Pregnancy test found at the scene?

[Kimster]

Pregnancy test at top of PAGE 686 ~~Q183

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21252257/detail.html

Perhaps this is where the "KC might be pregnant" rumors came from? I don't remember seeing any interviews, etc. stating that she had recently thought she was pregnant?

 

[darnudes]

Someone posted today that they thought that it might be the pregnancy test from Caylee, which I thought was interesting.

 

[Kimster]

Mods! Thank you for merging this link...I didn't remember ever seeing this thread before! :blowkiss:

 

[Pondering Mind]

I have no idea what thread in which to ask this question...so here it is by default..

I remember this being discussed in the past, don't remember what/if anything we found out about it. I'm talking about the pregnancy test found at the scene. Reading the doc dumps today made me think about it again as it reads (to me anyway) that it could have even possibly been in a bag or "the bag" at one point before everything was strewn about. The only reason I say that though is because I thinks it possible that quite a bit of the trash that was found close by COULD have been tossed out WITH Caylee..All speculation on my part though..

My questions are ..

(1) Do we know if it was ..umm.used? I have always ASSumed so for it to have been tossed..

(2) Is there any possible way of knowing the results after all this time?

(3) Results or not, would it be impossible, considering how these test are used in the first place, to find ANY DNA on the test, assuming it to had been out in the elements and maybe under water?


I can't help but think that KC may have been TRYING to get pregnant to hang on to TL. If it's true that she had a miscarriage in the last year or so, it seems that she wasn't too concerned with birth control even after saying that Caylee's birth had 'put a kink in her lifestyle' ..my words, not hers..but you KWIM...

TIA to anyone that can help!

 

[mitzi]

I have no idea what thread in which to ask this question...so here it is by default..

I remember this being discussed in the past, don't remember what/if anything we found out about it. I'm talking about the pregnancy test found at the scene. Reading the doc dumps today made me think about it again as it reads (to me anyway) that it could have even possibly been in a bag or "the bag" at one point before everything was strewn about. The only reason I say that though is because I thinks it possible that quite a bit of the trash that was found close by COULD have been tossed out WITH Caylee..All speculation on my part though..

My questions are ..

(1) Do we know if it was ..umm.used? I have always ASSumed so for it to have been tossed..

(2) Is there any possible way of knowing the results after all this time?

(3) Results or not, would it be impossible, considering how these test are used in the first place, to find ANY DNA on the test, assuming it to had been out in the elements and maybe under water?


I can't help but think that KC may have been TRYING to get pregnant to hang on to TL. If it's true that she had a miscarriage in the last year or so, it seems that she wasn't too concerned with birth control even after saying that Caylee's birth had 'put a kink in her lifestyle' ..my words, not hers..but you KWIM...

TIA to anyone that can help!

Bold mine.

I wouldn't put it past her. Maybe she was trying for that "boy baby" that TL wanted. :crazy:

 

[joypath]

I have no idea what thread in which to ask this question...so here it is by default..

I remember this being discussed in the past, don't remember what/if anything we found out about it. I'm talking about the pregnancy test found at the scene. Reading the doc dumps today made me think about it again as it reads (to me anyway) that it could have even possibly been in a bag or "the bag" at one point before everything was strewn about. The only reason I say that though is because I thinks it possible that quite a bit of the trash that was found close by COULD have been tossed out WITH Caylee..All speculation on my part though..

My questions are ..

(1) Do we know if it was ..umm.used? I have always ASSumed so for it to have been tossed..

(2) Is there any possible way of knowing the results after all this time?

(3) Results or not, would it be impossible, considering how these test are used in the first place, to find ANY DNA on the test, assuming it to had been out in the elements and maybe under water?


I can't help but think that KC may have been TRYING to get pregnant to hang on to TL. If it's true that she had a miscarriage in the last year or so, it seems that she wasn't too concerned with birth control even after saying that Caylee's birth had 'put a kink in her lifestyle' ..my words, not hers..but you KWIM...

TIA to anyone that can help!

Tackling question #2: The probability of observing the results after the extensive time submerged under water: NIL to ZERO. Why? The test result (AgAb) is based on an antigen(Ag)+antibody(Ab) reaction with a dye embedded within the reagents for readability and performed on a filter paper base (lateral flow immunochromatographic assay). Technical terms over, the entire test is on a paper surface (like a FLAT, HEAVY coffee filter), the antigen is in the urine and when that mixes with the antibody & dye that is inside the filter paper, a line or the words positive/pregnant show up. TIME is important because the reaction fades!

