Serological Reports (blood)
- Thread starter BeanE
- Start date
The World According
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 3,720
- Reaction score
- -33
No problem; it's fun for meYeah, part of me wondered about the DNA given that this stuff seems like it's been moved around so much... the car, the washing machine, local LE, etc. If they're looking for minute amounts of DNA, it seems like you wouldn't want to move the stuff around very much.
Also, touch DNA techniques are good for clothing, right? Maybe the fact that the pack of wipes was probably plastic and slick means that it's less likely for skin cells to stick... Who knows. I wonder if they checked the adhesive from the package. Hmmm. I'm just thinking out loud here -- I don't know whether any of these things are true.
You know Panama, this got me thinking the absence of things means to me it was cleaned , when there were no fingerprints on the shed doors, I thought someone in that family has been in serious clean up mode. I try to keep my house very clean, but I can tell you I have never ever cleaned the outside and inside of my shed doors! When I saw the car being driven into the police garage, it literally was so clean it sparkled. A lot of cleaning went on in my opinion. A lot.
TotallyObsessed
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,096
- Reaction score
- 1
WOW. Excellent work Panama. I am so disappointed though that no dna was found on the syringe.
I listened to a podcast today on this case, and a reporter was being interviewed. He said there's still smoking evidence yet to be released, and that the cops told him there was blood in the trunk. Take it for what its worth, but he said it two or three times during the podcast. I found it hard to believe that a good journalist would misquote police investigators.
Wudge
New Member
The reporter's name is? Did he name his alleged source and when he was told this?
Ok, I decided to go ahead and go through the other DNA report results, even though we may have seen some of these results before.
So, to summarize:
PDF containing the blood/semen serological results and summary DNA results is here: http://www.filedropper.com/11-6-09seroexams
The blood/semen exam report results post is [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4409843#post4409843"]here[/ame].
The DNA exam report results post for the 07/24/09 exam are [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4410894#post4410894"]here[/ame].
DNA exam report results from the 12/16/08 and 10/08/08 are below.
I added some formatting, added bracketed item names after their numbers. I added notes in blue, and made important parts bold.
Report of Examination dated December 16, 2008
(from pages 12365-6)
Report of Examination dated October 8, 2008
(from pages 12370-72)
So, to summarize:
PDF containing the blood/semen serological results and summary DNA results is here: http://www.filedropper.com/11-6-09seroexams
The blood/semen exam report results post is [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4409843#post4409843"]here[/ame].
The DNA exam report results post for the 07/24/09 exam are [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4410894#post4410894"]here[/ame].
DNA exam report results from the 12/16/08 and 10/08/08 are below.
I added some formatting, added bracketed item names after their numbers. I added notes in blue, and made important parts bold.
Report of Examination dated December 16, 2008
(from pages 12365-6)
Specimens Q55 [Debris from spare tire wheel well], Q56 [Swab from spare tire wheel well], K5 (CINDY ANTHONY), K7 (GEORGE ANTHONY), and K9 (LEE ANTHONY) were subjected to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) typing by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) at the amelogenin sex typing locus, the nine short tandem repeat (STR) loci of the AmpFlSTR® Pro filer Plus ID PCR Amplification Kit and, where appropriate, the six STR loci of the AmpFlSTR® COfiler PCR Amplification Kit.
The STR typing results from specimen K9 (LEE ANTHONY) were compared to the STR typing results from specimen Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) [submitted under FBI Laboratory Number 080730003 TO NR and reported in FBI Laboratory report dated October 8, 2008].
Based on the typing results from the amelogenin locus (for sex determination), female DNA is present in the DNA obtained from specimen K5 (CINDY ANTHONY). Male DNA is present in the DNA obtained from specimens K7 (GEORGE ANTHONY) and K9 (LEE ANTHONY). The amelogenin [male vs female] typing results obtained from specimen Q56 [Swab from spare tire wheel well] do not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I reporting criteria; therefore, no conclusion can be offered. No amelogenin [male vs female] typing results were obtained from specimen Q55 [Debris from spare tire wheel well].
