Boulder Police Dept. has its own DNA lab
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#22 Jul 19, 2013
Candy,
Your expert’s answer: "10 markers do not provide sufficient resolution to surname prediction but can might shed light on the ethnic origin of paternal line of the originator."

The answer your expert gave does not sound like someone with “knowledge of the situation.” And, he sounds like the “wrong” kind of DNA expert. Your expert sounds more like a genealogical DNA expert rather than a forensic DNA expert.

Surname prediction, ethnic origin, paternal line – none of these applies to our situation. These are not the sorts of information that the markers targeted for/by CODIS are meant to provide.
…

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#23 Jul 19, 2013
Candy,
Your question:“Can you get a full identification from a PARTIAL DNA profile of only TEN markers?”
Your expert should have asked you to explain what is meant by “full identification.”

Your expert should have explained to you that the true power of this (forensic) DNA is the power of elimination and that ONE marker is sufficient for that.

Your expert should have explained to you that the markers targeted for/by CODIS are not intended for surname prediction, ethnic origin, paternal line, etc. but were chosen as unique identifiers. They are used to match one sample to another so that a person can be excluded or included in a suspect group.

Your expert should have explained to you that identification is probabilistic. Your expert could have told you that the RMP (random match probability) of ten markers is one in billions and billions.
…

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#24 Jul 19, 2013
Candy,
I appreciate and respect your reluctance to disclose your expert’s identity. I have corresponded with experts in the past and have chosen to not reveal them for the same reasons that you cite.
…

AK
candy

East Lansing, MI

#25 Jul 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Candy,
Your expert’s answer: "10 markers do not provide sufficient resolution to surname prediction but can might shed light on the ethnic origin of paternal line of the originator."
The answer your expert gave does not sound like someone with “knowledge of the situation.” And, he sounds like the “wrong” kind of DNA expert. Your expert sounds more like a genealogical DNA expert rather than a forensic DNA expert.
Surname prediction, ethnic origin, paternal line – none of these applies to our situation. These are not the sorts of information that the markers targeted for/by CODIS are meant to provide.
…
AK
You are wrong about this expert, but where is YOUR expert in rebuttal? It doesn't matter what you think or what sounds right to you, it is what an expert knows about this matter period. Laypersons cannot answer these questions. Good luck finding one that is going to rebut this, especially with knowledge of the specfic 10 markers in this case and what they can and cannot prove. It became necessary to rebut lies in this case with real DNA experts when we had a chronic liar poster whose latest lie was that they were a DNA expert, and that John Mark Karr's DNA could not have been typed in 2006 in 48 hours. I busted that with the REAL expert's knowledge of the FACTS, and it's been necesarry ever since.

My expert also busts Team Ramsey's HUGE MASSIVE LIE from 11 years ago, that this 10 marker PARTIAL DNA sample is CAUCASIAN DNA. YEARS later and many LEAPS in technology later, this DNA can only "can might" "shed LIGHT on the ethnic origin of paternal line of the originator." THAT's IT. Nothing about the MATERNAL origins or the originator.

"can might" was a good way for the expert to phrase it. If you remember the Susannah Chase case, BPD was told the "racial group" the perp belonged to was Native American/Eskimo. It turned OUT once the perp was caught by a cold hit on the SEMEN DNA in that case that he was HISPANIC from Chile. So that racial group typing was NOT EXACT, NOT CORRECT.
BrotherMoon

Arvada, CO

#27 Jul 20, 2013
We need an expert in red herring DNA.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#28 Jul 20, 2013
candy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong about this expert, but where is YOUR expert in rebuttal? It doesn't matter what you think or what sounds right to you, it is what an expert knows about this matter period. Laypersons cannot answer these questions. Good luck finding one that is going to rebut this, especially with knowledge of the specfic 10 markers in this case and what they can and cannot prove. It became necessary to rebut lies in this case with real DNA experts when we had a chronic liar poster whose latest lie was that they were a DNA expert, and that John Mark Karr's DNA could not have been typed in 2006 in 48 hours. I busted that with the REAL expert's knowledge of the FACTS, and it's been necesarry ever since.
My expert also busts Team Ramsey's HUGE MASSIVE LIE from 11 years ago, that this 10 marker PARTIAL DNA sample is CAUCASIAN DNA. YEARS later and many LEAPS in technology later, this DNA can only "can might" "shed LIGHT on the ethnic origin of paternal line of the originator." THAT's IT. Nothing about the MATERNAL origins or the originator.
"can might" was a good way for the expert to phrase it. If you remember the Susannah Chase case, BPD was told the "racial group" the perp belonged to was Native American/Eskimo. It turned OUT once the perp was caught by a cold hit on the SEMEN DNA in that case that he was HISPANIC from Chile. So that racial group typing was NOT EXACT, NOT CORRECT.
I stand by what I have said. Your expert is either the wrong kind of DNA expert or he has no understanding of the situation. If what your expert is saying were true than millions of dollars and resources have been put to waste establishing the databanks and in collecting and processing this type of evidence. Because what your expert is saying must apply to ALL forensic DNA samples in CODIS (or anywhere) that are made up of ten markers.

I strongly suggest and dare you to take my claims as posted above (included her) to your expert and ask for a response.
1) the true power of this (forensic) DNA is the power of elimination and that ONE marker is sufficient for that.
2) the markers targeted for/by CODIS are not intended for surname prediction, ethnic origin, paternal line, etc. but were chosen as unique identifiers. They are used to match one sample to another so that a person can be excluded or included in a suspect group.
3) that identification is probabilistic. Your expert could have told you that the RMP (random match probability) of ten markers is one in billions and billions.
…

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#29 Jul 21, 2013
“unique identifier”– unique is meant to mean that it (“marker”) has a very low frequency rate in a population.
…

AK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The National Enquirer on the new Ramsey investi... (Feb '09) 35 min candy 123
Suspect # 1- Rod Westmoreland did it or he was ... (Mar '10) 46 min robert 145
Anyone believe the ramseys didn't do the crime?? 1 hr Just Wondering 307
tiny detail 6 hr pinker 1
Patsy's Lefthanded Writing Sample-Doubt Removed (Jun '09) 7 hr Fr_Brown 95
The Handwriting Scale (Oct '09) 8 hr Fr_Brown 179
It always leads back to Burke (Oct '11) 10 hr Just Wondering 238
More from around the web