Current Leads; Facts and Updates.

[Wondergirl]

I don't think there is anything to worry about.

When they finish the tests I'm sure we will definitively know one way or the other.

It's sad - the backlog. Makes you wonder how many lives are lost because of backlogs in testing and paperwork. Ugh

My thoughts are with the family.

 

[mrsward]

Fb is saying the results are inconclusive ....

 

[prd2bokie]

Fb is saying the results are inconclusive ....

Was the FB information just posted recently? I am not on there so I have no idea about it.

 

[kaen]

Yes, someone called the detective and got the scoop.

Heartbreaking for his family to wait longer. I would love to give this young man a name.

 

[Beamie]

They're gonna do DNA from the fathers other sons

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Here's the FB page. Caitlin C (half sister I think) confirms her brother is being tested as he is the closest living relative to Jason. Her comment (12 hours ago from now) is on the 13th Oct update. It seems they are all prepared for it be Jason.

https://www.facebook.com/GratefulDoe?fref=ts

 

[alreetlike]

How frustrating.

 

[Faithandhope]

So I'm guessing "inconclusive" in this case means they are pretty sure and found enough connection to test a closer relative, but didn't get a 100% familial match because of varying amounts of maternal/paternal DNA in each person? Of course we here have been waiting to find out, but I am really feeling for the family members. What a hard thing and to be made to wait even more time is just awful.

 

[mjak]

I am perplexed by the finding of inconclusive. As I thought they were comparing Grateful Doe to Jason's mother. Thus I assumed they were doing a Mitochondrial match up. How can that be inconclusive when Mitochondrial DNA is passed down intact from Mother to offspring. It should be a clear match except for the few random mutations. It makes me think this was not a match but they still believe this potential match has merit so want to look further by Doing DNA matching with Jason's father side. It could be I don't know what the heck I am talking about. Anyone else have thoughts?

 

[katydid23]

I am perplexed by the finding of inconclusive. As I thought they were comparing Grateful Doe to Jason's mother. Thus I assumed they were doing a Mitochondrial match up. How can that be inconclusive when Mitochondrial DNA is passed down intact from Mother to offspring. It should be a clear match except for the few random mutations. It makes me think this was not a match but they still believe this potential match has merit so want to look further by Doing DNA matching with Jason's father side. It could be I don't know what the heck I am talking about. Anyone else have thoughts?

I have the same questions. If they were comparing a potential mother/son relationship, how could it be inconclusive? It seems it would be yes or no. I don't understand.

 

[AliceInPain]

I don't understand why they didn't take Jason's half brother's DNA in the beginning?

As I understand the posts about the recent DNA results on Jason's FB page, there is a 1 in 9000 chance he is her son?
I'm sure she already knows, in her heart.
1 in 9000, that means, weed out the mothers who are too young or too old to have had a son Jason's age at that time, only include the ones whose son's name was Jason, who disappeared in early to mid 1995 after saying they'd go follow the Grateful Dead, whose hair was kind of shoulder length strawberry blondish, who would have had reason to hitchhike down south etc etc.
Of course Jason Callahan is Grateful Doe (imo)

Is anyone in contact at all with his mother? Is she sure she hasn't got a lock of his toddler hair or whatever?
Although as I understand it it's GD's DNA that might be damaged or compromised, and his remains were cremated...

 

[Faithandhope]

I don't understand why they didn't take Jason's half brother's DNA in the beginning?

As I understand the posts about the recent DNA results on Jason's FB page, there is a 1 in 9000 chance he is her son?
I'm sure she already knows, in her heart.
1 in 9000, that means, weed out the mothers who are too young or too old to have had a son Jason's age at that time, only include the ones whose son's name was Jason, who disappeared in early to mid 1995 after saying they'd go follow the Grateful Dead, whose hair was kind of shoulder length strawberry blondish, who would have had reason to hitchhike down south etc etc.
Of course Jason Callahan is Grateful Doe (imo)

Is anyone in contact at all with his mother? Is she sure she hasn't got a lock of his toddler hair or whatever?
Although as I understand it it's GD's DNA that might be damaged or compromised, and his remains were cremated...

BBM. I didn't even think of that. UGH. No cremation for UID remains!!

 

[CoverMeCagney]

BBM. I didn't even think of that. UGH. No cremation for UID remains!!

I don't think they'd allow it this days, not without taking a few DNA samples for later comparison.

I am also hella confused. Is it a problem with Doe's DNA, not a strong enough or large enough sample perhaps? Surely comparing any 2 individuals DNA samples would either show a match or no match (as someone said earler, give or take a couple of differences).

Is this new round of testing just a formality? I think the family must have been told "we're pretty confident, but just to make sure...".

