Jonbennet Ramsey

[Wildy]

So you don't believe there could actually be a science or a skill that can't be boiled down into 25 words or less?

...

Yep. That would indeed be the case. The range of behaviors also cannot be boiled down into 25 words or less. At least I don't have that skill.

Where did I give you a limitation as to how many words you could use?

If all the skills and knowledge one had as a professional with decades of experience could be written up on little notecards, who would need a college education and experience? We could just pass out the note cards.

So in other words you're dodging because you can't provide the evidence, got it.

You're not convinced one can get a substance on one's hands and then spread it by touching something else?

How do you think germs are transferred to and from hands? It happens all the time and the amount of material we are talking about here is the same quantity.

Because shed skin cells are exactly the same as living bacteria.

Also, I wasn't talking about primary transfer. I was talking about secondary transfer and higher, which appears to be the mechanism that you are suggesting.

You really aren't helping your case here. You don't appear to have made any effort whatsoever to read the links I posted.

I have, but I was asking about you. You as in Skeptic Ginger, in this sense I could read everything written on the subject but I still wouldn't know what combination of techniques you use.

I'm not going to bother with this line of the discussion since clearly how you determine what people feel etc. is some form of trade secret.

The first thing we need is the baseline itself.

So to determine the baseline (which is what I asked) you need to determine the baseline?

That is what the FBI paper touched on. Their focus, however, was just establishing one could determine who had worn clothing by the analysis method.

It also allows the determination of who came in contact with those clothes. I say that because the article doesn't tell us if they discriminated between the inside and the outside of the clothes when they processed, or mixed them in together and processed them.

They established the fact the major donor of the DNA (meaning the larger amount found) was likely to be the person who had worn the clothes.

Which is logical.

But in looking at the major DNA donors, the researchers didn't get into the problem that the minor DNA contributors would pose analyzing minute amounts of DNA from a crime scene.

Technically the major donor is the one who wore the clothes the most. They ever order it like that on table 1. The people who came in contact with those clothes are the minor contributors.

The paper, however, makes that obvious. Clothing new from a factory, sealed in plastic contained DNA from an unknown person who handled it before it went to the store.

Which made that person a minor contributor. And it showed that a person who came in contact with the clothing left enough DNA to be analysed.

The person in the clothes factory most likely picked up the clothing at some point leaving their DNA on the clothes.

If it turns out you have no corroborating evidence except the 'touch' DNA, then you can't say it means anything.

Actually if it is touch DNA then that means that a person came into contact with the thing that you got the DNA from.

Think about it. The more DNA profiles that are added to the data base, all one needs is some poor sop with no alibi who handed a kid an ice cream cone at the mall and you have the same problem as you have with false eyewitness convictions.

Are you analysing the cone or the kid's hand?

And in the Ramsey case, a dirty doorknob JBR put her hands on the night of the murder could be evidence falsely exonerating the parents.

Depends on where on her hands they got the DNA from. What I understand is that the DNA came from under her fingernails. If that is indeed true then you would have to explain how that DNA got under her fingernails.

Yes. The amount was so small it wasn't detected in the initial crime scene evaluation. It wasn't until 2006 when the new technique was used to find minute amounts of DNA that the unknown male DNA was found. There was some DNA in the initial analysis that was too degraded or too small in quantity to be identified.

I was asking about the actual numbers, you know like 1ng, 2ng etc. But thanks for that information nonetheless.

I don't see a difference in this question and the problem of establishing the meaning of finding 'touch' DNA quantities on anything at a crime scene.

As I understand it touch DNA is an instance of primary transfer. So you're going to find touch DNA on well, places which people can touch.

My question is more "if person A shakes hands with person B who shakes hands with person C who then stabs person D with a knife, what are the chances of finding person A's DNA on the knife handle?"

Magical stats? How about just scientifically based significance?

They can already do that. "It can be shown to 95% confidence that the person came in contact with the object."

 

[Moss]

Maybe I'm missing a part of the discussion here but wouldn't it be more useful to research this "minute DNA baseline" in noncritical situations and not on crimescenes? That way you are more likely to be able to establish how the DNA actually ended up there.
I've read conflicting accounts of how much intensity of contact is needed for DNA to be transferred (not only in this case). This is problematic in this case as JonBenét would have needed to a) have a forceful enough contact to transfer an unknown males DNA to her hands (and under her fingernails, which begs the question how that worked and also needs a forceful enough transfer between the male and the item JonBenét would have needed to handle to leave enough material behind) and b) JonBenét yet again needs to have forceful enough contact between her fingers and her panties.