No detectable DNA or STR typing results were obtained from specimens Q55 [Debris from spare tire wheel well] and Q56 [Swab from spare tire wheel well].
Based on the STR typing [whose DNA it is] results, the DNA obtained from specimen Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) could not have originated from a biological offspring of the individual represented by specimen K9 (LEE ANTHONY).
Because no STR typing [whose DNA it is] results were obtained, the tested specimens Q55 [Debris from spare tire wheel well] and Q56 [Swab from spare tire wheel well] are not eligible for entry into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
No other serological or nuclear DNA examinations were conducted.
(Not much going on in this report.)
The STR typing results from specimen K9 (LEE ANTHONY) were compared to the STR typing results from specimen Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) [submitted under FBI Laboratory Number 080730003 TO NR and reported in FBI Laboratory report dated October 8, 2008].
Based on the typing results from the amelogenin locus (for sex determination), female DNA is present in the DNA obtained from specimen K5 (CINDY ANTHONY). Male DNA is present in the DNA obtained from specimens K7 (GEORGE ANTHONY) and K9 (LEE ANTHONY). The amelogenin [male vs female] typing results obtained from specimen Q56 [Swab from spare tire wheel well] do not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I reporting criteria; therefore, no conclusion can be offered. No amelogenin [male vs female] typing results were obtained from specimen Q55 [Debris from spare tire wheel well].
No detectable DNA or STR typing results were obtained from specimens Q55 [Debris from spare tire wheel well] and Q56 [Swab from spare tire wheel well].
Based on the STR typing [whose DNA it is] results, the DNA obtained from specimen Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) could not have originated from a biological offspring of the individual represented by specimen K9 (LEE ANTHONY).
Because no STR typing [whose DNA it is] results were obtained, the tested specimens Q55 [Debris from spare tire wheel well] and Q56 [Swab from spare tire wheel well] are not eligible for entry into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
No other serological or nuclear DNA examinations were conducted.
(Not much going on in this report.)
Report of Examination dated October 8, 2008
(from pages 12370-72)
Based on the typing results from the amelogenin locus (for sex determination), female DNA is present in the DNA obtained from specimens
Male DNA is present in the DNA obtained from specimens Q29-1 [Q29 - swab from shovel handle] and K3 (BURNER). No amelogenin typing results were obtained from specimens Q22-Q25 [combined swabbings from trunk] , Q31 [swab from tip of shovel], Q32 [swab from tip of shovel], Q44-1/Q45-1 [combined swabbings from pieces of spare tire cover from vehicle]. The amelogenin typing results obtained from specimen Q30-1 [Q30 - swab from shovel handle] do not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I reporting criteria; therefore, no conclusion can be offered.
It is noted that a mixture was detected on specimen Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee]; however, a major contributor could be discerned from this specimen and for comparison purposes, specimen Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee] is being used as an alternate reference sample for CAYLEE ANTHONY and hereafter will be designated specimen Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) to further differentiate it from the other questioned (Q) specimens analyzed. Based on the STR typing results, the DNA obtained for the major contributor from specimen Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee] (CAYLEE ANTHONY) is consistent with a potential biological offspring of the individual represented by specimen K1 (Casey Anthony).
The STR typing [who's DNA it is] results for specimen Q29-1 [Q29 - swab from shovel handle] indicate the presence of DNA from more than one individual and does not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I inclusionary reporting criteria and therefore may be utilized only for exclusionary purposes. Based on the STR typing results, the source of specimen K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) is excluded as a potential contributor of the DNA obtained from specimen Q29-1 [Q29 - swab from shovel handle]. Also based on the STR typing results, no comparison information can be provided for specimen K3 (BURNER) or Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY).
Based upon the mixtures of DNA obtained from specimens Q19-1 [swabbing from Q19 - toothbrush listed as belonging to caylee] and Q20-1 [swabbing from Q20 - toothbrush belonging to caylee], neither specimen was used as an alternate known for Caylee Anthony.
