Woodland, I have provided links (academic and not, that can be sourced) Can you provide links/sources (preferably published) so that the rest of us can see the info you are relying on for your claims. You continue to refute what I am saying, I would ask respectfully that you read the info I provided, also consider the research that you are relying on is outdated.
CANADA Canada - Christine Jessop, 9, Queensville, Ont, 3 Oct 1984 - #1
- Thread starter Dedpanman
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
Woodland, I have provided links (academic and not, that can be sourced) Can you provide links/sources (preferably published) so that the rest of us can see the info you are relying on for your claims. You continue to refute what I am saying, I would ask respectfully that you read the info I provided, also consider the research that you are relying on is outdated.
Please provide resources for this claim. Especially the change in sequence of letters and numbers as this is false information.
I would ask that everyone read through the links I have provided. Think about it, if what Woodland is saying were correct we would have never been able to clear GPM as the DNA was pre 1997 (although nothing has been offered to substantiate this)
Woodland- you said in a previous post that you were corresponding with the RCMP via email in regards to DNA, can you post the contents of the RCMPs response?
Sorry Mistysues, your links do not provide the info you said you would look into - which is, when the ability to copy DNA began. That is the key. The killer stays free pending the ability to read and compare the 1995 profile in a meaningful way.
Will have to have my e-mail from the RCMP scanned in order to post. In the meantime, what does your research show on the early history of DNA? That is the only question here.
I'm having a few doubts on more of the claims here - why would you rely on me to tell you the status of DNA when you have your own resources - according to you?
Will have to have my e-mail from the RCMP scanned in order to post. In the meantime, what does your research show on the early history of DNA? That is the only question here.
I'm having a few doubts on more of the claims here - why would you rely on me to tell you the status of DNA when you have your own resources - according to you?
The sequence of letters and numbers changed in 1997 after it was realized how little of our DNA makes us unique. This sped up the technology to copy DNA - not possible until 1997. The RCMP have confirmed the 1995 test cannot be entered into the National DNA Database - I invite anyone to ask them. The name of the test is here.--
Woodland how did the RCMP verify this??
Woodland how did the RCMP verify this??
The answer to your questions Woodland is 1985
The History of PCR
(RU 9577)
Background
The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technique, invented in 1985 by Kary B. Mullis, allowed scientists to make millions of copies of a scarce sample of DNA. The technique has revolutionized many aspects of current research, including the diagnosis of genetic defects and the detection of the AIDS virus in human cells. The technique is also used by criminologists to link specific persons to samples of blood or hair via DNA comparison. PCR also affected evolutionary studies because large quantities of DNA can be manufactured from fossils containing but trace amounts.
The database requires PCR-STR. Mistysues - one of your posts quotes the name of the test used in 1995. Ask the RCMP if they can enter that test into the database - maybe you will receive a response before I can scan and enter mine.
Throwing out various info is not a focused effort - lots of things happened between the time Christine was abducted and the DNA profile produced. One needs to relate the info - the kid needs a break.
I gotta think Neale Tweedy is lhao.
Dedpanman - would like to now focus on your recent proposition for continued discussion.
Throwing out various info is not a focused effort - lots of things happened between the time Christine was abducted and the DNA profile produced. One needs to relate the info - the kid needs a break.
I gotta think Neale Tweedy is lhao.
Dedpanman - would like to now focus on your recent proposition for continued discussion.
Woodland STR is a location on the DNA string and is amplified using PCR. You are incorrect. Every profile has STR regions. How many of these are tested increases identification.
Dedpanman - the study you quote is an interesting overview of child abductions.
I use the term overview as I'm disheartened by the fact that the mode of killing is not covered, specifically how long did the killers spend torturing, killing and mutilating their victims?
Is that because it's a rare occurrence? If it's rare, then there is something unique about Christine's case.
Not much of what happened to Christine fits into that study, imo.
Can you add or clarify anything?
I use the term overview as I'm disheartened by the fact that the mode of killing is not covered, specifically how long did the killers spend torturing, killing and mutilating their victims?
Is that because it's a rare occurrence? If it's rare, then there is something unique about Christine's case.
