March 28, 2024, 11:42:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Caylee Marie Anthony #107 2/17/09 - 2/19/09  (Read 404680 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CasuallyCool
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4577


What a beauty!!!


« Reply #1720 on: February 19, 2009, 11:57:16 AM »

My friend who works in the DNA field sent me this on the STR profiles which was used for the paternity. This may explain why I am not sure the info on Lee is accurate.

Compared to PCR-based systems originally introduced, such as PM plus DQA1 (PE Applied Biosystems) STRs are technically more simple and direct at the allele detection stage.  On the other hand, STR are slightly more vulnerable to missing alleles and should not be used in cases of suspected incest without other verification.

There are two reasons for this.  1)Larger DNA fragments are degraded before smaller ones.  This is simply due to the fact that larger DNA molecules are bigger targets for degradative enzymes than smaller DNA molecules.  2)PCR itself favors (will produce more of) smaller DNA targets compared to larger ones that take more time to copy. The copying is done by a protein called an enzyme.  It can finish copying smaller DNA fragments more rapidly than larger ones.  

Both of these factors result in a tendency for small DNA fragments to be seen more readily than larger ones.  This is not an overwhelming tendency but certainly should be considered when amounts of input DNA are low, when DNA degradation is suspected, and particularly when a single small STR allele is weakly observed at a given STR locus.  

PCR-based testing is potentially useful since it is currently the only quick method of amplifying really minuscule amounts of DNA.  However, it is important to recognize that PCR based methods are exquisitely sensitive to contamination and need to be interpreted with extreme caution.  Match probabilities generated with some STR typing systems may involve extreme numbers perhaps giving the impression of an infallible result.  Scientific rigor often requires that extreme numbers be placed in a context that considers all aspects of testing including laboratory error rates and technical limitations.


Use of "partial profiles" is a newly emerging and fairly disturbing trend.  A partial profile is one in which not all of the loci targeted show up in the sample. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading in an incest profile.  The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed.  There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.

Most forensic laboratories will try to obtain full profiles.  Unfortunately, in an important case, it may be tempting to use a partial profile, especially if that is all that one has.  However, such profiles should be viewed skeptically. Over-interpretation of partial profiles can probably lead to serious mistakes.  Such mistakes could include false exclusions.


 

BLESS YOUR HEART.  SOME REAL RESEARCH!

 

ha.

Amen to that.
Logged

Do No Evil 
peanut
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2481


I can spell, I just can't type.


« Reply #1721 on: February 19, 2009, 11:58:48 AM »



just fyi
Q 18-1   Is that the hair from the brush Cindy gave to throw off LE?  Just asking - don't toss nanners!


I read this to say the hair speciman found in the trunk is not a match to Lee.  Well, certainly it's not a match if it's mitochondrial DNA...that only comes from the mother.   After reading this, I do NOT see where it says that Lee is not the father.


is there a monkey expert on deck?  If Lee is NOT the father, I am soooo back to the drawing board ):

I need clarification!

That only is STR results. I am going to have to research more, but those are not normally conclusive as to parentage. In a sibling the unknown markers do not deviate from the familial unit at all. I would like to see the actual results charted. This can be misinterpreted easily. If you have homologous pairs where the mother and father contributed to the same allele, then the odds are increased. If there are any same homologous genes with the same marker twice, it would normally be interpreted as incest and STR tests don't give all that information.  

I am still not going to concede this one yet. I have some more research to do as to whether STR can conclusively rule out a family member, which I don't believe it can. I am wondering if they are holding the "forensic analysis" of the markers for later


HEY DOLCE I FOUND IT!  Everyone  who was confused about Lee being Caylee's Dad please read above...
I spent way too long looking for it!!!

that makes no sense. they took hair and buccal swabs from all the anthonys. they have caylees complete dna from jesses paternity test. they always take larger samples than they need in case multiple tests have to be run. they can run any test they want, they have everyones complete dna profiles. its the fbi, they dont screw around.
Logged

Justice is truth in action - Benjamin Disraeli
3babiesmommy
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1198



« Reply #1722 on: February 19, 2009, 11:59:23 AM »

I come to this site because of 1 person and 1 person only, and that is Caylee.  It has been a positive and comforting place for me.  I don't like to see members/friends insulting each other.  WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT!   
Logged

