Serological Reports (blood)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

ExpectingUnicorns said:
Why would this be considered evidence even if there's no connection? And if you consider this evidence, do you also consider the balloon and all other garbage found at the dump site equally important?
Click to expand...


Given the Winnie The Pooh blanket, a Koala blanket would seem to relate in a similar way. Are either blankets affirmed to have been a blanket that Caylee used?
 
magic-cat said:
Not really because that list could easily miss someone who was a one night quickie or someone new that was an unknown to anyone. Casey wasn't a nun after all and she could have slept with a few people that nobody knows about but Casey and whomever they might have been. So even if there was shown to be blood or semen on the blanket and they could not match it to a known boyfriend, that still does not prove it does not belong to an as yet unknown boyfriend.

Bottom line, that does not clear Casey.
Click to expand...

Correct. It would be exculpatory evidence, not exonerating evidence.
 
Wudge said:
Given the Winnie The Pooh blanket, a Koala blanket would seem to relate in a similar way. Are either blankets affirmed to have been a blanket that Caylee used?
Click to expand...

The Pooh blanket is believed to have been part of her bed linens because she had matching Pooh sheets, etc. The theme of Caylee's bedroom was Winnie the Pooh. I believe there are pictures of this blanket. "Koala Baby" is a brand name. That blanket had no koala on it. I think I remember the pattern was small flowers. No one has been able to connect it to the Anthony household at this point.
 
magic-cat said:
OT:
Unfortunately, God does not do lab tests, so we have no choice but to rely on the decency of at least a portion of our fellow man...ALL people are not corrupt or for sale or out to do others in, and since God is not available to oversee the processing of evidence? We MUST rely on those who ARE and that is our fellow man...

Believe me, I would LOVE if God could wrap it all up nice and neat and all the i's would be dotted and the t's would be crossed and the bad guy would always be brought to justice and the good guy would never be wrongly accused, let alone convicted, but since that paradise is not the one which we are fortuate enough to exist within, we are left with what we have-imperfect as it is...

And it is this same corrupt system that you say you have no faith in which you continually use as support for your arguments-letter of the law...:waitasec:
Click to expand...

Correct. It's definitely imperfect. Moreover, I never said that I have 'no faith'. I just don't give it blind trust -- corruption is everywhere and my Mother did not raise me to be a fool.
 
Maybe we will get to see if Casey made any purchases at Walmart...this blanket could have been a new one that the Anthony's did not know about.
 
Hi all. So, the summaries of the DNA info are in the document I linked to a while ago. (They're after the blood/semen summary paragraphs in the document). I thought I'd bring the info here, though.

Here's the summary DNA info from the July 24, 2009 Report of Examination, but with numbers translated to objects, and a little formatting. And with some important parts bolded. (btw, Not to dis the FBI, lol, but I gotta say that they could have reported this a wee bit better. A table would have been nice. Even scientists don't like walls of text and constant referring back and forth to see which code number is which.)

Here we go.... Again, this is verbatim but with formatting changes, object names added, and an occasional note in blue. Just reading or focusing on the bolded parts of the paragraphs below pretty much gives you the basic info that they're reporting.

(From page 11992)

Based on the typing results from the amelogenin locus (for sex determination), female DNA is present in the DNA obtained from specimens Q303 [Swab from clean wipes pack in back pack], Q304 [Swab from comb handle in back pack], and Q307/Q308 [Swabs of male portion of cord from flat iron].

The amelogenin [male vs. female] typing results from specimen Q305 [Swab from pump of inflatable bed] are consistent with a mixture of male and female DNA.

The amelogenin [male vs. female] typing results obtained from specimen Q297/Q298 [Swabs from bottom of gas container #1] do not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I reporting criteria; therefore, no conclusion can be offered.