Not much of what happened to Christine fits into that study, imo.
Can you add or clarify anything?
DNA is a very complex field. Misconceptions are likely among non profesionals. Prior 1995 the dna testing profile produced did not match the then newly developed codis data base.
see- fbi standardization tests and dates-
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml
This was a case solved by retesting an older dna sample circa 1995.
In 1995 when GPM was compared against the then newly retested dna, that newer profile is compatable with the newer data base. That is my understanding.
What may not be comparable is the dna taken and tested(if it was) from suspects prior to 1995. That is not comparable with the new data base.
That is my understanding. The names of all the tests and the the types of profiles developed can be traced and verified.
see- fbi standardization tests and dates-
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml
This was a case solved by retesting an older dna sample circa 1995.
In 1995 when GPM was compared against the then newly retested dna, that newer profile is compatable with the newer data base. That is my understanding.
What may not be comparable is the dna taken and tested(if it was) from suspects prior to 1995. That is not comparable with the new data base.
That is my understanding. The names of all the tests and the the types of profiles developed can be traced and verified.
The point is that they do have a profile and can match it. (This is the comment that started the debate on the DNA and I stand by it.)
I believe that was what was being asked. How do we proceed from here and possibly match a new suspect if evidence pointed at one now. It is possible imo..
added- Also suggests the real perp is not in the sysytem.
I agree that it suggests the real perp is not in the system but they may have a criminal record as only some crimes in canada require dna samples.
Correct. Some has postulated any one committing a crime like this was likely to have priors or sex related crimes since.
Not sure what tweady and all the laughing is about. I thought we were supposed to find links and evidence to answer the question whether a new poi could be tested now. Scientific evidence would maybe help?
Even if not all markers were present as in some older or inconclusive tests. They are still of value when used in comparison against a singular suspects dna profile only, but not against an entire data base. There are various ways of looking at what is possible in dna comparisons.
from-
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html
Not sure what tweady and all the laughing is about. I thought we were supposed to find links and evidence to answer the question whether a new poi could be tested now. Scientific evidence would maybe help?
Even if not all markers were present as in some older or inconclusive tests. They are still of value when used in comparison against a singular suspects dna profile only, but not against an entire data base. There are various ways of looking at what is possible in dna comparisons.
from-
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html
Difficult to find stats regarding how a child was killed but I am still looking. Heres some interesting info as well that can provide guidance regarding the person who murdered CJ.
http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/CrimPsych/CPSG-6.htm
Addendum: Nonfamily Child Abductors Who Murder Their Victims
Nonfamily child abductions have a low rate of occurrence
However, they are highly publicized and tend to overwhelm most communities’ local police force.
This is a study of nonfamily child abductors who murdered. The information was gathered from interviews with incarcerated offenders, and reviews of criminal, medical, and psychological records.
Previous Research
Vast majority (97%) male
Mostly white
Usually young adult (mean age 27)
Female killers in this category are nearly nonexistent
Method
Interview process
Three main criteria
victim was less than 18 years old
offender was convicted of murder
victim was abducted by the offender
25 child abductors who murdered participated
Results
Gender: All offenders were male; females did abduct, but none killed
<modsnip> cont. at the link
http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/CrimPsych/CPSG-6.htm
Addendum: Nonfamily Child Abductors Who Murder Their Victims
Nonfamily child abductions have a low rate of occurrence
However, they are highly publicized and tend to overwhelm most communities’ local police force.
This is a study of nonfamily child abductors who murdered. The information was gathered from interviews with incarcerated offenders, and reviews of criminal, medical, and psychological records.
Previous Research
Vast majority (97%) male
Mostly white
Usually young adult (mean age 27)
Female killers in this category are nearly nonexistent
Method
Interview process
Three main criteria
victim was less than 18 years old
offender was convicted of murder
victim was abducted by the offender
25 child abductors who murdered participated
Results
Gender: All offenders were male; females did abduct, but none killed
<modsnip> cont. at the link
Neat stat I just found Offender incarceration history: 40% had previous incarceration, almost half had a juvenile offense history See previous post
- Status