The case for murder

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
coastal said:
Thanks, sdcali. Did your source say what they, and the good folks in Coronado, think about Rebecca's death and the (lack of) investigation into the circumstances surrounding it?

Moving that particular furniture does strike me as odd - except for the fish chair. I'd take that one myself. :innocent:
Click to expand...

The residents I know all believe it was murder. It is interesting to get the "inside" info from people who live on the island.

Emptying the house secretively is the odd part to me. Just move it in the daytime where everyone can see. what are you hiding? what are you afraid of? those are the questions that come to my mind.
 
sdcali said:
The residents I know all believe it was murder. It is interesting to get the "inside" info from people who live on the island.

Emptying the house secretively is the odd part to me. Just move it in the daytime where everyone can see. what are you hiding? what are you afraid of? those are the questions that come to my mind.
Click to expand...

I would think they want to make it hard for photographers to take photos of what the mansion's contents were. Perhaps also to make it hard to see where they are going by seeing markings on the trucks, etc.
 
Zale said:
Do you know if DNA detection of humans on an object is directly proportional to the amount of time a body makes physical contact with the object?

I'm asking because in the LE reports, it was stated that one paintbrush and one knife contained RZ's DNA but not her fingerprints, and the second paintbrush and knife contained her fingerprints, but not DNA.

I had always thought that if your fingerprints are on an object, that means your DNA should also be found on it...except it appears that's not the case.
Click to expand...
Your question is essentially a question about touch DNA, in other words how readily do people transfer/deposit skin cell DNA?
This is something that I have posted on extensively in the JonBenet forum.
Whether or not a usable profile is found from touch DNA is dependent on a number of factors:

The shedder profile of a person. Are they a good shedder, in other words do they have a tendency to leave more of their DNA and pick up very little, or are they a poor shedder that leaves little of their own DNA and picks up significant foreign DNA?
The length of contact with a particular object
The pressure of contact with a particular object
Do they wash their hands frequently or infrequently?
Do they have a tendency to contact their face frequently or infrequently?
The type of surface involved, is it textured or smooth?
Is the environment hot or humid and likely to cause rapid degradation?
Are there biological elements in play that may cause rapid degradation?
With all that in mind you must also remember that DNA is sampled in such a way as to try to minimize the area involved and, therefore, minimize the amount of “stray” DNA donors being found.

Just as an example, brief contact by someone who is a poor shedder may leave a fingerprint, but not enough skin cells to produce a usable DNA profile, whereas brief contact by a good shedder may leave enough cells for a DNA profile, but perhaps they may not have enough sweat and other secretions present to leave a fingerprint.


•SHEDDER INDEX
A group of 29 people were tested for their ability to deposit their DNA profile onto touched objects. It was found that a typical good shedder leaves a complete profile on the surface of a plastic tube after contact of only 10 seconds, whereas at the other end of the scale a poor shedder will leave only a few alleles, possibly with several loci dropping out completely.
•PRIMARY TRANSFER
Work was carried out to determine whether DNA profiles could be obtained from clothing; specifically, plain white T-shirts. After 8 hours wear, more of the wearer’s DNA was recovered from the front of the Tshirt than the back. Targeting the neck area maximized the chance of obtaining a useful result. In a series of simulated assaults, where one person grabbed the shoulder of another for a period of 30 seconds, mixed profiles were obtained from the grabbed area of the T-shirts. The “assailant” always contributed the major component to this mixture, regardless of his/her shedder type.
•SECONDARY TRANSFER
Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing. The experiment was then repeated, but with the introduction of a delay of 30 minutes between the time of the handshake and the tube-holding. The results indicated that although the poor shedder deposited some alleles, secondary transfer of the good shedder’s DNA still occurred.
•PERSISTENCE
Many factors may affect the persistence of low level DNA; time, temperature, humidity, etc. While it is unreasonable to test every combination of variables, some generic experiments have been undertaken and certain scenarios addressed. A time-study of the persistence of DNA is currently underway, where touched items have been stored at room temperature and tested to find out how much DNA can be recovered after certain periods of time. full profiles were still recovered from surfaces touched by a good shedder even after 4 months, whereas a marked decrease in the recovery of the poor shedder’s DNA was observed.
An exchange of identical wrist-watches between certain shedder types was carried out to ascertain the period of time needed for the original wearer’s DNA profile to be replaced by that of the new wearer. Generally we found that a good shedder completely replaced the original wearer’s profile in 2-3 weeks, and after only a few days had become the major component of a mixture. An example of this is shown in In contrast, a poor shedder typically took around 2 weeks just to comprise the major component.
http://www.wavesignal.com/Forensics/Copy.html

