Caylee Marie Anthony #107 2/17/09 - 2/19/09

[trimmonthelake]

Monkeys still awake? Did you vote today?

http://incoldblogger.blogspot.com/

Is the voting over?  Can't find the post to vote.

GOOD MORNING MONKEYS

Thank you for the link, voting seems to be slowing down  Did you vote today?

I voted earlier.I thought it looked slower too.
Vote Monkeys Vote   

[TURBOTHINK]

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.

[Babybear]

misitx5

My prayers to you. Ihave a niece thats been a parole officer and because one person a republican is holding out on his vote. she may loose her job by july. they are giving pink slips. this is so sad everywhere you look the economy is getting everybody so hard. Now unemployment has skyrocketed to the point where they are hiring people to work for them to keep up with the influx of people applying. I myslef am laid off and living on the meager amount unemployment gives. I am single so it's not as difficult for me as it is for those of you with families. My heartfelt prayers to those with children being affected by the layoffs.
I WILL KEEP YOU IN MY PRAYERS
misskatie

Nicest post of the day.

Prayers also to those with the employment issues, DH and I are self employed....even tho our industry is pretty much a "must have" for most families, we are also affected. Somehow, when people have to choose between paying the furnace bill or putting food on the table, the food wins, and our bank account suffers. But, ya know what? I make a special point to be kind to those customers when I have to call them and remind them about their bill. And I wait way too long (usually 45 days) to call them. know why?

Because I also have to choose between food and bills. "Let's see, do we want electricity this month, or pay the dentist?". And, I get the same kind of calls I have to make. I just thank God my mom taught me to can anything I can get my hands on, and that our family has farmers and we have 2 freezers. I also thank God that my some of our kids are close enough for us to share.

Sorry to be so Off Topic, but I wanted some of you to know that you're not alone, and that the people you "owe" to understand..cos they're going thru it themselves.

I think this is actually on topic - the As are running LE around and around wasting money and resources. Without that waste there would be money for the important things. This is but one reason that I think the As should be told - "tell us everything or go to jail"

The only thing I'd like LE to say to the As is "You're under arrest."

[Dolce]

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.

No I am not a Scientist and neither are you.  The FBI has many many Scientists on their payroll, and NORMALLY when a test proves inconclusive they state it!
If you can figure out as you so state above that they do not have the "right" parameters for the test to be done...then why in the hell would the FBI and all of their smarties have conducted such an expensive test for????  Think about it!  If you want to look at all angles then look at every last angle and not just those that fit to your theory.
They do not test just to test then go "oops we done forgot we have the wrong type of DNA".  These people working at the FBI have degrees and PhD's in these fields of study.  We are monkeys with Google!

[Babybear]

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.

[CasuallyCool]

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.

Chill, ShariVari.  All is good.  Remember, be casuall.   

[ShariVari]

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.

[islandmonkey]

can ya'll say a little prayer for me too.....i am my only source of income and i got laid off december 11.  THANKS!

I will JuJu~I was laid off once not too long ago, and left my story for you in Musings a while back..........

O/T Did you get smacked by that storm last night?

Also, pls pray for my dad, he is in the hospital with heart problems, has had 4 heart attacks, and one bypass 3 yrs ago My dad and my kids are my world and I he is my rock, so pls remember him in your prayers.

Thanks, IM

[ShariVari]

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.

No I am not a Scientist and neither are you.  The FBI has many many Scientists on their payroll, and NORMALLY when a test proves inconclusive they state it!
If you can figure out as you so state above that they do not have the "right" parameters for the test to be done...then why in the hell would the FBI and all of their smarties have conducted such an expensive test for????  Think about it!  If you want to look at all angles then look at every last angle and not just those that fit to your theory.
They do not test just to test then go "oops we done forgot we have the wrong type of DNA".  These people working at the FBI have degrees and PhD's in these fields of study.  We are monkeys with Google!

Please refer to TurboThink's recent post, dear.  It explains it all.

[A_News_Junkie_Monkey]

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.

Shari - I am re-posting something I wrote yesterday for your benefit only.  This same thing was going on yesterday, and for the life of me - I do not understand the attacking/intimidating of fellow members.  Please do not go into lurk mode and give those who think looking at all possibilities is wrong.  It is not a contest - at least not that I know.
Monkey Favor Please!!!!!!   Can we respectfully disagree, not belittle those who don't agree with each other?  Seems DNA, specimen numbers and what they go to, the tape findings (inside or outside of the tape) and so many other details are still developing and confusing at best.
Maybe we could follow that old golden rule?
What makes monkeys so unique is we have the strong and the sensitive types all together for one reason~~  Let's keep it that way, please!
United we stand, divided we fall. IMHO Sincerely with thanks, News Junkie 

[trimmonthelake]

I think this doc dump really shows alot of how Cindy is. She absolutely is neck deep in coverup in this case which I think is out of "guilt" and blaming herself.