(neither toothbrush had enough of Caylee's DNA to use as a known sample for Caylee.)
No DNA unlike K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) was detected on specimen Q21-1 [Q21 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee].
The DNA profile obtained from specimen Q30-1 [Q30 - swab from shovel handle] does not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I inclusionary reporting criteria and therefore may be utilized only for exclusionary purposes. No comparison information can be provided for specimen Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY), K1 (CASEY ANTHONY), or K3 (BURNER).
No STR typing results were obtained for specimens Q22-Q25 [combined swabbings from trunk] or Q44-l/Q45-1 [combined swabbings from pieces of spare tire cover from vehicle].
No detectable DNA or STR typing results were obtained from specimens Q31 [swab from tip of shovel] and Q32 [swab from tip of shovel].
These results will be maintained by the FBI Laboratory for possible future comparisons if requested. Also, the STR typing results for specimen Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee] will be entered into the Missing Persons Index ofthe Combined DNA Index System (CODlS).
No other serological or nuclear DNA examinations were conducted.
(Not much here either.)
- Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee],
- Q19-1 [swabbing from specimen Q19 - toothbrush listed as belonging to to Caylee],
- Q20-1 [swabbing from specimen Q20 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee],
- Q21-1 [swabbing from specimen Q21 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee],
- K1 (Casey Anthony).
Male DNA is present in the DNA obtained from specimens Q29-1 [Q29 - swab from shovel handle] and K3 (BURNER). No amelogenin typing results were obtained from specimens Q22-Q25 [combined swabbings from trunk] , Q31 [swab from tip of shovel], Q32 [swab from tip of shovel], Q44-1/Q45-1 [combined swabbings from pieces of spare tire cover from vehicle]. The amelogenin typing results obtained from specimen Q30-1 [Q30 - swab from shovel handle] do not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I reporting criteria; therefore, no conclusion can be offered.
It is noted that a mixture was detected on specimen Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee]; however, a major contributor could be discerned from this specimen and for comparison purposes, specimen Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee] is being used as an alternate reference sample for CAYLEE ANTHONY and hereafter will be designated specimen Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) to further differentiate it from the other questioned (Q) specimens analyzed. Based on the STR typing results, the DNA obtained for the major contributor from specimen Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee] (CAYLEE ANTHONY) is consistent with a potential biological offspring of the individual represented by specimen K1 (Casey Anthony).
The STR typing [who's DNA it is] results for specimen Q29-1 [Q29 - swab from shovel handle] indicate the presence of DNA from more than one individual and does not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I inclusionary reporting criteria and therefore may be utilized only for exclusionary purposes. Based on the STR typing results, the source of specimen K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) is excluded as a potential contributor of the DNA obtained from specimen Q29-1 [Q29 - swab from shovel handle]. Also based on the STR typing results, no comparison information can be provided for specimen K3 (BURNER) or Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY).
Based upon the mixtures of DNA obtained from specimens Q19-1 [swabbing from Q19 - toothbrush listed as belonging to caylee] and Q20-1 [swabbing from Q20 - toothbrush belonging to caylee], neither specimen was used as an alternate known for Caylee Anthony.
(neither toothbrush had enough of Caylee's DNA to use as a known sample for Caylee.)
No DNA unlike K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) was detected on specimen Q21-1 [Q21 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee].
The DNA profile obtained from specimen Q30-1 [Q30 - swab from shovel handle] does not satisfy the DNA Analysis Unit I inclusionary reporting criteria and therefore may be utilized only for exclusionary purposes. No comparison information can be provided for specimen Q18-1 (CAYLEE ANTHONY), K1 (CASEY ANTHONY), or K3 (BURNER).
No STR typing results were obtained for specimens Q22-Q25 [combined swabbings from trunk] or Q44-l/Q45-1 [combined swabbings from pieces of spare tire cover from vehicle].
No detectable DNA or STR typing results were obtained from specimens Q31 [swab from tip of shovel] and Q32 [swab from tip of shovel].
