DNA

[docyabut2]

I was watching a case on ID, where this women daughter`s was brutally killed and raped, and semen was found  on her body.   Criminal records of  DNA was not found on the body , but  she asked to  check the Ancestry .com  and found a match. But they don't know what relatives  of these  persons did the killing, this so neat in solving some of these cases.  This Mother had a goal and  not only  to exonerated the person that was  found guilty, she is still perusing the case of who really killed her daughter.

 

https://www.investigationdiscovery.com/tv-shows/who-killed-angie-dodge-keith-morrison-investigates/full-episodes/who-killed-angie-dodge-keith-morrison-investigates

Edited May 30, 2017 by docyabut2

[Imaginarynumber1]

Well, that really brightened my day...

[docyabut2]

Quote

I think that's what they are trying to do in the JonBenet  case to find a DNA match  on her .This is really hopelful in the  technology  of  finding the DNA of peoples, We had it done on my Mom and Daughter   trying to find a connection to relatives ,  but it could solve many of there old murder  cases

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by docyabut2

[Goodf3llow]

I didn't realize that it was possible to check semen against Ancestry.com profiles? You said they found a match, but then say they don't know who it is? I might be missing something, that video is super long..didn't watch.

[docyabut2]

Quote

15 minutes ago, Goodf3llow said:

I didn't realize that it was possible to check semen against Ancestry.com profiles? You said they found a match, but then say they don't know who it is? I might be missing something, that video is super long..didn't watch.

That's a match to ever killed her daughter in the ancestry .com  records.

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

11 hours ago, Goodf3llow said:

I didn't realize that it was possible to check semen against Ancestry.com profiles? You said they found a match, but then say they don't know who it is? I might be missing something, that video is super long..didn't watch.

 The semen didn't `t match the two men they found in the files, but still the DNA is  in the many men`s relatives of  those families, who killed Angie Dodge  

[Robemcdo]

I think DNA can often lead to the wrong conclusions.  I have also come to the conclusion that some crimes are misinterpreted.  We often hear about rape/murder.  I find this a little odd in that sexual deviants and killers don't share the same traits.  One not necessarily likely to do the other, and in most cases will not do the other.

Which brings me to this.  In case where they say the person was raped, then murdered, I often wonder if in fact were they just engaging in sex and that CAUSED the murder.  I'm guessing the examiner would look at the body and see some remnants of sexual activity and jump to the conclusion that one followed the other and not necessarily that one caused the other.

So my point in the cause above.  The fact the DNA was not that of the person in jail does not in fact exonerate him.  It only means he was not the one who had sex with the girl.  It does not mean anything more than that.  It is quite possible the the rape/sex and the murderer are two different people.

[Regi]

Docy, thanks for posting this case with the link to that program. (I'd set my DVR to record it, but when I went to watch it, it was some other case that was recorded. )

What a messed up case- outrageous!- on so many levels...Anyway...

Re: the DNA, I don't know enough to conclude about the results of the lead from ancestry.com. (I'm of a notion, but until I was more informed, I wouldn't share it publicly.)

Here's a link to 48 Hours' presentation of the case.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-dna-of-a-killer-who-murdered-idaho-teen-angie-dodge/

Edit: Here's a recent article which includes the composite generated from the DNA profile.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/idaho-falls-police-release-dna-phenotype-of-angie-dodges-murderer/478590880

Edited May 31, 2017 by regi

[rashore]

Interesting case Docy, thanks for the share

[docyabut2]

4 hours ago, regi said:

Docy, thanks for posting this case with the link to that program. (I'd set my DVR to record it, but when I went to watch it, it was some other case that was recorded. )

What a messed up case- outrageous!- on so many levels...Anyway...

Re: the DNA, I don't know enough to conclude about the results of the lead from ancestry.com. (I'm of a notion, but until I was more informed, I wouldn't share it publicly.)