No amelogenin [male vs. female] typing results were obtained from specimens:
Q81 (Clothing),
Q82-1 (swabbings collected from the top side and bottom of Q82 - Blanket from medical examiner's office),
Q84-1 (swabbings collected from the handle and rim of specimen Q84 - Laundry bag),
Q103-2 (swabbing from specimen Q103 - Blanket),
Q104-1 (swabbing from the non-adhesive side of specimen Q104 - Tape from scene),
Q104-2 (swabbing from the adhesive side of specimen Q104 - Tape from scene),
Q237-1 (Q237 - Bottle from scene),
Q238-1 (swabbing from specimen Q238 - Bottle from scene),
Q240.1-1 (swabbing from end surface of plunger, underside and top of prong area and throughout needle of specimen Q240.1 - syringe),
Q245-1 (combined swabbings collected from top side and bottom side of specimen Q245 - Rug),
Q248.1-1 (cutting from specimen Q248.1 - napkin),
Q248.2-1 (combined cuttings from specimen Q248.2 - napkin),
Q248.3-1 (combined cuttings from specimen Q248.3 - napkin),
Q248.4-1 (cutting from specimen Q248.4 - napkin),
Q299/Q300 (Swabs from interior of oil pan),
Q301/Q302 (Swabs from bottom of gas container #2),
Q316-1 (swabbing from specimen Q316 - Pieces of tape from scene),
Q316-2 (swabbing from specimen Q316 - Pieces of tape from scene),
Q317-1 (swabbing from specimen Q317 - Pieces of tape from scene),
Q317-2 (swabbing from specimen Q317 - Pieces of tape from scene),
Q318-1 (swabbing from specimen Q318 - Piece of tape from scene).

The STR typing [to see whose DNA is it] results for specimen Q304 [Swab from comb handle in back pack] indicates the presence of DNA from more than one individual. Specimen Q18-1(CAYLEE ANTHONY) is potentially the major contributor of the DNA obtained from specimen Q304. The probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random having the same STR profile as the major contributor^2 detected in the questioned specimen is approximately 1 in 1.2 billion from the African American population, 1 in 160 million from the Caucasian population, 1 in 500 million from the Southeastern Hispanic population, and 1 in 1.4 billion from the Southwestern Hispanic population. Specimen K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) cannot be excluded as a potential minor contributor to this mixture. Based on the STR typing results2, the probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from a general population who could be a potential contributor to the mixture of DNA detected in specimen Q304 is approximately 1 in 2,000 from the African American population, 1 in 610 from the Caucasian population, 1 in 660 from the Southeastern Hispanic popUlation, and 1 in 550 from the Southwestern Hispanic population. Specimens K3(BURNER), K5(CINDY ANTHONY), K7(GEORGE ANTHONY), and K9(LEE ANTHONY) are excluded as potential contributors to this mixture. It is noted that specimens Q18 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) and K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) can account for all of the results obtained from specimen Q304 [Swab from comb handle in back pack].

The STR typing [to see whose DNA is it] results for specimen Q307/Q308 [Swabs of male portion of cord from flat iron] indicate the presence of DNA from more than one individual. Specimen K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) is potentially the major contributor of the DNA obtained from specimen Q307/Q308. The probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random having the same STR profile as the major contributor2 detected in the questioned specimen is approximately 1 in 37 trillion from the African American population, 1 in 1.0 trillion from the Caucasian population, 1 in 680 billion from the Southeastern Hispanic population, and 1 in 200 billion from the Southwestern Hispanic population. The STR typing results for the minor contributor do not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I inclusionary reporting criteria and therefore may be utilized only for exclusionary purposes. Based on the STR typing results, specimens Q 18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY), K (BURNER), K5(CINDY ANTHONY), K7(GEORGE ANTHONY), and K9(LEE ANTHONY) are excluded as potential contributors to this mixture.

The DNA profile obtained from specimen Q305/Q306 [Swabs from pump of inflatable bed] does not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I inclusionary reporting criteria and therefore may be utilized only for exclusionary purposes. Based on the STR typing results, specimens Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY), K3(BURNER), K5(CINDY ANTHONY), K (GEORGE ANTHONY), and K9 (LEE ANTHONY) are excluded as potential contributors of the DNA obtained from specimen Q305/Q306 [Swabs from pump of inflatable bed] . Also based on the STR typing results, no comparison information can be provided for specimen K1 (CASEY ANTHONY).

The DNA profile obtained from specimen Q303 [Swab from clean wipes pack in back pack] does not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I inclusionary reporting criteria and therefore may be utilized only for exclusionary purposes. Based on the STR typing results, specimens K3(BURNER), K5(CINDY ANTHONY), K7(GEORGE ANTHONY) and K9(LEE ANTHONy) are excluded as potential contributors of the DNA obtained from specimen Q303 [Swab from clean wipes pack in back pack]. Based on the STR typing results, no comparison information can be provided for specimens Q 18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) and K 1 (CASEY ANTHONY).