These results will be maintained by the FBI Laboratory for possible future comparisons if requested. Also, the STR typing results for specimen Q18-1 [swabbing from specimen Q18 - toothbrush listed as belonging to Caylee] will be entered into the Missing Persons Index ofthe Combined DNA Index System (CODlS).
No other serological or nuclear DNA examinations were conducted.
(Not much here either.)
maryaok -- Which podcast? (I'm always up for a CMA podcast ) Keep in mind that NG was talking about how syringes LOADED with chloroform were found at the scene on national television... and we know that she was completely wrong. Though, I gotta say it seems odd that the cops would have said anything (about blood or anything else) to a reporter; from what I gathered, LE was against leaking case stuff to the media since it hinders the effort. But who knows -- maybe the next report will show blood in the trunk.
TotallyObsessed - Me too
ExpectingUnicorns -- That is interesting... I just looked back at the DNA summary, and there was this:
"Specimens K3(BURNER), K5(CINDY ANTHONY), K7(GEORGE ANTHONY), and K9(LEE ANTHONY) are excluded as potential contributors to this mixture. It is noted that specimens Q18 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) and K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) can account for all of the results obtained from specimen Q304 [Swab from comb handle in back pack]"
This is interesting since maybe when CA rummaged through the backpack she touched the comb. I can't think of why she'd lie, though.
But, consider this:
-The wipes only had enough DNA to be able to exclude everyone except for Caylee and KC. (i.e., not much DNA)
-The comb had enough DNA to be able to include Caylee and KC. (i.e., more DNA).
(I should say that the above statements are a little sloppy because there are other factors than amount of DNA that can be responsible for being able to do inclusion vs exclusion. I am assuming that amount of DNA was primarily responsible, though, since this is statistically the most likely situation. I'd need to look at the raw results to know for sure, though.)
Anyway, this might mean that cells/other-DNA-containing-stuff just doesn't stick very well to the wipes. Although, if CA is remembering correctly, and the wipes still worked, it seems like they must have been pretty new, so maybe there wasn't much time for KC or Caylee to touch them very much, yet their DNA was there...
Overall, it's hard to say. I wonder if there's data on the sensitivity of lab's machines or methods of getting the DNA off of objects... That new JonBenet development happened because new technology allowed investigators to find/analyize DNA that they couldn't find/analyze 10 (or however many) years ago. Does the new technology claim to allow you to find DNA on something a person touched once or briefly? Hmm.
) Keep in mind that NG was talking about how syringes LOADED with chloroform were found at the scene on national television... and we know that she was completely wrong. Though, I gotta say it seems odd that the cops would have said anything (about blood or anything else) to a reporter; from what I gathered, LE was against leaking case stuff to the media since it hinders the effort. But who knows -- maybe the next report will show blood in the trunk.TotallyObsessed - Me too
ExpectingUnicorns -- That is interesting... I just looked back at the DNA summary, and there was this:
"Specimens K3(BURNER), K5(CINDY ANTHONY), K7(GEORGE ANTHONY), and K9(LEE ANTHONY) are excluded as potential contributors to this mixture. It is noted that specimens Q18 (CAYLEE ANTHONY) and K1 (CASEY ANTHONY) can account for all of the results obtained from specimen Q304 [Swab from comb handle in back pack]"
This is interesting since maybe when CA rummaged through the backpack she touched the comb. I can't think of why she'd lie, though.
But, consider this:
-The wipes only had enough DNA to be able to exclude everyone except for Caylee and KC. (i.e., not much DNA)
-The comb had enough DNA to be able to include Caylee and KC. (i.e., more DNA).
(I should say that the above statements are a little sloppy because there are other factors than amount of DNA that can be responsible for being able to do inclusion vs exclusion. I am assuming that amount of DNA was primarily responsible, though, since this is statistically the most likely situation. I'd need to look at the raw results to know for sure, though.)