We have shown that there is a difference between individuals in their tendency to deposit DNA on an item when it is touched. While a good DNA shedder may leave behind a full DNA profile immediately after hand washing, poor DNA shedders may only do so when their hands have not been washed for a period of 6 h. We have also demonstrated that transfer of DNA from one individual (A) to another (B) and subsequently to an object is possible under specific laboratory conditions using the AMPFISTR®SGM Plus™ multiplex at both 28 and 34 PCR cycles. This is a form of secondary transfer. If a 30 min or 1 h delay was introduced before contact of individual B with the object then at 34 cycles a mixture of profiles from both individuals was recovered. We have also determined that the quantity and quality of DNA profiles recovered is dependent upon the particular individuals involved in the transfer process. The findings reported here are preliminary and further investigations are underway in order to further add to understanding of the issues of DNA transfer and persistence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12230994


Similarly there are a number of factors involved with fingerprints:

There are many factors which could affect how long a fingerprint lasts on an object. It may help you feel better to know a little bit about locating prints on an object. In fact, "latent" prints developed on items are chance impressions. They are composed of oil, perspiration, or other contaminants located on the finger at the time the item is touched. If there is nothing present on the finger, a latent print may not be left even though the item was touched. And even if there was "sweat" present, the surface itself might not be an ideal receptor for holding a fingerprint. Many surfaces (like vinyl for example) are not very likely to retain useable prints because they are semi-porous. They aren't hard like glass or metal, and likewise they do not absorb and retain the sweat like paper or cardboard. And even if the "sweat" and the "surface" factors were good, the touch itself might not lead to a latent print of value. For example, if I touch a piece of glass with a sweaty finger, but I do so with a glancing, sliding motion, all that will develop on the glass is a big smear. If I twist and turn my finger as I touch an item, the "touch" factor may also prevent an identifiable fingerprint from being developed even though I touched the surface. And finally, even if the "sweat" "surface" and "touch" factors are good, "environmental" factors acting on the surface after the fact might prevent an identifiable print from being left. These include temperature, humidity, handling, and packaging. On a hot dry day, an item being handled in a sealed plastic bag is probably not ideal for development of a latent print of value. Most laboratories require items of evidence for latent print processing to be packaged in paper containers for this reason. Paper "breathes" and is much less likely to build up condensation that can destroy fingerprint evidence.
So in review, there are four basic factors as to whether identifiable latent prints will be developed on an item that HAS been touched: sweat, surface, contact, and environment. If any of these factors are not ideal, an identifiable latent print may not be developed on an item that has been touched.
In order to determine how long a print will last, you would have to know what the print was composed of (sweat factor) and also you would need to know more about the surface/sweat interaction. For example, on a shell casing or similar metal object the sweat sometimes oxidizes the metal and forms a permanent "print" on the surface. Wood is a very different surface than metal, so there is no direct answer to your question. There are too many variables.
http://onin.com/fp/wwwbd/messages/4/1600.html?1235894517
http://onin.com/fp/wwwbd/messages/4/4.html
 
cynic said:
Your question is essentially a question about touch DNA, in other words how readily do people transfer/deposit skin cell DNA?
This is something that I have posted on extensively in the JonBenet forum.
Whether or not a usable profile is found from touch DNA is dependent on a number of factors:

The shedder profile of a person. Are they a good shedder, in other words do they have a tendency to leave more of their DNA and pick up very little, or are they a poor shedder that leaves little of their own DNA and picks up significant foreign DNA?
The length of contact with a particular object
The pressure of contact with a particular object
Do they wash their hands frequently or infrequently?
Do they have a tendency to contact their face frequently or infrequently?
The type of surface involved, is it textured or smooth?
Is the environment hot or humid and likely to cause rapid degradation?
Are there biological elements in play that may cause rapid degradation?
With all that in mind you must also remember that DNA is sampled in such a way as to try to minimize the area involved and, therefore, minimize the amount of “stray” DNA donors being found.