LEE: When I say I know my sister, I can say that because I know how I would react. I'm a lot like my sister as far as how we would react.
John Morgan: I can tell.
leslee
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



« Reply #1723 on: February 19, 2009, 12:00:13 PM »

Not sure what everyone thinks is so funny about what I posted? Boomonkey?  It's not really fun to be left out of the joke.  I'm sorry I'm not here enough to know everyone's credentials...whether TurboThink knows what he is talking about or not (I should not have said "expert")  I thought Turbothink brought an interesting angle, and a totally intelligent one that was based in fact.   Maybe I am wrong.  I am NOT gonna give up the ghost about Lee being the dad until it is stated in plain english.   I will eat a huge plate of crow and apologize to everyone if I'm wrong.  If I'm right, I will be sure to have a field day with that as well.  Since everyone seems to think my opinion is so funny, I will go back to lurking.   Thankyouverymuch.
That is just it Shari...it is stated in plain English by the FBI.  Lee is not a match!  What else could you ask for?  There is not even the possibility for reasonable doubt with this.  Why do you have the need to peg the tail on that donkey?  Casey was permiscuous, Mickey Mouse could be the father for all we know.  FBI has been around for a very long time, and given that their results show no match, I think that is pretty evident that he is not.  If it was inconclusive or not determinable..well it would have said so on the paperwork.

There is no inside joke, Boo just feels the frustration of those going "Really?  Are we going to go beat on this horse yet again??"



Yes because you are no scientist, Dolce, I have read your posts.  Those results state that the speciman (could be a hair from the trunk that only contains MITOCHONDRIAL DNA, which COULD NEVER be matched to Lee if there is no NUCLEAR DNA  on it (i.e. no skin at the top of the hair to extract nuclear dna from).  Mitochondrial dna can only be matched to a MOTHER.  THOSE  RESULTS ARE INCONCLUSIVE. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE PARAMETERS OF THE TEST OR WHAT WAS BEING TESTED.  the results state that a match could not be found based on the sample (was it mitochondrial...tells us nothing...or nuclear....would tell us)  WE Don't know.   And because we don't know, the results can not be entered into CODIS.

So yes, REALLY BOO!  Sorry, I am not the most popular girl in this thread but I am a PhD student who does a variety of research.  I know  nothing of these medical tests, but I do understand how science works a little more than...a random blogger.


Here maybe this will end it all right here.

Jan 21st Evidence released
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530418/detail.html
Article 4 Evidence sent by county to FBI
They obtained two Buccal swabs from the left check of K9 ( Lee) buccal=  skin cells.

http://www.geneticprofiles.com/main_files/faq.htm

# How does DNA paternity testing work using a Buccal Swab?
A buccal swab is a specialized applicator with a sponge, cotton or Dacron tip. The applicator is rubbed on the inside of the cheek to collect epithelial cells. This procedure is non-invasive and painless.

#
What kinds of samples are needed for DNA testing?
Genetic Profiles frequently uses a cheek swab collection (buccal swab) since it is easy to obtain, completely non-invasive, painless, and is just as accurate as blood samples. Almost any biological sample could be used since DNA is located everywhere throughout the body in the same exact form.
Return to top




Logged
goodnmad
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5709


Good grief! It's Charlie Brown.


« Reply #1724 on: February 19, 2009, 12:00:20 PM »

just throwing this out there and then eating lunch ... I'm a hungry monkey.

Wouldn't it look really bad if they released this doc stating caylee is not Lee's offspring -- regardless of what the testing was -- and then later during trial said oh we did a different test and he is the father?

I'm just wondering. To me, this would be damaging to the state if it happened.

So it leads me to believe they are sure of the result.

But I'm still sticking with there is a reason they tested in the first place and it may be more than just the hearsay from Tony and Jesse RE: Lee.

Logged

I remember you, Caylee.
A_News_Junkie_Monkey
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3028


« Reply #1725 on: February 19, 2009, 12:01:42 PM »

From yesterday: 
Quote from: NewfieMonkey on February 18, 2009, 05:58:44 PM
Quote from: A_News_Junkie_Monkey on February 18, 2009, 05:55:16 PM
That heart from the scene - is it on a leaf or what?  Because wasn't the sticker residue in the shape of a heart found on the tape on the skull; and the actual sticker found in the area?
weathered duct tape ... sad
But didn't they say they only found the residue on the tape on the skull?  IE: did the sticker float off and land on more duct tape?  Or maybe there was more than one of the stickers?