No STR typing results were obtained from the DNA recovered from the following specimens:
(These had DNA, but not enough to work with.)
  • Q104-1 (swabbing from the non-adhesive side of specimen Q104 - Tape from scene),
  • Q237-1 (Q237 - Bottle from scene),
  • Q240.1-1 (swabbing from end surface of plunger, underside and top of prong area and through out needle of specimen Q240.1 - Syringe),
  • Q245-1 (combined swabbings collected from top side and bottom side of specimen Q245 - Rug),
  • Q248.3-1 (combined cuttings from specimen Q248.3 - Napkin),
  • Q297/Q298 (Swabs from bottom of gas container #1),
  • Q299/Q300 (Swabs from interior of oil pan),
  • Q301/Q302 (Swabs from bottom of gas container #2),
  • Q316-1 (swabbing from specimen Q316 - Pieces of tape from scene),
  • Q317-2 (swabbing from specimen Q317 - Pieces of tape from scene),
  • Q318-1 (swabbing from specimen Q318 - Piece of tape from scene).
No detectable DNA or STR typing results were obtained from specimens:
  • Q81(Clothing),
  • Q82-1 (swabbings collected from the top side and bottom of Q82 - Blanket from medical examiner's office),
  • Q84-1 (swabbings collected from the handle and rim of specimen Q84 - Laundry bag),
  • Q103-2 (swabbing from specimen Q103 - Blanket from scene),
  • Q104-2 (swabbing from the adhesive side of specimen Q104 - Tape from scene),
  • Q238-1 (swabbing from specimen Q238 - Bottle from scene),
  • Q248.1-1 (swabbing from end surface of plunger, underside and top of prong area and through out needle of specimen Q240.1 - Syringe),
  • Q248.2-1 (combined cuttings from specimen Q248.2 - Napkins),
  • Q248.4-1 (cutting from specimen Q248.4 - Napkins),
  • Q316-2 (swabbing from specimen Q316 - Pieces of tape from scene),
  • Q317-1 (swabbing from specimen Q317 - Pieces of tape from scene),
  • Q318-2 (swabbing from specimen Q318 - Piece of tape from scene).

Hopefully this is useful. (Maybe some of this has been posted before?) I might go ahead and do the same thing with the other two reports.
 
Wudge said:
Given the Winnie The Pooh blanket, a Koala blanket would seem to relate in a similar way. Are either blankets affirmed to have been a blanket that Caylee used?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Winnie the Pooh one has been verified by Cindy(for what that's worth) as having been one of the ones that they ALWAYS used to cover Caylee on Casey's bed at night...one of 2 or 3 that were ALWAYS used...
 
The lab tests and blood serological reports hold up. Look at the detail in the reports.

I would agree that in every state, in every field of LE, there is some corruption. It appears everywhere, in every major corporation-not just LE.

However, the corrupt people are FEW and FAR BETWEEN. There's just too much evidence in this case, too many different people in different fields and areas finding evidence for this to be a factor in the Caylee case. Casey will be found guilty, justifiably so.
 
panama said:
does not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I inclusionary reporting criteria and therefore may be utilized only for exclusionary purposes. Based on the STR typing results, specimens K3(BURNER), K5(CINDY ANTHONY), K7(GEORGE ANTHONY) and K9(LEE ANTHONy) are excluded as potential contributors of the DNA obtained from specimen Q303 [Swab from clean wipes pack in back pack]. Based on the STR typing results, no comparison information can be provided for specimens Q 18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) and K 1 (CASEY ANTHONY).
Hopefully this is useful. (Maybe some of this has been posted before?) I might go ahead and do the same thing with the other two reports.
Click to expand...

Very respectfully snipped by me. Wow, you did some hard and time consuming work!! Thank you so much. Everyone here has so much to contribute that it totally humbles me.

What jumps right out at me is that I think I remember from Cindy's latest depo that she said she cleaned Momma Doll's face off with a wipe. When I read it I thought that she must have used one of the wipes from the backpack (because they were right there in the car with the doll ~ and so handy). So it seems strange that Cindy's dna was excluded. Especially if she had been the last person to touch them. Hmmmm, I'll go back and recheck her depo (oh, nooooo) to make sure I remember correctly and report back here later. Thanks again for all your efforts! Much appreciated.
 
Lol, I think I missed the part where we started talking about God, Poe, and FBI corruption.

FWIW, if the FBI test results or methods were even a little faulty, the defense could easily get a couple experts to testify to this. That's why they ask the labs for resumes and for quality control etc. standards for the past 30 years... they want to undermine the results. The prosecution knows this, though, so it's in their interest to make sure the labs are on the up-and-up. Or to make sure that the data was manipulated very inconspicuously. ;)
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
Very respectfully snipped and bolded by me. Wow, you did some hard and time consuming work!! Thank you so much. Everyone here has so much to contribute that it totally humbles me.