George is also as deep as she is but I don't think he wanted to be. I think in his interviews and demeaner he really wanted to tell the truth. When you watch him in the jail interviews he can't look at Casey on the screen. He is a torn man manipulated by 2 women and I dont' think he will ever recover from the loss of Caylee. He probably has some blames for himself and espcially for Cindy. Can you imagine how deep down he probably thinks back at the tug of war Casey and Cindy had over Caylee and thinks "Why didn't I do something about that?"

Lee! I listened to his interviews and mostly thought he was giving info to help LE really against his sister. I suppose at that time he was being honest or he would have covered up some of the things he told them. I think he is going with the whole support Casey stuff to protect his parents...not Casey.

The Annie info was interesting about Lee in Oct telling her to not protect Casey basically and think of herself. Well I think she did think of herself because I am not so sure she is 100% of some of it and was thinking of herself and covering her azz. You have a friend and then find out she is lying so you back off for a year from her. She gets arrested for her child missing and you go and stay with her at the house overnight when you know there is no Zanny the nanny. She said things that didn't surprise us about C and KC but....
I don't believe her not giving Xanex to Casey but once a few years ago. Remember...she came with a lawyer and  had to be subpoened and it was Jan 7, 2009.

Hey OriginalKat.Good post. I am interested in Annie.I don't believe the Xanex statement either. 

[Dolce]

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.

I would like to see the results of the study showing the percentages of partial profiles that have turned up to be incorrect...what is it like 10 to 1? 

Its amazing to me that the FBI can state something and yet there are still people caught up on the truth in it.  YET they get excited and try to match a sticker.....

[Dolce]

BLESS YOUR HEART.  SOME REAL RESEARCH!

 

ha.

It is true what they say, "ignorance is bliss".

[Nut44x4]

See now, I don't agree. You just fry one chicken at a time. They have had all this evidence in their hot little hands for quite a while. Plus they have their secret stash of facts too. The Ants are not untouchable! They are like the frogs sitting in the saucepan while the heat is slowly being turned up. They have no idea they are being cooked!!!

Holy CRAP!! I hope Kermit doesn't pop in and see that 

[no rose colored glasses]

I don't understand this DNA and whose the father and who isn't. I am not smart enough to understand. But what I do feel is an educated guess is that if a family member is the father, no way is this coming out until trial.

IMO, no matter the spin, the FBI stated outright that Lee is not the father.

I'm not sure why so many are so dead set on believing there was incest in this family.  All there is to go on are two statements from Casey (Liar Extraordinaire) that Lee tried to have sex with her in middle school.

There's lots of other stuff to discuss.

Later...

THANK YOU!

Evidently my post got misunderstood, I'm not suggesting a family member is the father, I'm just saying if it is it would come out at the trial. The only thing that matters in my eyes, is the father and his family were not able to love and know Caylee, that is sad to me.

[texanne]

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...........

[goodnmad]

Monkey love anyone?

Can y'all tell I am the "peacemaker" type? 

[Dolce]

Please refer to TurboThink's recent post, dear.  It explains it all.

It explains nothing.  The results that we have are based on the evidence that the FBI deemed reasonable for the testing.  The testing done was what the FBI deemed to be reasonable enough for the situation. 

Now unless you all plan on going and conducting your own tests, I do not see how, other than your posts, you plan to disprove the FBI.

Again, percentages of which studies were wrong versus which studies were right would be nice to know in the information provided by Turbo.  If its a 50/50 percent chance it is wrong then its a toss up, but if its more of a 80/20 or a 90/10 then what the heck!!

With this high profile case I am sure that the FBI is not cutting corners, they want to nail the Anthony's as much as the next monkey....I do not get why anyone would want to debate this one issue and not their other results or findings.

If you are going to throw this discovery out might as well throw out the rest...maybe the hair in the trunk of Casey's car was not Caylees.....etc.

[no rose colored glasses]

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.

I don't think your opinion is funny, and please don't lurk, I enjoy reading your posts.

[Leroy]

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.

I don't think your opinion is funny, and please don't lurk, I enjoy reading your posts.

Me too.  I dont know why some are being so harsh to you Shari....your opionion matters just as much as the rest of ours!