Just as an example, brief contact by someone who is a poor shedder may leave a fingerprint, but not enough skin cells to produce a usable DNA profile, whereas brief contact by a good shedder may leave enough cells for a DNA profile, but perhaps they may not have enough sweat and other secretions present to leave a fingerprint.


•SHEDDER INDEX
A group of 29 people were tested for their ability to deposit their DNA profile onto touched objects. It was found that a typical good shedder leaves a complete profile on the surface of a plastic tube after contact of only 10 seconds, whereas at the other end of the scale a poor shedder will leave only a few alleles, possibly with several loci dropping out completely.
•PRIMARY TRANSFER
Work was carried out to determine whether DNA profiles could be obtained from clothing; specifically, plain white T-shirts. After 8 hours wear, more of the wearer’s DNA was recovered from the front of the Tshirt than the back. Targeting the neck area maximized the chance of obtaining a useful result. In a series of simulated assaults, where one person grabbed the shoulder of another for a period of 30 seconds, mixed profiles were obtained from the grabbed area of the T-shirts. The “assailant” always contributed the major component to this mixture, regardless of his/her shedder type.
•SECONDARY TRANSFER
Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing. The experiment was then repeated, but with the introduction of a delay of 30 minutes between the time of the handshake and the tube-holding. The results indicated that although the poor shedder deposited some alleles, secondary transfer of the good shedder’s DNA still occurred.
•PERSISTENCE
Many factors may affect the persistence of low level DNA; time, temperature, humidity, etc. While it is unreasonable to test every combination of variables, some generic experiments have been undertaken and certain scenarios addressed. A time-study of the persistence of DNA is currently underway, where touched items have been stored at room temperature and tested to find out how much DNA can be recovered after certain periods of time. full profiles were still recovered from surfaces touched by a good shedder even after 4 months, whereas a marked decrease in the recovery of the poor shedder’s DNA was observed.
An exchange of identical wrist-watches between certain shedder types was carried out to ascertain the period of time needed for the original wearer’s DNA profile to be replaced by that of the new wearer. Generally we found that a good shedder completely replaced the original wearer’s profile in 2-3 weeks, and after only a few days had become the major component of a mixture. An example of this is shown in In contrast, a poor shedder typically took around 2 weeks just to comprise the major component.
http://www.wavesignal.com/Forensics/Copy.html

We have shown that there is a difference between individuals in their tendency to deposit DNA on an item when it is touched. While a good DNA shedder may leave behind a full DNA profile immediately after hand washing, poor DNA shedders may only do so when their hands have not been washed for a period of 6 h. We have also demonstrated that transfer of DNA from one individual (A) to another (B) and subsequently to an object is possible under specific laboratory conditions using the AMPFISTR®SGM Plus™ multiplex at both 28 and 34 PCR cycles. This is a form of secondary transfer. If a 30 min or 1 h delay was introduced before contact of individual B with the object then at 34 cycles a mixture of profiles from both individuals was recovered. We have also determined that the quantity and quality of DNA profiles recovered is dependent upon the particular individuals involved in the transfer process. The findings reported here are preliminary and further investigations are underway in order to further add to understanding of the issues of DNA transfer and persistence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12230994


Similarly there are a number of factors involved with fingerprints:

