Hi Val! And welcome to WS!! As you can tell, we welcome ALL opinions here. Thanks for sharing yours.
Thank you for the welcome!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hi Val! And welcome to WS!! As you can tell, we welcome ALL opinions here. Thanks for sharing yours.
I am no DNA expert.
I just re-read the DNA results of those hairs in the status report.
It looks to me that they do NOT match each other.
So are there two intruders? Or does one hair belong to an intruder and the other transfer, contamination, artifact, etc? If one of the hairs is transfer, why is anyone sure that both aren't?
I am severely underwhelmed by the significance of these results.
Where are you getting that the hairs were compared to each other and not an match?
I am getting it directly from the status report. Since it does not say those two samples match each other, it would be the duty of those making that claim to provide proof.
I don't get my information from what other people on message boards say. I get my information directly from the source - before it's altered by propagandists and made out to be something without proof.
That status report only contains information that the samples exclude Darlie & Darin. The testing was via mitochondrial DNA, which by default, means Darlies children, mother, sisters, are also excluded.
They were not tested against law enforcement or anyone known to be at the scene. Nor does that report state that the two samples matched each other. If you have proof that they do, I'd be happy to read it.
Where you get the information it wasn't compared to 1st responders?
Are you like me assuming they didn't. I am assuming they would as it would be stupid not to.
I wonder why the normal "Darlie done it" mob isn't here contesting the results yet. They were all foaming at the mouth that the results weren't released because they probably proved she did it. The results seem to say otherwise and now everyone is just so awkwardly silent? I don't get it.
Pipe in... Let's hear the arguments that Darlie was loaning out her socks. Or Texas limb hair storms. Or some random person walking the alley that night who had nothing to do with crime just happened upon the sock, tried it on, decided it wasn't a good fit or too stained for his liking so he just left it there. Something? Anything?
.The documents posted in the beginning of this thread as proof of that say nothing of the sort. It's like the old game of telephone. One person posts a 40 page document and makes up what it says, the next person glances at the doc but doesn't actually read it, but they repeat the false conclusions of the original poster.
Next thing you know, it's all over the Internet repeated ad naseum by other people who couldn't be bothered to read the report
.
Hi, Val830. I was wondering if you might add some information regarding the mixtures in this status report. As I understand it, the mixtures have detected DNA PROFILES, but that does not necessarily mean that those profiles are from blood, correct? (Darlie's DNA being the major component, safe to assume that it is her blood because we know her nightshirt contained much of her blood that night?) Another poster has contended that from this status report that people can assume that an intruder bled at the scene. Is that not false information as well? I want to make sure that it is correct to say that the minor component detected in those mixtures does not say it was blood, only a DNA profile. TIA
If it is though, of course it's good for Darlie but I won't hold my breath.
.
Hi, Val830. I was wondering if you might add some information regarding the mixtures in this status report. As I understand it, the mixtures have detected DNA PROFILES, but that does not necessarily mean that those profiles are from blood, correct? (Darlie's DNA being the major component, safe to assume that it is her blood because we know her nightshirt contained much of her blood that night?) Another poster has contended that from this status report that people can assume that an intruder bled at the scene. Is that not false information as well? I want to make sure that it is correct to say that the minor component detected in those mixtures does not say it was blood, only a DNA profile. TIA
As you pointed out, DNA does not necessarily mean "blood" - and "no comparison could be made" does not mean "Routiers are excluded."