Serological Reports (blood)

[panama]

I think that makes perfect sense. They would want to confirm their findings, right? So perhaps they used 2 different tests that detect blood. Hmmm...

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking...


TakeNote --

Thanks for typing up the translations from Q's to objects.

Right, this is what the report said: "A chemical test for the possible presence of blood was positive on specimens Q81, Q82, Q84, Q103, Q248.1, Q248.2, Q248.3, and Q248.4; however, the presence of blood was not confirmed."

The above list of items were all the ones that were positive for "pheno" and QNS (quality not sufficient) for "hemo."

(Except, one of the sub-swabbings of Q103 just says for "pheno" and a blank under "hemo." This could be because the other sub-swabbings were NEG, or because they couldn't isolate a stain, which they say in "remarks.")

I believe a positive test for "pheno" is not sufficient to say that "the presence of blood was confirmed." Apparently a positive "pheno" is enough to mean that there is the possible presence of blood, but you need a positive "hemo" to confirm the presence of blood. They didn't have positive "hemo" results -- the quality or size of the samples was lacking.

Apparently there's a similar situation with semen testing...

Here's some info about semen detection from, uh, semen-detection.com (seriously). What they're saying sounds reasonable; but by all means double check w/ some reputable sources.

"Acid phosphatase is an enzyme present in semen at concentrations of 20 to 400 times other body fluids. The presence of acid phosphatase [acid phos] is a presumptive test for the presence of semen and needs to be confirmed by DNA or the presence of a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) [p30]."

We can see on page 12156 that the blanket (Q103) that was positive for acid phos aka acid phosphatase, subsequently tested negative for p50 aka prostate specific antigen. This is why the Results of Examinations says that Q103 was negative for semen -- apparently the presence of both compounds (acid phos and p50) is necessary to confirm the presence of semen. (I assume that the presence of acid phos and spermcells/DNA instead of p50 would also confirm the presence of semen.)

Soooo, basically, nothing had any blood or semen. (IMO).

Some things had positive initial tests, but none had positive results on the tests needed to confirm the presence of blood (or semen).

 

[panama]

i posted this in another thread.. this is actually the one i wanted to post it in

i asked an expert friend about pheno and this is what i got

Blood chemistry is at two levels, the physical characteristics that sow blood was there such as the presence of hemoglobin, plasma and wbc/rbc, while the hemotype may not be adequate to determine blood type or any DNA / RNA characteristics.
22 minutes ago · Delete

Generally the presence of Pheno is not enough to say for certain that blood is present, there are other ways a body can secrete Pheno such as semen and acne.

Cool, s/he's saying that if a test for the presence of blood is positive, that doesn't mean you can find out the blood type or other details beyond the fact that there was blood. My question: did your friend say what Pheno is? If it's a component of blood, I'm going nuts trying to figure out which.

 

[missyjane77]

Generally the presence of Pheno is not enough to say for certain that blood is present, there are other ways a body can secrete Pheno such as semen and acne.

This is not entirely accurate though. There may not be blood in those samples. There is a gene that encodes for secretors and non secretors. though. If you are a secretor, your blood type can be determined from semen, saliva, tears, etc.

I'm still thinking "Pheno" and "Hemo" are two different testing methods. It makes the most sense.

 

[USARDOG]

There is no component of blood that I can think of that is called "Pheno".... Hemo, is short for Hemoglobin. The only Pheno I can think of is Phenotype.

"A phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior. Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and possible interactions between the two."

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype[/ame]

 

[magic-cat]

http://www.jbc.org/content/56/1/109.full.pdf

At this link I found phenols in blood...

so perhaps as hemo is short for hemoglobin pheno is short for phenol?

 

[USARDOG]

"Phenol, also known as carbolic acid, is a toxic, white crystalline solid. Its chemical formula is C6H5OH and its structure is that of a hydroxyl group (-OH) bonded to a phenyl ring, making it an aromatic compound."

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol[/ame]

Phenol is not a component of blood that I am aware of.

 

[magic-cat]

http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?pheno-

Definition of pheno.

 

[magic-cat]

http://www.bettatalk.com/geno_verse_pheno.htm

Here is a page (granted it is about FISH!) that describes pheno as being short for phenotype as geno is short for genotype...so???

 

[USARDOG]

So it would seem that in defining a stain as blood or not they are looking for physical charistics, and if available, genotype of that blood. That would be my best guess.

 

[weasel]

What I find interesting is they tested Caylee's clothing for sperm. Now what would make them think to test them?

Not sure, but they probably tested everything for signs of sexual assault. Don't want the defense coming back saying "see, they didn't even bother to fully investigate, they just stuck everything on Casey".

 

[weasel]

I wonder if the Paper towels just did not do to clean up the trunk, so she took the napkins from the house? I wonder if CA ever identified that these napkins were from her home.

I think the napkins probably came with the pizza / pizza box.

 

[Wudge]

What I find interesting is they tested Caylee's clothing for sperm. Now what would make them think to test them?