 

[Wildy]

Maybe I'm missing a part of the discussion here but wouldn't it be more useful to research this "minute DNA baseline" in noncritical situations and not on crimescenes?

Yes. Yes it would.

I've read conflicting accounts of how much intensity of contact is needed for DNA to be transferred (not only in this case).

That is understandable. Based on what I've read the spreading of touch DNA depends on a few factors like, what it is you are touching, how long since you washed your hands or whether you are a good shedder or a bad shedder (like secretors and non-secretors only with skin cells).

This is problematic in this case as JonBenét would have needed to a) have a forceful enough contact to transfer an unknown males DNA to her hands (and under her fingernails,...

Did they get foreign DNA off of her hands?

Under her fingernails would be simple. At some point she scratched her assailant. At least in a primary transfer scenario.

(...which begs the question how that worked and also needs a forceful enough transfer between the male and the item JonBenét would have needed to handle to leave enough material behind) and b) JonBenét yet again needs to have forceful enough contact between her fingers and her panties.

You are quite right here though. At the moment I can't think of any scenarios where you would get DNA under fingernails from a secondary transfer without leaving traces of other substances. And I can't think of any scenario at all above secondary transfer.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Shaking one's head yes, while saying no and vice versa has been correlated with lying as one of the micro-emotional displays.

Except that's not what happened. John Ramsey was asked a question. He nodded, then sighed. Then answered the question. I take issue with this analysis because I do this. I see other people do it all the time as well, and it's not because they're lying. They're nodding as an acknowledgment of the question itself, because it's a question they were expecting to be asked. I'm sure John Ramsey was asked that exact question in virtually every interview he has ever done. Thus he hears the question and nods (Saying to himself, "Ah, there it is!"), then sighs (frustration with being asked the same question over and over), and then gives an answer to the question.

You watch the interviews and most people recognize the behavior of these two people is odd. You can over compensate and say, well people grieve in all sorts of ways, who am I to pretend to know what this behavior means? You can discount the observations this blog writer is paying attention to.

But there is evidence this kind of behavior is not simply some unique way of grieving.

Except they're not just grieving. They're people who are grieving and being accused of a crime, and watching the investigation into the death of their daughter disintegrate because it is focused on them. There are a multitude of emotions beyond grieving that they'd be dealing with. They are in a pretty rare situation of being (if they are innocent) falsely accused, as well as grieving, as well as knowing the real killer of their daughter is out there somewhere. So even if I grant that someone is 100% correct in picking out that they are hiding an emotion, trying to analyze why is notably more complex than in a normal situation. To make any sense of it, you would have to find some similar case to compare it to -- and that's assuming that all people react in a similar manner to the same situation.

I suggest reading through the analysis with a mind to Frank and Ekman's work, rather than with a mind to 'every means of evaluating behavior and facial expressions is woo'.

I haven't said anything about it being woo. I've said it is a form of analysis that, while it can be useful while combined with questioning and other investigation, still is far from perfect and, particularly in a case as complex as this, would require a lot of additional analysis, much of which is going to have subjective elements to it.

So which specific things in the analysis do you take issue with? It does appear that The Wizards Project was a legit scientific investigation. I'm not familiar with it but it appears to reinforce Frank and Ekman's work.

I don't have time right now to go through it all, but I take issue with several points. But here is one example:

Throughout the interview with John Ramsey, he keeps smiling. It wasn't a genuine, I'm- happy-smile. It wasn't a nervous smile. It was a strange, deceptive smile. It was inappropriate in timing -- almost as if the smile is expressing his true feelings -- that he is so happy 48 Hours is doing this show because they are pointing the finger away from him. It's like he is so thrilled with it, he can't contain it. I find John Ramsey making this smile throughout the majority of his interview. It bothers me more than a little. There is no logical explanation for it.

An innocent man would not be joyous thinking about finding the killer of their daughter. He would more than likely be mad at the whole scenario, tired of being treated so badly by the media that there would be hints of anger - a truly felt emotion -- that would not flee in time upon reflection.

So she takes one fact: he is smiling. I'll even grant her the benefit of the doubt that she is 100% correct that he is concealing being really happy about something.