---------->  I watched my dvr copy of Greta this am and someone on there said that this sticker was found on a piece of cardboard found at the scene.  Looking at the pic, the corner seems square like cardboard.  I couldn't imagine that LE would put the sticker (even for sizing) on the duct tape - as it would certainly be grounds to toss the evidence or an appeal.  Anyone see more info on this cardboard?
Logged
Dolce
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10844


Del senno di poi ne son piene le fosse...


WWW
« Reply #1726 on: February 19, 2009, 12:03:00 PM »

that makes no sense. they took hair and buccal swabs from all the anthonys. they have caylees complete dna from jesses paternity test. they always take larger samples than they need in case multiple tests have to be run. they can run any test they want, they have everyones complete dna profiles. its the fbi, they dont screw around.
That is my point exactly.  They have all the evidence they need.  Why they chose this test to perform I do not know, I am not their scientist, but aparently its what they chose to do and the results they have they must be pretty certain of otherwise they would have tested again and again and again!

Its not like the just have a tip piece of hair from Caylee and a skin cell from Lee.  They have the mother load of DNA on Caylee and they have the DNA through warrant from Lee.
Logged

Monken
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3600



« Reply #1727 on: February 19, 2009, 12:03:04 PM »

I haven't finished reading all the docs. yet but from what I have read, I haven't seen any mention of the "horse" toy that was talked about.  Has anyone else seen anything about the toy horse?  Might be in the next doc. dump...........

It's there, in the 122 pg. set. It states toy horse & fence. They must be part of a set.
Logged

"Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden."
Phaedrus
Babybear
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3266



« Reply #1728 on: February 19, 2009, 12:03:55 PM »

Not sure what everyone thinks is so funny about what I posted? Boomonkey?  It's not really fun to be left out of the joke.  I'm sorry I'm not here enough to know everyone's credentials...whether TurboThink knows what he is talking about or not (I should not have said "expert")  I thought Turbothink brought an interesting angle, and a totally intelligent one that was based in fact.   Maybe I am wrong.  I am NOT gonna give up the ghost about Lee being the dad until it is stated in plain english.   I will eat a huge plate of crow and apologize to everyone if I'm wrong.  If I'm right, I will be sure to have a field day with that as well.  Since everyone seems to think my opinion is so funny, I will go back to lurking.   Thankyouverymuch.
That is just it Shari...it is stated in plain English by the FBI.  Lee is not a match!  What else could you ask for?  There is not even the possibility for reasonable doubt with this.  Why do you have the need to peg the tail on that donkey?  Casey was permiscuous, Mickey Mouse could be the father for all we know.  FBI has been around for a very long time, and given that their results show no match, I think that is pretty evident that he is not.  If it was inconclusive or not determinable..well it would have said so on the paperwork.

There is no inside joke, Boo just feels the frustration of those going "Really?  Are we going to go beat on this horse yet again??"



Yes because you are no scientist, Dolce, I have read your posts.  Those results state that the speciman (could be a hair from the trunk that only contains MITOCHONDRIAL DNA, which COULD NEVER be matched to Lee if there is no NUCLEAR DNA on it (i.e. no skin at the top of the hair to extract nuclear dna from).  Mitochondrial dna can only be matched to a MOTHER.  THOSE  RESULTS ARE INCONCLUSIVE. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE PARAMETERS OF THE TEST OR WHAT WAS BEING TESTED.  the results state that a match could not be found based on the sample (was it mitochondrial...tells us nothing...or nuclear....would tell us)  WE Don't know.   And because we don't know, the results can not be entered into CODIS.

So yes, REALLY BOO!  Sorry, I am not the most popular girl in this thread but I am a PhD student who does a variety of research.  I know  nothing of these medical tests, but I do understand how science works a little more than...a random blogger.

As I understand the statement from the FBI,  STR typing was done on Q18-1 (Caylee Anthony) and she could not have been the offspring of K-9, Lee Anthony's specimen.  It does state that STR typing was done with these specimens.

