I think that is right, they only put the people on the list that have been directly compared. Otherwise everybody who had dna in the system would be on all of the rule out lists.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
They certainly have one hell of a resemblance. Especially in the eyebrows and nose! But I guess it would be an automatic rule out if her DNA is in the system.
You know a couple nights ago I had a dream that involved her being identified. I woke up feeling a bit uneasy and a bit hopeful. She has unique characteristics, someone knows her.
Wendy has DNA in NamUs, wouldn't that be an automatic rule out? Though they do look close.
I don'the think that is correct.
I think that is right, they only put the people on the list that have been directly compared. Otherwise everybody who had dna in the system would be on all of the rule out lists.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Exactly.
Yes, but if DNA is processed and does not match up to hers, they will not put her on the rule out list since it is automatic.
Wendy has DNA in NamUs, wouldn't that be an automatic rule out? Though they do look close.
It would depend on the type of DNA as well. If NAMUS has mitochondrial DNA for Wendy and nuclear for Buckskin girl, they could be the same person and not match no matter how many times they run it.
Isn't mitochondrial DNA typically used? I do see your point though. Is there a way of telling on the NamUs website if DNA submitted is mitochondrial or nuclear?
The details pertaining to the types of DNA available for UID's used to be visible on NamUs. They changed it so that the public can't see it anymore. All you can see is whether DNA is available, but not whether mtDNA, nucDNA, or both.
mitochondrial (mtDNA) is the more common type compared. But nuclear (nucDNA) is more definitive. mtDNA is not unique to every human. nucDNA is unique to every human (except in the case of identical twins).
The trouble with nucDNA though, is that samples from two or more close relatives are needed to get a result.
But if there are no relatives in the maternal line available for the MP, they can't do a mtDNA comparison.
I do wonder how they would have called it if his mother was the only dna they had access to.
I thought dna was pretty simple, im learning its not as easy i had thought.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
I just now realized that BG has no NCMEC recon. I think Carl's recon is pretty much perfect when compared to the PM, and that NCMEC's recons are often...not the best. But most people take NCMEC's recons more seriously--which seems a bit confusing. My point is, I do wonder why NCMEC has no Buckskin Girl recon.
H
NCMEC only does recons (or age progressions) for people who were believed to be minors (or who went missing when they were minors). BG was likely in her early to mid 20's.
That's ridiculous... so unfair.H
NCMEC only does recons (or age progressions) for people who were believed to be minors (or who went missing when they were minors). BG was likely in her early to mid 20's.
We learned all about mtDNA in a class I took on infectious disease last semester. I think the technology is also relatively recent. mtDNA tends to be used on older skeletons a bit more, if I'm remembering correct. It tends to last longer, and can be used on a wider range of relatives. For example, mtDNA comparison is how they identified the remains of the Romanov's a couple years ago. Their mtDNA was compared to that of Prince Philip, as his maternal grandmother was Empress Alexandera's sister. Fascinating stuff!
So I'd make the safe guess that they haven't used it for BG, but who knows! It's not exclusively for older skeletons, it's just a bit more common. And I honestly can only guess on how old is "old" in this case. She was found in '81, after all.
Have you read Resurrection of the Romanovs? What a fascinating book it seems to be--I haven't finished yet, though.
Do you think it's probable that BG has both in NamUs? I know Walker County Jane Doe does, so many other Does do as well.