What jumps right out at me is that I think I remember from Cindy's latest depo that she said she cleaned Momma Doll's face off with a wipe. When I read it I thought that she must have used one of the wipes from the backpack (because they were right there in the car with the doll ~ and so handy). So it seems strange that Cindy's dna was excluded. Especially if she had been the last person to touch them. Hmmmm, I'll go back and recheck her depo (oh, nooooo) to make sure I remember correctly and report back here later. Thanks again for all your efforts! Much appreciated.
Click to expand...

No problem; it's fun for me :) Yeah, part of me wondered about the DNA given that this stuff seems like it's been moved around so much... the car, the washing machine, local LE, etc. If they're looking for minute amounts of DNA, it seems like you wouldn't want to move the stuff around very much.

Also, touch DNA techniques are good for clothing, right? Maybe the fact that the pack of wipes was probably plastic and slick means that it's less likely for skin cells to stick... Who knows. I wonder if they checked the adhesive from the package. Hmmm. I'm just thinking out loud here -- I don't know whether any of these things are true.
 
Wudge said:
No. I wasn't kidding. The Koala blanket will become exculpatory physical evidence if not connected to Casey and Caylee or the Anthonys and Caylee. A large number of pictures of Caylee exist. Have you ever seen a Koala blanket in one of those pictures?
Click to expand...

At this point in time we have no idea what photos Casey deleted from her photobucket, myspace, etc accounts. There could be any number of photos that showed Caylee with all of the items that were found at the dump site. We already know of at least one photo in particular that was not in any of Casey's photos. Caylee was seen in the "big trouble" t-shirt. Funny how that photo, with Casey in the photo with her, is no where in any of Casey's photo accounts.

FWIW the Koala Baby blanket is a brand name and is described in the doc dump as being pink and purple flower blanket. Somewhere on a page further back I posted that Koala Baby does in fact have a blanket matching that description.

I feel sure that there is a reason why LE decided that the Koala Baby blanket was important.
 
I was going to do the same thing as I did [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4410894#post4410894"]here[/ame] for the other two Reports of Examination. But I feel like maybe they were released (and I assume discussed) in previous doc dumps. Does anyone know?
 
panama said:
I was going to do the same thing as I did here for the other two Reports of Examination. But I feel like maybe they were released (and I assume discussed) in previous doc dumps. Does anyone know?
Click to expand...

I don't know, panama. I am not aware of them if they were. I will defer to others. (Does anything look interesting/suspicious to you at a quick glance?)
 
Just a reminder that if you want to ignore someone ,just do it. Announcing your intentions will only result in a TO.
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
Very respectfully snipped by me. Wow, you did some hard and time consuming work!! Thank you so much. Everyone here has so much to contribute that it totally humbles me.

What jumps right out at me is that I think I remember from Cindy's latest depo that she said she cleaned Momma Doll's face off with a wipe. When I read it I thought that she must have used one of the wipes from the backpack (because they were right there in the car with the doll ~ and so handy). So it seems strange that Cindy's dna was excluded. Especially if she had been the last person to touch them. Hmmmm, I'll go back and recheck her depo (oh, nooooo) to make sure I remember correctly and report back here later. Thanks again for all your efforts! Much appreciated.
Click to expand...

panama said:
No problem; it's fun for me :) Yeah, part of me wondered about the DNA given that this stuff seems like it's been moved around so much... the car, the washing machine, local LE, etc. If they're looking for minute amounts of DNA, it seems like you wouldn't want to move the stuff around very much.

Also, touch DNA techniques are good for clothing, right? Maybe the fact that the pack of wipes was probably plastic and slick means that it's less likely for skin cells to stick... Who knows. I wonder if they checked the adhesive from the package. Hmmm. I'm just thinking out loud here -- I don't know whether any of these things are true.
Click to expand...

I found what I was looking for and it confirms my initial recollection. If Cindy is telling the truth I don't understand why her dna wouldn't have been all over the package of wipes. But I can't think of any reason for Cindy to lie about this. Can anyone else?
 

Attachments

  • wiping mama doll.jpg
    wiping mama doll.jpg
    69.1 KB · Views: 24
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 176 more.
Total: 2,031 (members: 177, guests: 1,854)

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
1,854
Total visitors
2,031
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
598,989
Messages
18,089,005
Members
230,773
Latest member
GhostlyDarling
Back
Top