An unknown semen donor works strongly for the defense. Obviously, Casey is excluded from being the semen donor. Unidentifiable semen found on a baby blanket where Caylee's remains were located is still more highly significant exculpatory evidence.

 

[cecybeans]

I would imagine any liquid is degraded enough in this case that it might not be identifiable - since blood and semen seem to share the phenotype, I am assuming perhaps that seminal fluid - which has seminal plasma - may also be related to blood plasma - and this test was simply used to match the phenotype to Caylee, or see if it was different. Further testing for hemoglobin would tell if the substance was blood versus semen. My biology is pretty rusty, so SME's feel free to correct.

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

testing for pheno is not an indicator that blood was present.. it can also come from semen and acne... i'm betting semen since there were other markers indicating that.

 

[reeseeva]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking...


TakeNote --

Thanks for typing up the translations from Q's to objects.

Right, this is what the report said: "A chemical test for the possible presence of blood was positive on specimens Q81, Q82, Q84, Q103, Q248.1, Q248.2, Q248.3, and Q248.4; however, the presence of blood was not confirmed."

The above list of items were all the ones that were positive for "pheno" and QNS (quality not sufficient) for "hemo."

(Except, one of the sub-swabbings of Q103 just says for "pheno" and a blank under "hemo." This could be because the other sub-swabbings were NEG, or because they couldn't isolate a stain, which they say in "remarks.")

I believe a positive test for "pheno" is not sufficient to say that "the presence of blood was confirmed." Apparently a positive "pheno" is enough to mean that there is the possible presence of blood, but you need a positive "hemo" to confirm the presence of blood. They didn't have positive "hemo" results -- the quality or size of the samples was lacking.

Apparently there's a similar situation with semen testing...

Here's some info about semen detection from, uh, semen-detection.com (seriously). What they're saying sounds reasonable; but by all means double check w/ some reputable sources.

"Acid phosphatase is an enzyme present in semen at concentrations of 20 to 400 times other body fluids. The presence of acid phosphatase [acid phos] is a presumptive test for the presence of semen and needs to be confirmed by DNA or the presence of a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) [p30]."

We can see on page 12156 that the blanket (Q103) that was positive for acid phos aka acid phosphatase, subsequently tested negative for p50 aka prostate specific antigen. This is why the Results of Examinations says that Q103 was negative for semen -- apparently the presence of both compounds (acid phos and p50) is necessary to confirm the presence of semen. (I assume that the presence of acid phos and spermcells/DNA instead of p50 would also confirm the presence of semen.)

Soooo, basically nothing had any blood or semen.[/QUOTE]

An unknown semen donor works strongly for the defense. Obviously, Casey is excluded from being the semen donor. Unidentifiable semen found on a baby blanket where Caylee's remains were located is still more highly significant exculpatory evidence.

BBM

Hasn't this been cleared up?

 

[Wudge]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking...


TakeNote --

Thanks for typing up the translations from Q's to objects.

Right, this is what the report said: "A chemical test for the possible presence of blood was positive on specimens Q81, Q82, Q84, Q103, Q248.1, Q248.2, Q248.3, and Q248.4; however, the presence of blood was not confirmed."

The above list of items were all the ones that were positive for "pheno" and QNS (quality not sufficient) for "hemo."

(Except, one of the sub-swabbings of Q103 just says for "pheno" and a blank under "hemo." This could be because the other sub-swabbings were NEG, or because they couldn't isolate a stain, which they say in "remarks.")

I believe a positive test for "pheno" is not sufficient to say that "the presence of blood was confirmed." Apparently a positive "pheno" is enough to mean that there is the possible presence of blood, but you need a positive "hemo" to confirm the presence of blood. They didn't have positive "hemo" results -- the quality or size of the samples was lacking.

Apparently there's a similar situation with semen testing...

Here's some info about semen detection from, uh, semen-detection.com (seriously). What they're saying sounds reasonable; but by all means double check w/ some reputable sources.

"Acid phosphatase is an enzyme present in semen at concentrations of 20 to 400 times other body fluids. The presence of acid phosphatase [acid phos] is a presumptive test for the presence of semen and needs to be confirmed by DNA or the presence of a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) [p30]."

We can see on page 12156 that the blanket (Q103) that was positive for acid phos aka acid phosphatase, subsequently tested negative for p50 aka prostate specific antigen. This is why the Results of Examinations says that Q103 was negative for semen -- apparently the presence of both compounds (acid phos and p50) is necessary to confirm the presence of semen. (I assume that the presence of acid phos and spermcells/DNA instead of p50 would also confirm the presence of semen.)

Soooo, basically nothing had any blood or semen.[/QUOTE]



BBM

Hasn't this been cleared up?

That's a good question for an expert.

I've been going through my notes to see if Casey said such a blanket was missing or the Anthonys said that a blanket like that was missing. I have not been able to find any prior note that such is true.

