenet... 8 min Let It Snow 1
News Boulder still vexed by Ramsey mystery a year af... 49 min Let It Snow 10
Immaculate (Jul '17) 1 hr Let It Snow 9
Stan Garnett resigning effective late Feb. 1 hr robert 2
Censorship re: Ramsey Case? (Nov '16) 1 hr robert 73
All I Want For Christmas 2 hr Let It Snow 12
Ramsey's Saved Themselves (Sep '16) 2 hr Let It Snow 23
More from around the web