Question #3: Probability of picking up DNA: SAME answer but for differing reasons! DNA is present in cells that have a nucleus, normal urine from a physically healthy female will NOT have significant cellular material present in the volume as needed for an OTC urine pregnancy test to extract DNA. Additionally, any urine that might have been present on the testing matrix (the filter paper) would have been contaminated, diluted by the swamp water and essentially washed away. Point of reference: research has been performed to retrieve cellular material for DNA testing from urine rapid test platforms with limited success but these exemplars were "fresh".

 

[3doglady]

Tackling question #2: The probability of observing the results after the extensive time submerged under water: NIL to ZERO. Why? The test result (AgAb) is based on an antigen(Ag)+antibody(Ab) reaction with a dye embedded within the reagents for readability and performed on a filter paper base (lateral flow immunochromatographic assay). Technical terms over, the entire test is on a paper surface (like a FLAT, HEAVY coffee filter), the antigen is in the urine and when that mixes with the antibody & dye that is inside the filter paper, a line or the words positive/pregnant show up. TIME is important because the reaction fades!

Question #3: Probability of picking up DNA: SAME answer but for differing reasons! DNA is present in cells that have a nucleus, normal urine from a physically healthy female will NOT have significant cellular material present in the volume as needed for an OTC urine pregnancy test to extract DNA. Additionally, any urine that might have been present on the testing matrix (the filter paper) would have been contaminated, diluted by the swamp water and essentially washed away. Point of reference: research has been performed to retrieve cellular material for DNA testing from urine rapid test platforms with limited success but these exemplars were "fresh".

Just wanted to say thank you for explaining things in terms that even I can understand. You are an awesome "teacher".

 

[Purple Iris]

Remember thought that in the e-mail exchanges between Grandma Shirley and her sister, there was talk of Casey possibly being pregnant.

Shirley's sister replied back to Shirley that thank God Casey wasn't pregnant, because that was the last thing that Cindy needed.
Another baby to raise.
So, for that reply, there had to have been something mentioned to the sister to begin with.

I would LOVE to see the e-mails that Shirley wrote. I don't think that we have seen all of that correspondance, in full.

 

[Pensfan]

I don't think urine contains DNA

Everything from the human body contains DNA.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000614.pdf

 

[kbl8201]

i think that date says '12/15/06' for the record

 

[joypath]

Everything from the human body contains DNA.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000614.pdf

Hate to nit-pick but the human body does contain erythrocytes aka red blood cells which at maturity do not have a nucleus, thus no DNA. That's the reason why white blood cells aka leukocytes are used when testing blood samples as the DNA source.

A urine specimen from both genders MAY contain epithelial cells from the urinary tract (think bladder, kidney, ureter, urethra, vagina, perineum or other skin area) or it MAY contain white blood cells (think vaginal infection, urinary tract infection, STD or poor hygiene), NOW these types of cells DO contain nuclei and thus WOULD be fantastic sources for DNA!

Not sure what the publication date is of that cited link but it has a "goof" that EVERY WS'er would catch in a NY sec!

"DNA analysis of a single hair (WITHOUT THE ROOT) found deep in the victim's throat provided a critical piece of evidence used in a capital murder conviction" WITHOUT THE ROOT=mtDNA as in mitochondrial DNA vs offender specific DNA!!!!!

 

[Pondering Mind]

Tackling question #2: The probability of observing the results after the extensive time submerged under water: NIL to ZERO. Why? The test result (AgAb) is based on an antigen(Ag)+antibody(Ab) reaction with a dye embedded within the reagents for readability and performed on a filter paper base (lateral flow immunochromatographic assay). Technical terms over, the entire test is on a paper surface (like a FLAT, HEAVY coffee filter), the antigen is in the urine and when that mixes with the antibody & dye that is inside the filter paper, a line or the words positive/pregnant show up. TIME is important because the reaction fades!

Question #3: Probability of picking up DNA: SAME answer but for differing reasons! DNA is present in cells that have a nucleus, normal urine from a physically healthy female will NOT have significant cellular material present in the volume as needed for an OTC urine pregnancy test to extract DNA. Additionally, any urine that might have been present on the testing matrix (the filter paper) would have been contaminated, diluted by the swamp water and essentially washed away. Point of reference: research has been performed to retrieve cellular material for DNA testing from urine rapid test platforms with limited success but these exemplars were "fresh".

Thank You So Much for answering that joypath! That's something I have pondered ever since we first heard about the pregnancy test. I think that I am hoping that there is 'something' like this..anything!..that I can tell myself was a catalyst (besides CA) for KC murdering this beautiful little girl. Not that there would EVER be a 'reason' for her doing so, just that it's tragic enough that imo, she not only did do just that..she did it and went partying afterward, not a worry in the world..Totally and completely senseless it appears to me.....EVIL personified..