An unidentified blanket would also be exculpatory evidence; i.e., unless the DNA of an Anthony family member was found on it.

 

[magic-cat]

An unknown semen donor works strongly for the defense. Obviously, Casey is excluded from being the semen donor. Unidentifiable semen found on a baby blanket where Caylee's remains were located is still more highly significant exculpatory evidence.

Hi wudge.
Not necessarily. By the same token that there is no direct link to Casey, simply because there might be something like semen on the blanket does not in any way prove when that semen might have been deposited. It could have been while Casey was sleeping in the bed with Ricardo and Caylee and some of the semen from their copulation may have gotten onto Caylee's blanket, which would have also been in the bed with them. For that to be highly signifigant, I would think they would have to prove WHEN it came to be on the blanket and under what circumstances. We must apply the same standard to this potential evidence as all the evidence (or lack thereof) that does implicate Casey.:innocent: Casey was, by all reports, quite promiscuous, and she often took her child with her to parties, etc, so that semen, if there were any, which there wasn't, could have contaminated that blanket a year ago.

That's a good question for an expert.

I've been going through my notes to see if Casey said such a blanket was missing or the Anthonys said that a blanket like that was missing. I have not been able to find any prior note that such is true.

An unidentified blanket would also be exculpatory evidence; i.e., unless the DNA of an Anthony family member was found on it.

You are kidding on this one right wudge? Because the Anthonys or Casey did not say it then that means it wasn't theirs? The multitude of lies and omissions told by all these "players" discredits anything they have or have not said. The Anthonys did not say is no standard of proof and does not mean a thing. They also did not say a Pooh blanket was missing until they KNEW LE was looking for it...so???:waitasec:

 

[amethyst221]

An unknown semen donor works strongly for the defense. Obviously, Casey is excluded from being the semen donor. Unidentifiable semen found on a baby blanket where Caylee's remains were located is still more highly significant exculpatory evidence.

Only until someone counters with the sort of contrary position you, for example, might normally take in the defense of the accused. First, the defendant is not wholly excluded from being an indirect "donor" of semen, known or unknown, though I'm aware she is apparently not a male. She had intimate contact with a number of them. We have evidence of multiple male "friends," and that Caylee, the victim, was at least occasionally present in bed with the defendant and a BF. So perhaps was her blanket, which traveled with Caylee and the defendant and to which the defendant had access.

 

[seagull65]

But could the Koala blanket have already been at the site? Maybe teens or whoever hung out near there used it? Or was it found in the bag with Caylee?

neither blanket was in a bag and most of Caylee wasn't inside a bag, just next to and around it, right? The koala tag blanket could conceivably already have been there, but it is a baby blanket with a hole and evidence of blood on it, and it was in the vicinity of Caylee's remains.

 

[seagull65]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking...


TakeNote --

Thanks for typing up the translations from Q's to objects.

Right, this is what the report said: "A chemical test for the possible presence of blood was positive on specimens Q81, Q82, Q84, Q103, Q248.1, Q248.2, Q248.3, and Q248.4; however, the presence of blood was not confirmed."

The above list of items were all the ones that were positive for "pheno" and QNS (quality not sufficient) for "hemo."

(Except, one of the sub-swabbings of Q103 just says for "pheno" and a blank under "hemo." This could be because the other sub-swabbings were NEG, or because they couldn't isolate a stain, which they say in "remarks.")

I believe a positive test for "pheno" is not sufficient to say that "the presence of blood was confirmed." Apparently a positive "pheno" is enough to mean that there is the possible presence of blood, but you need a positive "hemo" to confirm the presence of blood. They didn't have positive "hemo" results -- the quality or size of the samples was lacking.

Apparently there's a similar situation with semen testing...

Here's some info about semen detection from, uh, semen-detection.com (seriously). What they're saying sounds reasonable; but by all means double check w/ some reputable sources.

"Acid phosphatase is an enzyme present in semen at concentrations of 20 to 400 times other body fluids. The presence of acid phosphatase [acid phos] is a presumptive test for the presence of semen and needs to be confirmed by DNA or the presence of a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) [p30]."

We can see on page 12156 that the blanket (Q103) that was positive for acid phos aka acid phosphatase, subsequently tested negative for p50 aka prostate specific antigen. This is why the Results of Examinations says that Q103 was negative for semen -- apparently the presence of both compounds (acid phos and p50) is necessary to confirm the presence of semen. (I assume that the presence of acid phos and spermcells/DNA instead of p50 would also confirm the presence of semen.)

Soooo, basically nothing had any blood or semen.[/QUOTE]



BBM

Hasn't this been cleared up?

well, maybe nothing had levels high enough to state that it's a confirmed level, or all components present. Doesn't mean it's not of interest if ANY component of blood or semen is on an item that was with or near Caylee.

On these items that were out in the elements for that long I imagine they were glad to find trace amounts or components of any body fluids that could aid in the investigation. It's a miracle they found even these trace amounts, thank heavens for this much.