Here's a link to 48 Hours' presentation of the case.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-dna-of-a-killer-who-murdered-idaho-teen-angie-dodge/

Edit: Here's a recent article which includes the composite generated from the DNA profile.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/idaho-falls-police-release-dna-phenotype-of-angie-dodges-murderer/478590880

Regi who ever killed Angie Dodge  had to be someone in the DNA bases of the many generations  of the DNA of those families. For instance when we did the  DNA ancestry .com  of my 95 year old mom,  we had a man that contacted us saying he was a relative with the same DNA. We found out  he was the great great great grandson of my great grand mother`s sister. so I hope this poor Mother that lost her daughter will peruse the DNA to find her daughters killer. If her daughter`s  murderer is not in the crime  banks, the  best place to look in the ancestries banks. If it wasn't for this dear Mother of Angie`s  to keep looking. I give her a hands up in the struggle of finding her daughters killer.    

Edited June 1, 2017 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

10 hours ago, Robemcdo said:

I think DNA can often lead to the wrong conclusions.  I have also come to the conclusion that some crimes are misinterpreted.  We often hear about rape/murder.  I find this a little odd in that sexual deviants and killers don't share the same traits.  One not necessarily likely to do the other, and in most cases will not do the other.

Which brings me to this.  In case where they say the person was raped, then murdered, I often wonder if in fact were they just engaging in sex and that CAUSED the murder.  I'm guessing the examiner would look at the body and see some remnants of sexual activity and jump to the conclusion that one followed the other and not necessarily that one caused the other.

So my point in the cause above.  The fact the DNA was not that of the person in jail does not in fact exonerate him.  It only means he was not the one who had sex with the girl.  It does not mean anything more than that.  It is quite possible the the rape/sex and the murderer are two different people.

DNA doesn't  lie,  the semen found on this poor girl  was of the killer:)

Edited June 1, 2017 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

Quote

Its just so sad that so many women are raped and murdered in a cover up. In this case the police never investigated the owners or the handy men of that apartment  that may have had a access, only focusing on her friends, and  how police can converse or brain wash  a person into guilt:)

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by docyabut2

[Regi]

14 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

Regi who ever killed Angie Dodge  had to be someone in the DNA bases of the many generations  of the DNA of those families. For instance when we did the  DNA ancestry .com  of my 95 year old mom,  we had a man that contacted us saying he was a relative with the same DNA. We found out  he was the great great great grandson of my great grand mother`s sister.   

Mind-boggling, right?! Well, that sort of thing is very interesting to me, thanks for sharing it.

Yeah, I understand about the generations, that it's the paternal line, but...Now how do I say this?....You know, it doesn't come easy when I don't know what I'm talking about in the first place.

Ok.... I'm wondering what the comparison of the crime scene profile and Usry's profile indicates is the relationship between those two people.

[Vincennes]

I've never posted the same link twice but here goes:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rhoden+murders&view=detail&mid=2F3B0CB17ABA789442032F3B0CB17ABA78944203&FORM=VIRE

As you probably know, Docy, I think where you take DNA is way over the top and I'm afraid there are others out there that do the same thing.  This is a prime example of faulty type thinking on the subject. 

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 8:03 PM, docyabut2 said:

DNA doesn't  lie,  the semen found on this poor girl  was of the killer:)

You simply can't say because there was DNA found that it is that of the killers.  In this type of case you have to allow for the fact there might have been sexual contact BEFORE the murder by a totally unrelated individual.  DNA is certainly evidence but it should never be looked at as sum-total evidence without everything else being considered.  In the Rhoden case, where I also posted this link, I mentioned that the information that there might be touch DNA on Chris Sr. if, in fact, he was beaten.  Let's say on bruises left on his face.  That would be interesting evidence but still not definitive evidence.  You would still have to leave the door open that it's possible someone else touched his face.  Like how about if Chris had gotten a hair cut that afternoon prior to going home that night ? You wouldn't want to immediately identify the DNA and haul the barber off in handcuffs.  Also, never forget it's our home state where the police admitted their "expert" had made a mistake in his DNA interpretation with regard to cases of multiple touch DNAs being found on the same item.  They had brought the evidence to court indicating they knew who was the last person to touch a gun based on touch DNA and they were wrong.  In that case it reversed a murder conviction. 

