www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The recovery site
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:12 am    Post subject: Levy Case-DNA Reply with quote

Here is a previous synopsis by the same "Candy" of the Topix.com Bode Technology-Chandra Levy Case Thread of the Jon-Benet Ramsey Forum

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TUHTB7CJ0TEFDI2QF/p2

Quote:
I've been checking into this Bode Levy case situation today. I am going to type a synopsis here, and hopefully, will have time to type more this weekend. THIS IS ALL RELEVANT TO THE RAMSEY CASE.

From a court motion in the United States of America v Ingmar Guandique:

"During theri analysis back in the 2002-2004 time frame, the FBI Labratory was not able to recover any DNA from the items of evidence recovered at the crime scene, and therefore, there was no DNA that could be compared against the defendant or anyone else in this case. Indeed, government counsel is not aware of any available "biological material" that is available now for testing from the items of evidence recovered from the crime scene.(More next post)
candy
East Lansing, MI
Reply »
|Report Abuse
|Judge it!
|#23
Oct 22, 2009 "Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, last year the government submitted certain items of evidence from the crime scene to BODE Technology in an attempt to determine whether it was possible with new technologies to attempt to recover any incidental DNA. What undersigned counsel have learned since then is that in light of the condition of the items of evidence when they were recovered, and the handling of the items since their recovery, it is essentially impossible to recover now any DNA that may have existed or been deposited on the items of evidence at the time of the murder. This fact was demonstrated when BODE, using what is sometimes referred to as "touch" DNA technology (to locate skin cells, or "incidental DNA") in an attempt to recover DNA from certain items of evidence, found some female DNA on Ms. Levy's sports bra and a mixture of DNA, THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR OF WHICH WAS A MALE, IN MS. LEVY'S TIGHTS.(Not Guandique's DNA) As it turned out, the female DNA recovered from Ms. Levy's sports bra was the DNA of the BODE examiner conducting the test. Similary the government has reason to believe that the mixture of DNA found in Ms. Levy's tights DID NOT COME FROM THE CRIME SCENE, BUT IS RATHER PRESENT IN THIS ITEM OF EVIDENCE NOW AS A RESULT OF CONTAMINATION THAT TOOK PLACE AFTER THE ITEMS WERE RECOVERED.


And in reply to "Brother Moon's" request to dumb it down Candy writes:

Quote:
candy
East Lansing, MI
Reply »
|Report Abuse
|Judge it!
|#26
Oct 22, 2009 Thanks Brother Moon, it does need dumbing down, believe me. Dumbed down, the FBI found NO DNA when Levy's body was recovered a year after she went missing in Rock Creek Park, exposed to the elements. No DNA includes no DNA of the indicted murder suspect, Guandique.

Fast forward to 2009, the FBI tries to see if BODE can come up with some "touch DNA" evidence (also called "indicental DNA") from the same items. What happened was no DNA from the indicted suspect Guandique was found, no DNA from Chandra Levy was found, some female DNA was found in Levy's sports bra, which is contamination from the Bode tech working on the evidence, and bombshell, Bode found there is MALE DNA in the tights of Chandra Levy which doesn't match anyone, which the Government says is somehow CONTAMINATION.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:52 pm    Post subject: No Seconds! Reply with quote

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TUHTB7CJ0TEFDI2QF/p2

Bode Technology-Chandra Levy Case-Topix.com-Jon Benet Thread

Paris Shillton, Anaheim, CA-posted below
October 22, 2009



candy wrote:
Thanks Brother Moon, it does need dumbing down, believe me. Dumbed down, the FBI found NO DNA when Levy's body was recovered a year after she went missing in Rock Creek Park, exposed to the elements. No DNA includes no DNA of the indicted murder suspect, Guandique.
They didn't look for "touch DNA" at that time.

Fast forward to 2009,
candy wrote:
the FBI tries to see if BODE can come up with some "touch DNA" evidence (also called "indicental DNA") from the same items. What happened was no DNA from the indicted suspect Guandique was found, no DNA from Chandra Levy was found, some female DNA was found in Levy's sports bra, which is contamination from the Bode tech working on the evidence, and bombshell, Bode found there is MALE DNA in the tights of Chandra Levy which doesn't match anyone, which the Government says is somehow CONTAMINATION.
Somehow, meaning they don't know. They didn't say second hand transfer, they didn't say everyone has other peoples DNA on them, they didn't say how just one persons DNA was found to contaminate and not several.
How come the male that allegedly contaminated the evidence with his DNA didn't leave someone else DNA he had on him also?

And JB's case we are talking two different items of clothing with two different sources and one of them mixed into fresh blood from JonBenet. And her body and clothes weren't sitting out in the elements for a year.

Who's to say some bum didn't come across Chandra's dead body and touched things but never reported it.

Either way, the DNA contamination of Chandra is not second hand DNA.
None of the Lab techs DNA is in the tights, and only the males DNA is in the tights, so neither DNA donor transferred anyone else DNA second hand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Either way, the DNA contamination of Chandra is not second hand DNA.
None of the Lab techs DNA is in the tights, and only the males DNA is in the tights, so neither DNA donor transferred anyone else DNA second hand.

Hi Rainbow - thanks for all your recent work!