Everything after that is completely subjective. She is saying that a man who has been accused for years of killing his daughter, and who has seen the real killer go free because of it, couldn't be joyous at appearing on a show that is pointing the finger away from him and potentially toward an investigation that could exonerate him and find the real killer. She's saying that a person in that situation must be really angry. That's one gigantic assumption -- one she offers no additional proof for.

Or take another one:

It really disturbed me when John Ramsey said (about Karr) "He was so abused and vilified and convicted in the media that I started to feel sorry for the guy, which is a bizarre feeling," Ramsey says. "Having been through what we went through, I was gonna be the last guy that leaped out there and said, 'Aha! This is the guy!'”

If you just potentially laid your eyes on someone who you believed might have killed your daughter -- do you honestly think you'd feel sorry for the killer because the media harassed and accused him -- after he made a public confession?

I think not. I know not! A true victim would be mad, furious, hoping for justice -- but would never feel sorry for the criminal --especially a criminal who could have killed his daughter and who confessed!!!

This is more armchair analysis. We have a single fact (what Ramsey said) and everything after that is subjective.

Ramsey is a guy who went through years of being bashed and accused in the media. He sees a guy who is accused of the same crime -- yes the guy "confessed," but false confessions aren't unusual -- and says he almost feels sorry for him over the media circus. So the analysis here is that a "true victim," in any circumstance (including where they themselves have been accused) must rush to judgment against anyone who might be the killer, or else it's proof that they are not a "true victim"? Ridiculous.

There's also an obvious problem that this person missed completely: John Ramsey gave the 48 Hours Interview in November. Karr's confession had been debunked in August, and the case against him dropped. John Ramsey already knew Karr was not the killer because it had been announced that he was not the killer. He wasn't feeling sorry for the guy who killed his daughter, he was (almost) feeling sorry for a guy who was accused much like he was. How the analysis missed that is beyond me, especially when she talks about the DNA later on the page.

The bottom line is, this person isn't just setting herself up as someone who can detect deception, she is setting herself up as an expert on victim behavior. That's a problem, especially if she isn't an expert on victim behavior.

 

[Wildy]

All this talk of examining people through body language reminds me of this Chaser segment:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This discussion reminds me very much of the Chamberlain [dingo] case where the parents were subjected to a kind of trial by media, as there was a strong tendency to judge them by appearances and reactions. At the time of her trial Lindy Chamberlain's *emotionless expression* was widely viewed as an indication of her guilt and it was severely damaging to her in terms of public perception.

I suppose this means if you are ever accused of a heinous crime it's important to wring your hands and look tragic at the appropriate times.

There have been many parents falsely accused. By the same token, many parents have killed a child and covered it up. This case may remind you of the Aussie case, but it has very little in common with it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Spot on. This was the worst case of trial by media and armchair experts I am aware of, with the Jonbennet case a close second.

Reminds me of people who see the world in black and white.

If one case was decided on baseless grounds, all cases must be being decided on baseless grounds.

If some lie detecting is woo, all lie detecting must be woo.

If DNA tests provide legal proof, all DNA tests must provide legal proof.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Reminds me of people who see the world in black and white.

If one case was decided on baseless grounds, all cases must be being decided on baseless grounds.

If some lie detecting is woo, all lie detecting must be woo.

If DNA tests provide legal proof, all DNA tests must provide legal proof.

If turning a cartwheel in Italy is seen as proof of innocence, then it must be proof of innocence everywhere.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe I'm missing a part of the discussion here but wouldn't it be more useful to research this "minute DNA baseline" in noncritical situations and not on crimescenes? That way you are more likely to be able to establish how the DNA actually ended up there.

I couldn't find that anyone has yet to just test random surfaces and see what one finds, but yes, it need not be forensic studies. On the other hand, it would be forensic scientists who had an interest in testing places like children's or women's underwear.

In the FBI study, more than half of the tests showed DNA of some kind other than the wearer's. Most of the tests at least showed the spouse's DNA. Many of the tests found DNA from unknown sources (lab and police tested and ruled out). And in the one case the test showed human DNA from an unknown source despite the fact the stockings were only handled by the primary wearer who opened the package new from the store herself.

There was a note on one of the Ramsey web sites that said someone had tested new underwear of the same brand as JBR's and found male DNA from the factory. But it wasn't a reliable source of information. JBR had on a new pair of size 12 underwear (much too large for her) from a package bought by Patsy for a niece. The package it came from wasn't collected from the Ramsey's for several years and I didn't see that anyone tested it. It's too bad the police did such a poor job on this case.