While I'm here, I read a couple of days ago that the delay was because multiple states had to authorise it. Why is this? Why are so any states getting a say in what happens?

 

[Beamie]

If only they had Jason C.s dental. It would have been solved within minutes

 

[Wondergirl]

Certainly sounds like it is him, but the inconclusive result is due to the maternal dna govern the father is deceased. But U am a bit confused because surely they would have realized this from the outset? Is it normal for testing to be done from one parent?

 

[Beamie]

I blame TV. They make it look so easy. Badabing, badabong, results are in

 

[mjak]

I don't understand why they didn't take Jason's half brother's DNA in the beginning?

As I understand the posts about the recent DNA results on Jason's FB page, there is a 1 in 9000 chance he is her son?
I'm sure she already knows, in her heart.
1 in 9000, that means, weed out the mothers who are too young or too old to have had a son Jason's age at that time, only include the ones whose son's name was Jason, who disappeared in early to mid 1995 after saying they'd go follow the Grateful Dead, whose hair was kind of shoulder length strawberry blondish, who would have had reason to hitchhike down south etc etc.
Of course Jason Callahan is Grateful Doe (imo)

Is anyone in contact at all with his mother? Is she sure she hasn't got a lock of his toddler hair or whatever?
Although as I understand it it's GD's DNA that might be damaged or compromised, and his remains were cremated...

A 1 in 9000 chance is simply more than inconclusive, hence the need to go to the fathers side of the family. The problem is if they were doing Mtiochondrial DNA this type of result is honestly not a match at all. So we have a couple of possibilities, Jason is not Grateful Doe, Jason is Grateful Doe but his " mother" is not his biological mother, Grateful Doe's DNA sample was compromised. Since number two, Jason's Mom not being his biological Mom should be information his mother would know we can deduct that she does believe she is the biological Mother of missing Jason. Thus, the investigation is left with two possibilities, Grateful Doe is not Jason; or, Grateful Doe's DNA was compromised. Since they have taken the steps to do a DNA comparison with the father's side of the family it sounds the investigators are still believing this is a strong match potential and not ready to declare Jason is not Grateful Doe, even if the biolgical link to his mother seems questionable.

 

[bessie]

I am perplexed by the finding of inconclusive. As I thought they were comparing Grateful Doe to Jason's mother. Thus I assumed they were doing a Mitochondrial match up. How can that be inconclusive when Mitochondrial DNA is passed down intact from Mother to offspring. It should be a clear match except for the few random mutations. It makes me think this was not a match but they still believe this potential match has merit so want to look further by Doing DNA matching with Jason's father side. It could be I don't know what the heck I am talking about. Anyone else have thoughts?

"However, mitochondrial DNA typically is not as powerful for making identifications as nuclear DNA. This means that in some instances two unrelated people may have similar mitochondrial DNA."

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/NIJ-identifyvictimsDNAfamilies.pdf

 

[Skigirl]

A 1 in 9000 chance is simply more than inconclusive, hence the need to go to the fathers side of the family. The problem is if they were doing Mtiochondrial DNA this type of result is honestly not a match at all. So we have a couple of possibilities, Jason is not Grateful Doe, Jason is Grateful Doe but his " mother" is not his biological mother, Grateful Doe's DNA sample was compromised. Since number two, Jason's Mom not being his biological Mom should be information his mother would know we can deduct that she does believe she is the biological Mother of missing Jason. Thus, the investigation is left with two possibilities, Grateful Doe is not Jason; or, Grateful Doe's DNA was compromised. Since they have taken the steps to do a DNA comparison with the father's side of the family it sounds the investigators are still believing this is a strong match potential and not ready to declare Jason is not Grateful Doe, even if the biolgical link to his mother seems questionable.

This isn't accurate. There are lots of reasons why you the match can't be narrowed down from a number like 9,000, for example, sample degradation after 20 years might mean that you can't get a good read for each marker, just some of them (which match).

Unlike paternity, maternity is pretty darn certain. I would think that his records and his mother's memory, would confirm adoption, or not.

If it was truly not a match, there would be no need to test male family members.

 

[mjak]

This isn't accurate. There are lots of reasons why you the match can't be narrowed down from a number like 9,000, for example, sample degradation after 20 years might mean that you can't get a good read for each marker, just some of them (which match).

Unlike paternity, maternity is pretty darn certain. I would think that his records and his mother's memory, would confirm adoption, or not.

If it was truly not a match, there would be no need to test male family members.

If sample degradation prevented an accurate comparison, why would they release a finding at all? I know Maternity should be a certain match. But, here it is not matching; yet, the investigators are taking the action to test against the fathers side. This makes sense if Degradation prevented an accurate comparison; yet, they did compare and released a finding. Maybe they did release the 1/9000 information to the family with a subtext about degradation issue and we have not been given that information.