There are many factors which could affect how long a fingerprint lasts on an object. It may help you feel better to know a little bit about locating prints on an object. In fact, "latent" prints developed on items are chance impressions. They are composed of oil, perspiration, or other contaminants located on the finger at the time the item is touched. If there is nothing present on the finger, a latent print may not be left even though the item was touched. And even if there was "sweat" present, the surface itself might not be an ideal receptor for holding a fingerprint. Many surfaces (like vinyl for example) are not very likely to retain useable prints because they are semi-porous. They aren't hard like glass or metal, and likewise they do not absorb and retain the sweat like paper or cardboard. And even if the "sweat" and the "surface" factors were good, the touch itself might not lead to a latent print of value. For example, if I touch a piece of glass with a sweaty finger, but I do so with a glancing, sliding motion, all that will develop on the glass is a big smear. If I twist and turn my finger as I touch an item, the "touch" factor may also prevent an identifiable fingerprint from being developed even though I touched the surface. And finally, even if the "sweat" "surface" and "touch" factors are good, "environmental" factors acting on the surface after the fact might prevent an identifiable print from being left. These include temperature, humidity, handling, and packaging. On a hot dry day, an item being handled in a sealed plastic bag is probably not ideal for development of a latent print of value. Most laboratories require items of evidence for latent print processing to be packaged in paper containers for this reason. Paper "breathes" and is much less likely to build up condensation that can destroy fingerprint evidence.
So in review, there are four basic factors as to whether identifiable latent prints will be developed on an item that HAS been touched: sweat, surface, contact, and environment. If any of these factors are not ideal, an identifiable latent print may not be developed on an item that has been touched.
In order to determine how long a print will last, you would have to know what the print was composed of (sweat factor) and also you would need to know more about the surface/sweat interaction. For example, on a shell casing or similar metal object the sweat sometimes oxidizes the metal and forms a permanent "print" on the surface. Wood is a very different surface than metal, so there is no direct answer to your question. There are too many variables.
http://onin.com/fp/wwwbd/messages/4/1600.html?1235894517
http://onin.com/fp/wwwbd/messages/4/4.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comprehensive DNA/fingerprint info and references, Cynic! :) I enjoyed reading and digesting them.

So it appears that if RZ had touched the metal balcony railing with her hand(s), AND if the latent fingerprint factors are ideal (sweat, surface, contact, and environment), LE should have been able to recover fingerprints.

Since the LE reports, while specifically stating that RZ fingerprints were found on paintbrush and knife, failed to mention the finding of RZ fingerprints on railing, and given the biased nature of LE towards a suicide theory, I would surmise LE did look specifically for RZ's fingerprints and DNA on the railing. Thus, one can conclude from their absence in the LE reports as indicating either RZ's fingerprints were not found on railing, or no latent fingerprints on RZ were retrievable on railing. Also, given the harried nature of LE's investigations to come quickly to their "ironclad" ruling of suicide, I would also surmise that LE did not attempt to detect whether other people's fingerprints (besides RZ's) were found on railing.

With respect to DNA, since the railing is made of metal (which the cited reference says is an ideal contact surface), I would infer that it is possible to obtain DNA samples - if conditions are ideal (person's a good shedder, a certain timed threshold was reached between person's hand and railing, surface of contact not vinyl, etc.). Therefore, since LE did not mention the finding of RZ's DNA on railing, one can conclude there was no RZ DNA found on railing, or there was insufficient DNA belonging to RZ found on railing to draw any conclusions. Again, due to LE's hasty investigation, I also believe LE did not bother to detect whether there existed any other person's DNA (besides RZ's) on railing.

I hope the Zahau's are able to afford a full independent investigation that would look more thoroughly into the DNA/fingerprint matters on the railing, as well as other objects in the crime scene (e.g., light switch, white trash bag, dogbone, ropes).

Just one question, Cynic, the article on DNA states that if one increases the number of PCR cycles, one could magnify the DNA and improve one's chances of finding a complete DNA profile. So why not use the trace amounts of DNA found on objects and do more than 28-34 PCR cycles whenever there is minuscule amounts (low copy numbers) of DNA found at crime scenes? Is it simply because the PCR processes are expensive?
 