I've read conflicting accounts of how much intensity of contact is needed for DNA to be transferred (not only in this case). This is problematic in this case as JonBenét would have needed to a) have a forceful enough contact to transfer an unknown males DNA to her hands (and under her fingernails, which begs the question how that worked and also needs a forceful enough transfer between the male and the item JonBenét would have needed to handle to leave enough material behind) and b) JonBenét yet again needs to have forceful enough contact between her fingers and her panties.

Or she only needed to touch a heavily contaminated surface and scratch herself or pull her pants up or down. When you are talking about past methods of collecting DNA, you would need the 'force' you are talking about. With the 'touch' DNA method, you need less than 10 cells. From the SciAm link I posted earlier:

In the 1980s, in order to perform DNA analysis on a crime scene or victim, forensic investigators needed a blood or semen stain about the size of a quarter. The sample size fell in the 1990s to the size of a dime and then became: “If you can see it, you can analyze it.”

Touch DNA doesn’t require you to see anything, or any blood or semen at all. It only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of our skin.

A human sheds on average 40,000 to 50,000 cells per day, no force required.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is understandable. Based on what I've read the spreading of touch DNA depends on a few factors like, what it is you are touching, how long since you washed your hands or whether you are a good shedder or a bad shedder (like secretors and non-secretors only with skin cells).

From what you've read where?

Did they get foreign DNA off of her hands?

Under her fingernails would be simple. At some point she scratched her assailant. At least in a primary transfer scenario.

The DNA from her hands came from testing her nail clippings with the new method about 6-7 years after the initial tests showed no DNA.

You are quite right here though. At the moment I can't think of any scenarios where you would get DNA under fingernails from a secondary transfer without leaving traces of other substances. And I can't think of any scenario at all above secondary transfer.

What makes you think "other substances" were tested for?

You are doing exactly what I'm saying is the problem. You are making assumptions based on typical crime scene DNA tests without recognizing this is completely different. You have no basis for your assumptions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Except that's not what happened. John Ramsey was asked a question. He nodded, then sighed. Then answered the question. I take issue with this analysis because I do this. I see other people do it all the time as well, and it's not because they're lying. They're nodding as an acknowledgment of the question itself, because it's a question they were expecting to be asked. I'm sure John Ramsey was asked that exact question in virtually every interview he has ever done. Thus he hears the question and nods (Saying to himself, "Ah, there it is!"), then sighs (frustration with being asked the same question over and over), and then gives an answer to the question.

That's a reasonable interpretation. I don't think it fits in this case but by itself, I've seen lots of people say yes to a question before answering it. Bush did this all the time. It was clear he was revealing recognition of the question and not something else. It's unlikely this was the case in this interview. It's a distinguishable difference.

Except they're not just grieving. They're people who are grieving and being accused of a crime, and watching the investigation into the death of their daughter disintegrate because it is focused on them. There are a multitude of emotions beyond grieving that they'd be dealing with. They are in a pretty rare situation of being (if they are innocent) falsely accused, as well as grieving, as well as knowing the real killer of their daughter is out there somewhere. So even if I grant that someone is 100% correct in picking out that they are hiding an emotion, trying to analyze why is notably more complex than in a normal situation. To make any sense of it, you would have to find some similar case to compare it to -- and that's assuming that all people react in a similar manner to the same situation.

I watched the briefer Ramsey interviews after Mark Karr confessed before he was ruled out. John Ramsey's displayed much more than can be explained by this interpretation. I understand your being less convinced of the technique of assessing behavior in an interview, but I think if you looked further into the technique you might be less skeptical.

I haven't said anything about it being woo. I've said it is a form of analysis that, while it can be useful while combined with questioning and other investigation, still is far from perfect and, particularly in a case as complex as this, would require a lot of additional analysis, much of which is going to have subjective elements to it.

Again, there were hours of interviews and the other evidence.

I don't have time right now to go through it all, but I take issue with several points. But here is one example:

So she takes one fact: he is smiling. I'll even grant her the benefit of the doubt that she is 100% correct that he is concealing being really happy about something.