It does not identify from whom the specimens Q55 and Q56 in the second sentence originated, but they were not STR typed and therefore were not eligible for CODEX.  However, I read this as their being completely different specimens.  I am not a PHD candidate, so perhaps I'm wrong.
Logged

Wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.
Right is right, even if nobody does it. ~ Unknown
theboyzmom
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3465


Brandi is making sure I get around!


WWW
« Reply #1729 on: February 19, 2009, 12:04:36 PM »

Another question for you monkeys....

Why would they take all of CAs medications?? They weren't illegal meds. The only thing I can think of is that maybe they thought KC was druging poor Caylee with more than xanax and/or chloroform???
Not sure the exact answer on this, but given the circumstances and trying to match things up, they probably took anything that they would consider to be weapons of choice, or possibilities.  Does not mean that all the evidence collected would be damning, but atleast they had it collected at their disposal if it came up with testing of the bones, plants, or materials.

I think it is standard procedure so they do not have to go back to get something else.
Logged

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. - John Stuart Mill On Liberty, 1859
- George Bernard Shaw
LuvLeBron
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


The Cavs are still the best in my mind


« Reply #1730 on: February 19, 2009, 12:04:50 PM »

Okay...does anyone remember when Caylee's hair was first found in the trunk and they couldn't tell if it was Caylee's or KCs? The only reason they knew it was Caylee's was b/c it had the "death band" on it....

How could they not tell thru DNA? If Caylee's father was not "in the family" then she'd have DNA from her father that would not exist in KCs DNA.

So when I first heard that I was convinced that Lee was the father..but if not him, then is it GA??? Otherwise, how do you explain all this?

Any thoughts??

IIRC -- The testing was mitochondrial (sp?) dna. Appparently that is passed down only from the mother. So the mother and child would match.  Perhaps that was the only type of testing they could do on that particular hair.
As I recall, the root of the hair in the trunk was missing.  They can do Mitocondrial on the shaft, but need the root for nuclear.

But I thought they had the root, b/c that's where they found the death band...am I wrong on that?
Logged

**Justice Is My Calling**

I stand with the brave protesters in Iran. Keep fighting. The American people are behind you %100.
no rose colored glasses
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 45869


Zoe you will always be in my heart and soul


« Reply #1731 on: February 19, 2009, 12:04:54 PM »

I haven't finished reading all the docs. yet but from what I have read, I haven't seen any mention of the "horse" toy that was talked about.  Has anyone else seen anything about the toy horse?  Might be in the next doc. dump...........
I wondered that also texanne, there was mention of a Barbie doll though.
Logged
leslee
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



« Reply #1732 on: February 19, 2009, 12:05:45 PM »

I haven't finished reading all the docs. yet but from what I have read, I haven't seen any mention of the "horse" toy that was talked about.  Has anyone else seen anything about the toy horse?  Might be in the next doc. dump...........

The plastic toy horse IS listed in the myriad of evidence collected on scene. Right under the broken Winnie the Pooh balloon Sad IIRC. Also a key on a keychain was collected ( wonder if that fits the A's home as we "know" Zanny had a key )
Logged
QuietMonkey
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3903



« Reply #1733 on: February 19, 2009, 12:07:24 PM »

I think things can get hectic in the cage sometimes, heck what do you expect from a bunch of monkeys?  Seriously, I think it's ok to disagree about things, and post our thoughts & opinions, regardless of whether we're a new or "popular" monkey. Things just happen this way sometimes, and we are really not "real" monkeys, so there's no need to fight for hierarchy in the cage!  Really, you know what I mean. This isn't the first monkey "disagreement" and it won't be the last. I personally don't think any monkey was being mean at all, just getting a little "heated" that's all. It happens, and I think we'll get through it like we have before.

 
Logged

  RIP Sweet Puppy
no rose colored glasses
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 45869


Zoe you will always be in my heart and soul


« Reply #1734 on: February 19, 2009, 12:07:28 PM »

I haven't finished reading all the docs. yet but from what I have read, I haven't seen any mention of the "horse" toy that was talked about.  Has anyone else seen anything about the toy horse?  Might be in the next doc. dump...........

It's there, in the 122 pg. set. It states toy horse & fence. They must be part of a set.
Thanks I missed that.
Logged
goodnmad
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5709


Good grief! It's Charlie Brown.