DNA should always be considered as PART of the evidence ..... not all the evidence that's needed. 

Edited June 14, 2017 by Vincennes

[oldrover]

On 6/1/2017 at 1:03 AM, docyabut2 said:

DNA doesn't  lie

That's certainly true, but there are mistakes, I don't know if this is the case in criminal procedures but it certainly happens elsewhere, look at Bryan Sykes' greatest hits collection. 

Which brings me to a point, is Ancestry.com stringent enough in it's material handling to rule out the fact that the sample ascribed to a family (however it works) is actually from that family. Again see Bryan Sykes' collection of greatest hits. 

Also it bothers me that while DNA evidence is a great resource in bringing offenders to justice its perceived infallibility bothers me. After all we have seen private DNA testing companies come up with some pretty weird stuff, and it seems likely that at least in one case their work would have had legal consequences. 

It does bother me that as the lay public we have absolute confidence in the accuracy of a process we ourselves, don't understand. 

[Regi]

51 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Which brings me to a point, is Ancestry.com stringent enough in it's material handling to rule out the fact that the sample ascribed to a family (however it works) is actually from that family.

I see no point in questioning the integrity of the profile provided by ancestry.com. 

1 hour ago, oldrover said:

Also it bothers me that while DNA evidence is a great resource in bringing offenders to justice its perceived infallibility bothers me.

In this case- the way I understand it- the unknown DNA profile was obtained from semen collected from the murder victims' clothing she'd worn at the time of her murder. Now surely, you aren't questioning whether that's the DNA profile of the killer.

[oldrover]

9 minutes ago, regi said:

I see no point in questioning the integrity of the profile provided by ancestry.com. 

But are you sure of how well catalogued these samples are? Are you aware of the foul ups that have happened in the DNA ancestry industry in general? Or how stringent they are dealing with mislabeling or cross contamination? Ancestry.com is fine I'm sure, but can we be absolutely certain that they're as precise, given that the bulk of their work has no particularly serious outcome, as say an official forensics facility would be? I'm not saying they aren't I'm asking how are we sure. 

 

14 minutes ago, regi said:

Now surely, you aren't questioning whether that's the DNA profile of the killer.

I'm not no, I'm not referring to that specific actually, my only point is that there's been chicanery and error at private DNA  companies in the past, so are they reliable enough to used in the legal system? 

I also question the validity of an absolute faith in DNA evidence when it's a process we, in general, don't understand the perimeters or execution of. 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

People can have two sets of DNA. They're called Chimeras.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/

[Regi]

23 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I'm not no, I'm not referring to that specific actually, my only point is that there's been chicanery and error at private DNA  companies in the past, so are they reliable enough to used in the legal system?

It's an investigative lead, and it's this type of lead which has led to an arrest in at least one cold case I can think of at the moment- that of Bryan Miller, the Phoenix canal killer or Zombie killer or however they refer to it. We have a thread about that case.

[oldrover]

12 minutes ago, regi said:

It's an investigative lead, and it's this type of lead which has led to an arrest in at least one cold case I can think of at the moment- that of Bryan Miller, the Phoenix canal killer or Zombie killer or however they refer to it. We have a thread about that case.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm all in favour of using any means necessary to put any such person where they belong. I am cautious though about an absolute faith in referring to privately held material. I realise that's not what you're saying but it is the point I was initially making. 

[Robemcdo]

DNA at the scene means only that.  Keep in mind the prosecution has complete control of the evidence .  Absolutely no reason to think that the DNA might be planted 

[Regi]

16 minutes ago, oldrover said:

 I am cautious though about an absolute faith in referring to privately held material.

 Well it's been a valuable resource.

Here's an interesting case (I think it's interesting...) in which such resources were used to help identify a man who claimed amnesia. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjaman_Kyle

[Vincennes]

18 hours ago, oldrover said:

But are you sure of how well catalogued these samples are? Are you aware of the foul ups that have happened in the DNA ancestry industry in general? Or how stringent they are dealing with mislabeling or cross contamination? Ancestry.com is fine I'm sure, but can we be absolutely certain that they're as precise, given that the bulk of their work has no particularly serious outcome, as say an official forensics facility would be? I'm not saying they aren't I'm asking how are we sure. 