Zale said:
Thanks for the comprehensive DNA/fingerprint info and references, Cynic! :) I enjoyed reading and digesting them.
Click to expand...
You're welcome, my pleasure.
Just one question, Cynic, the article on DNA states that if one increases the number of PCR cycles, one could magnify the DNA and improve one's chances of finding a complete DNA profile. So why not use the trace amounts of DNA found on objects and do more than 28-34 PCR cycles whenever there is minuscule amounts (low copy numbers) of DNA found at crime scenes? Is it simply because the PCR processes are expensive?
Click to expand...
The short answer to your question is that the extra cycles significantly increase the chances of errors creeping into the resultant profile. Often you will hear people use the term, stochastic effects; these random effects can be quite problematic with respect to the correct interpretation of a profile achieved through the LCN or LT-DNA process.
Guarding against contamination throughout the entire process from collection at the crime scene to handling in the lab is also a real concern.
As an example, if allelic drop in and high stutter is pervasive enough in a profile, analysts may arrive at the incorrect conclusion that an additional perpetrator may be involved but in reality they will be chasing ghosts.
With the appropriate training and safeguards in place, the technology can be used responsibly and survive challenges in court, but a savvy defense team will have many avenues of attack available with the well known weaknesses that LCN DNA processing has.
The following includes some information on the problems with LCN DNA analysis that are specific to the Amanda Knox case, although it primarily focuses on the general issues involving LCN DNA.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury-2.html

See also
http://www.promega.com/resources/ar.../2010/what-is-lcn-definitions-and-challenges/

A good overview and introduction to DNA: (There are some references to old technology but, regardless, a good article.)
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

If the above is too elementary, an excellent resource and a standard reference work is:
Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers, Butler, J.M.
 
cynic said:
You're welcome, my pleasure.

The short answer to your question is that the extra cycles significantly increase the chances of errors creeping into the resultant profile. Often you will hear people use the term, stochastic effects; these random effects can be quite problematic with respect to the correct interpretation of a profile achieved through the LCN or LT-DNA process.
Guarding against contamination throughout the entire process from collection at the crime scene to handling in the lab is also a real concern.
As an example, if allelic drop in and high stutter is pervasive enough in a profile, analysts may arrive at the incorrect conclusion that an additional perpetrator may be involved but in reality they will be chasing ghosts.
With the appropriate training and safeguards in place, the technology can be used responsibly and survive challenges in court, but a savvy defense team will have many avenues of attack available with the well known weaknesses that LCN DNA processing has.
The following includes some information on the problems with LCN DNA analysis that are specific to the Amanda Knox case, although it primarily focuses on the general issues involving LCN DNA.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury-2.html

See also
http://www.promega.com/resources/ar.../2010/what-is-lcn-definitions-and-challenges/

A good overview and introduction to DNA: (There are some references to old technology but, regardless, a good article.)
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

If the above is too elementary, an excellent resource and a standard reference work is:
Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers, Butler, J.M.
Click to expand...

Thank you Cynic! It's an honor to be blogging with you! Your time spent helping decipher this confusion is heroic!
 
For those who think this crime is now cold, others have a memory of the alleged perpetrators. I believe the shadow of guilt will follow for many years to come.

http://www.thenewsburner.com/2011/1...urderer-robert-durst-moves-into-ny-townhouse/

The article makes this reference "If this case reminds you of the outrageous non-murder case of Rebecca Zahau, involving her pharmaceutical CEO boyfriend, Jonah Shacknai, you can’t be found guilty."
 
Thanks again cynic!

I do have a scientific and statistical research background and I understand genetics, so the articles you provided are not cryptic to me :) Ah, stochastic limits & contamination - small sample size and irreproducibility. The hallmark of science - the ability for experiments to be replicated and hypotheses to be tested. Too small amounts (less than 1 nanometer) of DNA would not even provide enough for control purposes. So PCR done on this minuscule DNA may result in inaccurate contaminated copies and resultant DNAs not verifiable as original DNA would be consumed in testing. Thus, even if an accurate DNA profile is made from the minuscule amount of DNA, lawyers can point towards the possible contaminations to discredit out the DNA profile.