Everything after that is completely subjective. She is saying that a man who has been accused for years of killing his daughter, and who has seen the real killer go free because of it, couldn't be joyous at appearing on a show that is pointing the finger away from him and potentially toward an investigation that could exonerate him and find the real killer. She's saying that a person in that situation must be really angry. That's one gigantic assumption -- one she offers no additional proof for.

As you say, the observation of the smile was objective, not subjective. I can see that you object to the interpretation being offered in the blog as if the interpretation was the observation.

But you have to go back to the evidence this blogger was indeed identified as being good at detecting deceit. I can't vouch for that evidence. I did find a web site showing there was a professor who did systematically look for people who were naturally good at detecting deceit. The information coincides with Frank and Ekman's work including the finding that a few people are naturally good at detecting deceit.

So if what we have on the surface here is true, we have:

• A person identified as having a high success rate correctly identifying deceit
• The identification of this person as being able to detect deceit has been verified under scientific conditions
• Description of what she believes she is basing her success on
• Independent verification the micro-emotions being described do indeed reveal deceit or at least inconsistency in an interview

So while I understand your objection to the interpretation here, the blogger does have an apparent track record of success.

And, the analysis by this blog writer is consistent with every interview the Ramseys did after the murder. It wasn't a single smile. It was one abnormal facial expression after another from both parents from the beginning to the last interview.

Or take another one:

This is more armchair analysis. We have a single fact (what Ramsey said) and everything after that is subjective.

Again, you seem to be starting with the premise it is impossible to ever assess the emotional reaction to a child's death. While you may not like this person's description of what one should see and that the Ramsey's didn't display a reaction within the expected range, it's a false premise that there are no normal and abnormal reactions.

Just as I cannot describe this process in a forum post, a lay person would be even more unlikely to be able to describe all the specifics of why the Ramsey behavior was abnormal even given the circumstances in this case.

If your premise is that there is no such thing as normal and abnormal here, no such thing as the ability to assess abnormal behavior in a grieving parent, then you are not going to be able to see how a nurse or a psychologist can diagnose abnormal behavior or an abnormal interview.

Ramsey is a guy who went through years of being bashed and accused in the media. He sees a guy who is accused of the same crime -- yes the guy "confessed," but false confessions aren't unusual -- and says he almost feels sorry for him over the media circus. So the analysis here is that a "true victim," in any circumstance (including where they themselves have been accused) must rush to judgment against anyone who might be the killer, or else it's proof that they are not a "true victim"? Ridiculous.

There's also an obvious problem that this person missed completely: John Ramsey gave the 48 Hours Interview in November. Karr's confession had been debunked in August, and the case against him dropped. John Ramsey already knew Karr was not the killer because it had been announced that he was not the killer. He wasn't feeling sorry for the guy who killed his daughter, he was (almost) feeling sorry for a guy who was accused much like he was. How the analysis missed that is beyond me, especially when she talks about the DNA later on the page.

The bottom line is, this person isn't just setting herself up as someone who can detect deception, she is setting herself up as an expert on victim behavior. That's a problem, especially if she isn't an expert on victim behavior.

I don't know anything about the person in the EyesForLies blog except her claim to have been identified by the search for people whose accuracy was documented in an experimental setting. I do know she is describing the micro-emotion cues identified by Frank and Ekman.

 

[Piggy]

And, if the police had acted in a rational way when they went to the house, the murder might well have been resolved in a couple of weeks.

It is not uncommon for police to zero in on a suspect early on, and get locked into that theory to the exclusion of everyone else.

I remember when a serial killer hit my town, the police quickly focused on a young man with mental illness and hounded him relentlessly. His brother, who was in one of my classes, had to drop out of school as his family tried to protect Ed.

When Danny Harold Rolling's tent was finally discovered, with all the evidence including confessions on tape, the police suddenly invented a two-man theory out of thin air -- which is also not uncommon when a prime suspect or even a convicted one is exonerated.

Murders and child abuse cases are particularly vulnerable to this kind of distortion, and in the Ramsey case you've got both.

The family is always an early target of suspicion unless there's some other clear suspect.

ETA: Oops! For some reason, I thought I was on a recent one-page thread. Sorry for the zombie post.

 

[lionking]

Reminds me of people who see the world in black and white.

I don't have an irony meter, but if I did it would have exploded massively.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't have an irony meter, but if I did it would have exploded massively.

Here you go....

 

[Wildy]

From what you've read where?

Here, here, and here.