Well I DO understand your point and I think it's VERY well taken and I think this is a perfect example of people's attitude when it comes to DNA.  I have to admit while laughing here, I almost fell into the trap.  Even with my trepidation about DNA testing and errors I was just about ready to send my DNA into Ancestor for a reading without really thinking that through.    And even though Ancestory is really not meant for serious scientific information like what is used in court, with a simple bump from a neighboring sample on the same microscopic table, I might have been discovered I could am a Native American and should wear headdress much like Elizabeth Warren.   I have to thank you for saving me a hundred bucks ! 

On the more serious side though, before I retired, I had the experience of working for the State and did have contact with the BCI.  The state of their equipment and their testing abilities that I met up with would give me grave concern if my life depended upon the accuracy of their DNA identification.  And as I posted earlier they are the ones that admitted they had made an error in testing that gave at least one man an immediate release and a new trial and they admitted at the time that SAME testing error had been used in about 350 other cases.  I've posted a link to the article on the error several time before, if you would like, I'll go back and see if I can find it again in the Columbus Dispatch's archives. 

The most ridiculous example of this in our time has been the Jon Benet Ramsey case.  Our you aware that the medical examiner in that case who did the autopsy on JonBenet was elderly and about to retire.  He conducted her autopsy and the care of her clothing with little concern or knowledge about DNA.  He admitted that his regular method of operation went as far as to use instruments to clean under her fingernails with instruments that might not have been sterilized.  To the point that they might have been just wiped off after having been used in other autopsies.  The clothing she was wearing wasn't really bagged or stored correctly but simply lay on a desk somewhere in his office and could have been touched or contaminated by anyone just passing through !  The police were so concerned when they found this out they tried to go back and find the names of other autopsies that might have been done recent of JonBenet's. 

18 hours ago, oldrover said:

I'm not no, I'm not referring to that specific actually, my only point is that there's been chicanery and error at private DNA  companies in the past, so are they reliable enough to used in the legal system? 

I also question the validity of an absolute faith in DNA evidence when it's a process we, in general, don't understand the perimeters or execution of. 

Here I wish you had stuck to your guns.  Because the thinking goes behind, "your semen was found on her clothing, so you are the killer," is exactly the type of faulty thinking that occurs in spite of any and all attempts at education or logic.  People like that seem to be unable to grasp such simple concepts as ... just perhaps the victim wore that clothing once or twice before the murder..... perhaps he had sex with her and then left before the murder came in.   

I'm not in favor of letting criminals go either but combating DNA evidence is one area that I do feel sorry for Defense Attorneys.  It would be painful to know that your client was actually innocent but you would have to face that type of ignorance on the part of juries and because the victim had worn her clothing two or three times, your client was going to spend the rest of his life in prison. 

I tried to look up the book by Brian Sykes that you mentioned but I couldn't find one with the title, Collection of Greatest Hits.  Was there a particular one of his that you liked, I'd love to read it. 

[Vincennes]

18 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

People can have two sets of DNA. They're called Chimeras.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/

I actually didn't read your link at first.  I was thinking it was something you were joking about.  I'm glad that I went back and read it.  That's fascinating ! 

[oldrover]

40 minutes ago, Vincennes said:

And even though Ancestory is really not meant for serious scientific information like what is used in court, with a simple bump from a neighboring sample on the same microscopic table, I might have been discovered I could am a Native American and should wear headdress much like Elizabeth Warren.   I have to thank you for saving me a hundred bucks ! 

This is the sort of thing that'd concern me, it's not that I don't trust Ancestry.com but that it is just a commercial venture dealing with I'd assume tens of thousands of samples. And the most serious outcome is that you don't turn out to be a descendant of Eric Bloodaxe like your family tradition always said you were. So is it really rigorous enough to base a prosecution on? Personally I wouldn't do it, not because of that, but just because mine wouldn't be much of a surprise. 