Anyway, this might mean that cells/other-DNA-containing-stuff just doesn't stick very well to the wipes. Although, if CA is remembering correctly, and the wipes still worked, it seems like they must have been pretty new, so maybe there wasn't much time for KC or Caylee to touch them very much, yet their DNA was there...
Overall, it's hard to say. I wonder if there's data on the sensitivity of lab's machines or methods of getting the DNA off of objects... That new JonBenet development happened because new technology allowed investigators to find/analyize DNA that they couldn't find/analyze 10 (or however many) years ago. Does the new technology claim to allow you to find DNA on something a person touched once or briefly? Hmm.
Cool. Do you happen to have the (handwritten) page number for that? Page 450 for me on all the docs combined is 10877, but I don't see anything there...
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
You should probably move this info to another thread. I bet there's one with "prints" in the title.
Here's the link to the information I think you're referencing, so you can include it in whatever thread you put the comment in.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21540603/detail.html p. 450 handwritten comment from FBI that OSCO lifted latent prints and finished processing them so would not be submitting them to FBI.
Can you tell us more about the podcast- maybe we can find the reporter...
It's on itunes podcasts. I found it by just putting in a search in the store for casey Anthony and then I went to the tabs for podcasts.
Quote in one part of the cast: The sheriff's department said, "theres not a little bit of blood in the trunk, we have a lot of blood in the trunk."
Theres more on the blood towards the end of the cast..
Mark Furman is in the podcast too.
"Voices for Justice: Casey Anthony" - Nov 09,2009 1:01:27 11/8/2009 "Voices for Justice: Casey Anthony"
Quote in one part of the cast: The sheriff's department said, "theres not a little bit of blood in the trunk, we have a lot of blood in the trunk."
Theres more on the blood towards the end of the cast..
Mark Furman is in the podcast too.
"Voices for Justice: Casey Anthony" - Nov 09,2009 1:01:27 11/8/2009 "Voices for Justice: Casey Anthony"
BlOnDe_GuRrL
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 951
- Reaction score
- -4
i cant wait to hear about these even bigger smoking guns!
she's going to trial in january right?
she's going to trial in january right?
BeanE
Inactive
Thankyou- when I heard the first Journalist was Mark Williams I deflated, as I have heard him make SO many errors every time he talks about the case, but I listened and still didn't hear the name of the guy who reports the Police conversation regarding blood... but that was interesting- first time I have heard blood mentioned.
reeseeva
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,716
- Reaction score
- 854
Found these images of: Caylee with a pink blanket, and a Koala blanket that looks very similar... You can zoom in more in the first one.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/caylee anthony/sasi2006/Caylee Marie Anthony/caylee6.jpg?o=100
http://www.toysrus.com/product/prod...g&displayTab=enh&productId=2415407&totCount=0
http://media.photobucket.com/image/caylee anthony/sasi2006/Caylee Marie Anthony/caylee6.jpg?o=100
http://www.toysrus.com/product/prod...g&displayTab=enh&productId=2415407&totCount=0
Apologies if mentioned before as I have not had a chance to catch up on the entire thread, but your post has me wondering why is it that the A's preserved Caylee's fingerprints on the mirror, but fingerprints were missing on the shed and Pontiac trunk? :waitasec:
Thoughts anyone?
3doglady
Certified Coffeeaholic
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the reporter talking was Steph Watts. He said he helped Mark F investigate the case for Fox. That makes me wonder if he was told this early on when LE observed the stain before the lab tests came back.
Harmony 2
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,875
- Reaction score
- 22,189
I think that reporter is wrong. According to this document there was no blood detected on the following items from the trunk:
Q13 swab from spare tire cover
Q14 swab from spare tire cover
Q22 piece of spare tire cover
Q23 spare tire cover
Q24 left side trunk liner
Q25 right side trunk liner
Q44 piece of spare tire cover
Q45 piece of spare tire cover
page 52
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/0929/21146801.pdf
RR0004
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 19,987
- Reaction score
- -26
I posted this on the question thread days ago...was wondering if this was the tech's?