The DNA from her hands came from testing her nail clippings with the new method about 6-7 years after the initial tests showed no DNA.

So how did it get under her fingernails?

What makes you think "other substances" were tested for?

I didn't say that other substances were tested for. I was saying that under the possibilities that I can think of, you would find trace evidence of other substances.

You are doing exactly what I'm saying is the problem. You are making assumptions based on typical crime scene DNA tests without recognizing this is completely different. You have no basis for your assumptions.

Oh right, I forgot, in this case a wizard did it.

Explain how it's different. Explain how my assumptions have no basis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't have an irony meter, but if I did it would have exploded massively.

I guess it depends on your point of view.

I see people unwilling to consider one can assess behavior, (it's done all the time in medicine and psychology) the DNA sample is unproven science in this case, the means of detecting deceit by observing micro-emotions in an interview is indeed a valid technique despite the fact other means of detecting deceit have no basis in fact, and people in the thread are overcompensating re the Ramsey interviews in order to be skeptically correct and not base judgement on unfounded assumptions.

I'm comfortable with both assessing behavior in abuse cases, with my skills as a nurse practitioner with decades of experience, with the deceit detecting technique developed and tested by Frank and Ekman, and with the volume of evidence in the Ramsey case that is open to the public, being enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.

I'm not intimidated by the doubters on this thread. I don't expect anyone to assume on my word alone what my skills are. Nor do I expect anyone to draw a conclusion based on evidence they are not familiar with (assessing abuse situations and detecting deceit in an interview). I don't expect to change any minds on these issues.

But as skeptics, you all should at least reconsider your assumptions about the DNA evidence of an unidentified male in this case. On that issue you should be able to recognize the science is not established, and not equal to established DNA forensic techniques. Unfortunately that's like a jury hearing some evidence the judge then tells them to disregard.

 

[lionking]

My problem is that you have assessed behaviour not live but on a video. That's why I asked earlier if you interviewed the Ramseys and that's why I discount your assessment of the interviews.

 

[Piggy]

My problem is that you have assessed behaviour not live but on a video. That's why I asked earlier if you interviewed the Ramseys and that's why I discount your assessment of the interviews.

One of the many problems with behavioral analysis, of course, is that it is so prone to confirmation bias.

And when you're talking about a murder case, there's damn good reason to prefer hard evidence instead.

 

[Piggy]

I see people unwilling to consider one can assess behavior, (it's done all the time in medicine and psychology) the DNA sample is unproven science in this case, the means of detecting deceit by observing micro-emotions in an interview is indeed a valid technique despite the fact other means of detecting deceit have no basis in fact, and people in the thread are overcompensating re the Ramsey interviews in order to be skeptically correct and not base judgement on unfounded assumptions.

Whoa, hold the phone!

You're dismissing the DNA as "unproven science in this case" but asserting "detecting deceit by observing micro-emotions" in a video as "a valid technique"? And you're willing to come to conclusions on that basis?

The mind reels.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So how did it get under her fingernails?

I didn't say that other substances were tested for. I was saying that under the possibilities that I can think of, you would find trace evidence of other substances.

Oh right, I forgot, in this case a wizard did it.

Explain how it's different. Explain how my assumptions have no basis.

Well let's start with your links which actually demonstrate my point, not yours.

Here, here, and here.

Here's the first one:

Abstract
We have shown that there is a difference between individuals in their tendency to deposit DNA on an item when it is touched. While a good DNA shedder may leave behind a full DNA profile immediately after hand washing, poor DNA shedders may only do so when their hands have not been washed for a period of 6h. We have also demonstrated that transfer of DNA from one individual (A) to another (B) and subsequently to an object is possible under specific laboratory conditions using the AMPFISTR®SGM Plus™ multiplex at both 28 and 34 PCR cycles. This is a form of secondary transfer. If a 30min or 1h delay was introduced before contact of individual B with the object then at 34 cycles a mixture of profiles from both individuals was recovered. We have also determined that the quantity and quality of DNA profiles recovered is dependent upon the particular individuals involved in the transfer process. The findings reported here are preliminary and further investigations are underway in order to further add to understanding of the issues of DNA transfer and persistence.

The poor shedders you refer are only poor shedders for 6 hours after washing their hands.

In other words, lots of DNA is transferred from every person to a surface except during the first 6 hours after good hand washing. In that case it is not consistently transferred by everyone, but it is still transferred by some.