« Reply #1735 on: February 19, 2009, 12:08:17 PM »

Q55 and Q56 were samples taken from the trunk tire well ... no detectable DNA or STR results were found. And those were not entered into CODIS.

That's what I read anyway.

Possibly samples were to degraded?
Logged

I remember you, Caylee.
no rose colored glasses
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 45869


Zoe you will always be in my heart and soul


« Reply #1736 on: February 19, 2009, 12:09:05 PM »

I haven't finished reading all the docs. yet but from what I have read, I haven't seen any mention of the "horse" toy that was talked about.  Has anyone else seen anything about the toy horse?  Might be in the next doc. dump...........

The plastic toy horse IS listed in the myriad of evidence collected on scene. Right under the broken Winnie the Pooh balloon Sad IIRC. Also a key on a keychain was collected ( wonder if that fits the A's home as we "know" Zanny had a key )
Now the key I did see, and I wondered if the Barbi was Caylees.
Logged
Dolce
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10844


Del senno di poi ne son piene le fosse...


WWW
« Reply #1737 on: February 19, 2009, 12:09:22 PM »


Here maybe this will end it all right here.


Jan 21st Evidence released
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530418/detail.html
Article 4 Evidence sent by county to FBI
They obtained two Buccal swabs from the left check of K9 ( Lee) buccal=  skin cells.

http://www.geneticprofiles.com/main_files/faq.htm

# How does DNA paternity testing work using a Buccal Swab?
A buccal swab is a specialized applicator with a sponge, cotton or Dacron tip. The applicator is rubbed on the inside of the cheek to collect epithelial cells. This procedure is non-invasive and painless.

#
What kinds of samples are needed for DNA testing?
Genetic Profiles frequently uses a cheek swab collection (buccal swab) since it is easy to obtain, completely non-invasive, painless, and is just as accurate as blood samples. Almost any biological sample could be used since DNA is located everywhere throughout the body in the same exact form.
Return to top

One would hope, but I doubt it. 

Its as if people are just beside themselves hoping that Lee will be the father, as if that will give some sort of satisfaction in all of this, but the truth is that is disgusting to even fathom that he could be let alone that he would be.

Why the need to continue to debate this, now with the FBI results, is beyond me!  If they want to throw out that testing, might as well throw out the whole lot of testing done in this case thus far...as it could be erronious too.  Those types of people would make it to Baez's jury pick list for sure.
Logged

Dolce
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10844


Del senno di poi ne son piene le fosse...


WWW
« Reply #1738 on: February 19, 2009, 12:10:11 PM »

Another question for you monkeys....

Why would they take all of CAs medications?? They weren't illegal meds. The only thing I can think of is that maybe they thought KC was druging poor Caylee with more than xanax and/or chloroform???
Not sure the exact answer on this, but given the circumstances and trying to match things up, they probably took anything that they would consider to be weapons of choice, or possibilities.  Does not mean that all the evidence collected would be damning, but atleast they had it collected at their disposal if it came up with testing of the bones, plants, or materials.

I think it is standard procedure so they do not have to go back to get something else.
I think you are very right.  Get everything that looks like it has potential, tag it, and bag it.
Logged

Babybear
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3266



« Reply #1739 on: February 19, 2009, 12:10:39 PM »

Okay...does anyone remember when Caylee's hair was first found in the trunk and they couldn't tell if it was Caylee's or KCs? The only reason they knew it was Caylee's was b/c it had the "death band" on it....

How could they not tell thru DNA? If Caylee's father was not "in the family" then she'd have DNA from her father that would not exist in KCs DNA.

So when I first heard that I was convinced that Lee was the father..but if not him, then is it GA??? Otherwise, how do you explain all this?

Any thoughts??

IIRC -- The testing was mitochondrial (sp?) dna. Appparently that is passed down only from the mother. So the mother and child would match.  Perhaps that was the only type of testing they could do on that particular hair.
As I recall, the root of the hair in the trunk was missing.  They can do Mitocondrial on the shaft, but need the root for nuclear.

But I thought they had the root, b/c that's where they found the death band...am I wrong on that?
IIRC correctly the death band occurs just above the scalp, so the root might or might not be there.  I do recall reading that the root was missing, but my recall, while very good, is not perfect.  So you could be right.
Logged

Wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.
Right is right, even if nobody does it. ~ Unknown
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 4.416 seconds with 19 queries.