49 minutes ago, Vincennes said:

On the more serious side though, before I retired, I had the experience of working for the State and did have contact with the BCI.  The state of their equipment and their testing abilities that I met up with would give me grave concern if my life depended upon the accuracy of their DNA identification.  And as I posted earlier they are the ones that admitted they had made an error in testing that gave at least one man an immediate release and a new trial and they admitted at the time that SAME testing error had been used in about 350 other cases.  I've posted a link to the article on the error several time before, if you would like, I'll go back and see if I can find it again in the Columbus Dispatch's archives. 

The most ridiculous example of this in our time has been the Jon Benet Ramsey case.  Our you aware that the medical examiner in that case who did the autopsy on JonBenet was elderly and about to retire.  He conducted her autopsy and the care of her clothing with little concern or knowledge about DNA.  He admitted that his regular method of operation went as far as to use instruments to clean under her fingernails with instruments that might not have been sterilized.  To the point that they might have been just wiped off after having been used in other autopsies.  The clothing she was wearing wasn't really bagged or stored correctly but simply lay on a desk somewhere in his office and could have been touched or contaminated by anyone just passing through !  The police were so concerned when they found this out they tried to go back and find the names of other autopsies that might have been done recent of JonBenet's. 

I'm not sure what the BCI is. But again, the above points are a concern aren't they. Especially when a jury which is likely to be made up of people who don't understand the process of genetic fingerprinting, but who have a strong believe in its infallibility. 

It's not the actual accuracy of the test, although I have no idea what the error margin is, it's as you highlight above, the competency and integrity of the people undertaking it. After all if you're convicted on DNA evidence I think it is in most people's minds 'case closed'. 

Those 350 questionable cases are scary, and if that's happened in a lab which supposedly operates to the highest standards then....

57 minutes ago, Vincennes said:

Here I wish you had stuck to your guns.  Because the thinking goes behind, "your semen was found on her clothing, so you are the killer," is exactly the type of faulty thinking that occurs in spite of any and all attempts at education or logic.  People like that seem to be unable to grasp such simple concepts as ... just perhaps the victim wore that clothing once or twice before the murder..... perhaps he had sex with her and then left before the murder came in.   

I'm not in favor of letting criminals go either but combating DNA evidence is one area that I do feel sorry for Defense Attorneys.  It would be painful to know that your client was actually innocent but you would have to face that type of ignorance on the part of juries and because the victim had worn her clothing two or three times, your client was going to spend the rest of his life in prison. 

I didn't want to comment on the specific example cited there not because I think it's iron clad evidence but because I know none of the details about that or any individual case. I agree that leaving traces of your DNA at a crime scene or victim definitely does not mean that you're guilty, but again I know nothing about the case cited earlier. 

 

1 hour ago, Vincennes said:

I tried to look up the book by Brian Sykes that you mentioned but I couldn't find one with the title, Collection of Greatest Hits.  Was there a particular one of his that you liked, I'd love to read it. 

Sorry, that's my phraseology. Bryan Sykes is the 'eminent' 'Oxford' (hasn't been part of the university of Oxford for years but recently claimed to be) geneticist who regularly fouls up what he's doing. By his greatest hits I meant the selection of his more humorous blunders. He's the author of 'The Seven Daughters of Eve' which I believe was mistaken for serious science. He also runs or ran, his own ancestry DNA company. In the course of which he ended up contacting one innocent Floridian to tell him he was the direct descendant of Genghis Khan, 'Oh no I'm not' the man replied, and sure enough Sykes' work was shown to be faulty. He's also the one who claimed there were hybrid polar bears wondering around the Himalayas recently, again only for other researchers to point out that there really weren't. He's currently trying to insinuate that an African woman held captive in 19th C Abkhazia was part of an ancient isolated human population, rather than an escaped Ottoman slave. If he was analysing my DNA in a criminal case I'd be worried about being in the frame for Jack the Ripper Murders.