I'll definitely look into the book "Forensic DNA Typing..." you recommended.
 
justice be served said:
Medicis continues its recent successes with its second FDA drug approval in the last 5 weeks or so. All of that improves the company's chances of being acquired with big payoffs per agreements in place. Note in today's article the $20 million payment to Medicis for this FDA clearance with more to come down the road.

http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/10/...received-for-second-generation-liposonix-syst
Click to expand...
Well, yay.
a095.gif
 
I wonder what things a second autopsy report can tell us or rather, can not tell us that could have been told during the first autopsy. It will be interesting to see what other information was left out of the reports provided. I pray the truth become clear! All families and people involved deserve the truth.

I wonder what they will make of the blunt force trauma head wounds. I wonder if her fingernails were checked for DNA. I wonder about the defense wounds that were dismissed as insignificant. I wonder where else there is or is not paint. How did they determine her body temp when they found her to determine tod? What was lost by letting her body lay in the hot, humid ocean sun all day? Any tape residue any where else? Clump of hair? From where? Do bruises match the fall? SO many many questions to bbe answered. These are truly only a few in comparison. I am SO VERY greatful that this is being looked at further. We all need something that makes sense.
 
When it all comes down to it.... what can LE do once the ME rules suicide?
 
justice be served said:
For those who think this crime is now cold, others have a memory of the alleged perpetrators. I believe the shadow of guilt will follow for many years to come.

http://www.thenewsburner.com/2011/1...urderer-robert-durst-moves-into-ny-townhouse/

The article makes this reference "If this case reminds you of the outrageous non-murder case of Rebecca Zahau, involving her pharmaceutical CEO boyfriend, Jonah Shacknai, you can’t be found guilty."
Click to expand...

Thank you for that link, justice. So interesting and a wonderful comparison to the RZ case. Loved your statement (bolded by me .. words so true.) Hopefully perseverance does pay.
 
The case was covered on the Dr Drew show tonight as well. There should be a transcript available later. Ryan Smith was filling in for Dr. Drew.
 
Peaceful said:
UPDATE: http://www.760kfmb.com/story/15869134/dr-phil-show-to-air-rebecca-zahaus-autopsy?redirected=true
Click to expand...

Dr. Cyril Wecht audio interview is interesting. He is donating his services to do another autopsy. He himself seems very frustrated with LE not handing over the case file. I wonder if it has been done? I wish they would check with Coronado LE to find out if a copy of the file has been handed over. Dr. Wecht wants photos etc. from the original autopsy.

Nothing has been confirmed with Dr. Wecht although he has been approached by the Dr. Phil show. Often their are stipulations that anyone involved in the interview do not divulge information or do any further interviews by the Shows. If they have a deal signed we might not hear anything until the previews for the show.

Clearly having another Medical Examiner do an autopsy is crucial. If Dr. Wecht rules undertermined and comes up with compelling evidence I sure hope LE would be forced to re-open the case.

I am curious to know who makes the final determination in a case. Is if the ME or LE? Could it be that once the ME rules suicide that LE basically has it's hands tied? I still can't forget that the ME seemed completely unaware in the PC that AS had loosened the rope around RZ's hands so that he could lay her flat to do CPR. If indeed that is actually what he did. He made a big deal about how loose the bindings were. And the possibility of being hog tied is still possible. We need a better descripton from AS as to how her hands were originally tied.

Thank you Dr. Wecht for providing your services for free. Dr. Phil... um not too happy he is getting involved.
 
You know the hog tie thing is very interesting. I still believe the message on the door was meant to be threatening. Whether there was a real killer bent on revenge or it was made to look that way to cover the original strangling by someone. The blood not in the extremieties. All so questionable. I would love to know what the original ME thinks of all this. I would like to ask Dr. Wecht how much time is considred reasonable when it comes to the ME attending to the body once LE is made aware. I am shocked it took so long. Is this the CSI affect? We expect they show up within the hour but in reality it could be even 10-12 hours? IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 3,439 (members: 134, guests: 3,305)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
3,305
Total visitors
3,439
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,283
Messages
18,138,264
Members
231,300
Latest member
DSMEITH1
Back
Top