Can you explain this to me? I keep reading it and don't get it (maybe it's partly that it's late and I'm pretty tired.)
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More from the Topix.com-Bode-Chandra Levy Case Discussion forum Thread

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TUHTB7CJ0TEFDI2QF/p6

Hi Jane!
Before I even make an attempt at explaining the former posts, I have one more post to add from this strand. This one is from Anti-K.

Anti-K
Kamloops, Canada
Reply »
Quote:
Oct 27, 2009 1WhoKnowsTruth wrote:
<quoted>
Uh......What? What are you talking about here? Be specific. How is a particular fiber date/time stamped. No one can determine on face value when a particular fiber or hair or DNA sample from an unknown source appeared, generally speaking. Other facters must be taken into account.
It is the presumption that fibers, fluids, DNA, etc found on the victim and/or crime scene are ‘related’ to the crime. Such items must be sourced so as to eliminate such possibility.


Anti-K's reply
This presumption is based upon Locard’s Principle of Exchange (for every contact there is an exchange) and is one of the founding principles of modern forensics and crime scene reconstruction. If the killer, regardless of identity, touched the crime scene (the floors, the walls, the victim, etc) then there should be a transfer from the killer to the crime scene and a transfer from the crime scene to the killer.

DNA found under a victim’s fingernails, commingled in their blood, on specific areas of their clothing, etc are presumed to belong to the person responsible for committing the crime BECAUSE OF the principle of exchange.‘We’ don’t have to prove this point as it is the presumption upon which all collection, investigation, etc is based!

[b]So, the question becomes, can this or that be explained by innocent contact? Unfortunately, this question can only be resolved if the evidence in question can be sourced (traced), until such an event this evidence remains incriminating and presumed to belong to the assailant.
AK


Last edited by Rainbow on Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:53 pm    Post subject: Locard's Exchange Principle Reply with quote

Definition of Locard's Exchange Principle--Wikipedia
This page was last modified on 6 December 2010 at 00:23

The Locard exchange principle, also known as Locard's theory, was postulated by 20th century forensic scientist Edmond Locard.

Locard was the director of the very first crime laboratory in existence, located in Lyon, France. Locard's exchange principle states that "with contact between two items, there will be an exchange" (Thornton, 1927) and is known most commonly as the idiom "every contact leaves a trace".

Essentially Locard's principle is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator(s) of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so the perpetrator(s) will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene.

“ Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value. ”
—Paul L. Kirk. 1953. Crime investigation: physical evidence and the police laboratory. Interscience Publishers, Inc.: New York.


Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at—or taken from—a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.

When a crime is committed, fragmentary (or trace) evidence needs to be collected from the scene. A team of specialized police technicians go to the scene of the crime and seal it off. They both record video and take photographs of the crime scene, victim (if there is one) and items of evidence. If necessary, they undertake a firearms and ballistics examination. They check for shoe and tire mark impressions, examine any vehicles and check for fingerprints.



Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:25 pm    Post subject: Locard Principle-Evidence Contamination Reply with quote

From answerbag.com
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/85147#ixzz17eTAuAsb


Why is the Locard Principle important as it relates to contamination of evidence?


by forensic on January 15th, 2007

Locards exchange theory is also especially important when considering issue of contamination of evidence. There have been several high profile cases where the defence will discredit evidence citing contamination (Hanratty, Barry George and others). The issue of contamination is a primary concern at a crime scene as SOCOS are all too aware, it is not just the offender who may leave behind or take away traces with them. (Hence the protective clothing, the need for two different officers to deal with suspect and victim, the separation of evidence at the lab,evidence relating to the suspect and victim is never examined at the same time or in the same lab/bench area)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:52 pm    Post subject: FBI Database Backlog Reply with quote

FBI says backlog of DNA database is now cleared
By BETH BURGER - bburger@bradenton.com Buzz up!

http://www.bradenton.com/2010/12/15/2813341/fbi-says-backlog-of-dna-database.html

MANATEE -- A backlog of more than 295,000 federal prisoners’ DNA in an FBI database has been eliminated, according to FBI officials.

“The FBI laboratory has been aggressively pursuing proactive measures to address the massive growth of federal offender samples following legislative changes in 2001, 2004 and 2005,” said FBI Special Agent Ann Todd from the public affairs office in Quantico, Va. “In September, the FBI laboratory successfully eliminated the federal offender backlog.

“Further, new offender samples, currently being accepted by the laboratory, are processed and uploaded into the National DNA Index System within 30 days.”



Read more: http://www.bradenton.com/2010/12/15/2813341/fbi-says-backlog-of-dna-database.html#ixzz1AJXARz6W
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9240
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The conclusion is that if the male DNA on Chandra's tights were contamination as the DC prosecutors claim, then it should be able to be matched to someone in law enforcement or an FBI evidence processing contractor.

Since it can't, it should be presumed to be that of the murderer and not contamination, and Guandique should be freed as with all other similar DNA findings on murder victims.

That he hasn't, and the federal government ignores this information and lies to the jury, should be grounds for finding the US federal government guilty of illegal proceedings against a foreign national.

The US government is no better than Iran in this case. If they weren't so able to crush everyone El Salvador should be lodging a diplomatic protest and demand their citizen be returned to them as we make similar demands to Iran.

On the other hand, maybe El Salvador doesn't want Guandique back. Can't blame them.

Still, I wish Chandra were alive so she could sue these dufuses for willingly and deliiberately trashing her reputation for a political coverup of murder of a Washington intern.

But since she was the Washington intern murdered, she can't.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group