Your third link concludes:

Obviously, the inadvertent transfer of DNA is an area that should be further studied. Since so many of the available journal articles present conflicting information, more work is needed to see how likely it is to both transfer and detect DNA in a secondary or even a tertiary fashion, especially considering the sensitivity of modern forensic DNA analysis.

That's exactly what I've been saying here.


In your second link one cannot cut and paste so I found another link to the same paper.

On average, we re- covered 1–15 ng of human DNA from the tested samples, consid- erably less than the 2–150 ng reported by van Oorschot and Jones. Most significantly, in no instance was the profile of the second in- dividual detected by AmpliType PM 􏰐 DQA1.

So basically they are saying in their research protocol which involved hand shaking DNA transfer and transfer from surfaces, they didn't find the same volume of DNA transferred as was found in another study.

They describe their study protocol:

For the first scenario, objects were pre-cleaned with 10% bleach and wiped with 95% ethanol. Subsequently, laboratory personnel shook hands for various lengths of time (1”, 5”, 10”, 30”, 60””) and then held the pre-cleaned objects for 5 s (Table 1). The handshak- ing and handling of objects were not static. Palms were rubbed against each other or against the object to promote maximum DNA transfer. The individuals’ palms or the handled objects were swabbed with moistened (dH2O) sterile swabs. For the second mode, coffee mugs (Table 2) were handled per regular usage over 2 h and then handled by a second individual for 10 s. Subsequently, both the mugs and the palm of the second individual were swabbed. Commonly handled objects such as phones, door handles, key- boards, etc. were also tested for evidence of primary transfer

While they don't say when the test subjects last washed their hands, at a minimum they are testing adults in a work setting. They are not testing kids with dirty hands at a Christmas Party, or picking up a penny in the street or any other number of scenarios kids are commonly involved in.


Here's the study from Nature the above researchers refer to:

Scientific Correspondence; Nature 387, 767 (19 June 1997) | DNA fingerprints from fingerprints

Forensic scientists regularly generate genetic profiles from old blood stains, seminal stains, vaginal swabs, hair, bone, urine and cigarette butts1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. We show that an individual's genetic profile can now also be generated from swabs taken from objects touched by hands, providing a new tool for crime scene investigations. Our findings also demonstrate the need for caution when handling exhibits and when interpreting results.

The fact the FBI found someone's DNA on brand new packaged underwear (my link) is significant by itself.


But your premise seems to be no tertiary transfer occurs and you post 2 articles that urge caution interpreting results and a single study where tertiary transfer was not found in adults at their worksite.

I guarantee you if you look for tertiary and even transfer beyond that at any daycare, kindergarten, or first grade classroom, you will indeed find it.


http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf

SECONDARY TRANSFER
Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing.

The experiment was then repeated, but with the introduction of a delay of 30 minutes between the time of the handshake and the tube-holding. The results (Figure 2) indicated that although the poor shedder deposited some alleles, secondary transfer of the good shedder’s DNA still occurred.

Further experiments are underway to determine the length of time between contact and tube-holding where no secondary transfer occurs, and to examine other types of transfer situations.

PERSISTENCE
Many factors may affect the persistence of low level DNA; time, temperature, humidity, etc. While it is unreasonable to test every combination of variables, some generic experiments have been undertaken and certain scenarios addressed.

A time-study of the persistence of DNA is currently underway, where touched items have been stored at room temperature and tested to find out how much DNA can be recovered after certain periods of time.

Figure 3 shows the results; full profiles were still recovered from surfaces touched by a good shedder even after 4 months, whereas a marked decrease in the recovery of the poor shedder’s DNA was observed.

An exchange of identical wrist-watches between certain shedder types was carried out to ascertain the period of time needed for the original wearer’s DNA profile to be replaced by that of the new wearer. Generally we found that a good shedder completely replaced the original wearer’s profile in 2-3 weeks, and after only a few days had become the major component of a mixture. An example of this is shown in Figure 4. In contrast, a poor shedder typically took around 2 weeks just to comprise the major component.

So it would seem your demand to know if the unknown male DNA at the crime scene came from a heavy or light shedder is a moot point. There is no certainty the unknown male DNA at the crime scene represents a kid's dirty hands or an intruder. And you certainly haven't made the case the JBR crime scene DNA likely comes from an intruder. To the contrary, your links support my point.