887sMtreme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,468
- Reaction score
- 9,128
Wasn’t at least one of the contributors said to have been possibly someone in the factory where the panties were manufactured and packaged?
Wasn’t at least one of the contributors said to have been possibly someone in the factory where the panties were manufactured and packaged?
Unknown Male 1 is an interesting beast in this case. It's impossible to ignore the question of why Hunter and Lacy were so hell bent on pointing to an intruder. Some of our latest thoughts on the DNA....
https://juror13lw.com/2018/04/13/is-burke-ramsey-a-contributor-to-the-unknown-male-1-codis-profile/
JR / th01 / 6 , 9.3
http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/articles/CODIS STR Loci Data from 41 Sample.pdf
TABLE 4Observed allele frequency distributions in six Asian sample populations.
p 21/37
Not surprisingly, we don't have any summaries of the underwear stain testing - just pieces of those reports. But trying to get them. So I can't say for sure if any of them are excluded or included, etc. by the DNA analysts. I just think it's interesting that Burke has matching alleles at 10 out of the 13 markers, and Patsy has them at every marker. Like we were saying in our post, we believe Burke's DNA is one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1". There's no possible way they (Lacy, Ramseys & gang) honestly think Unknown Male 1 is actually one person after reading the DNA reports. So if they're intentionally putting a fake profile out there, what does that mean? As far as we're concerned, it means they're covering for someone, pointing us in the wrong direction.
If what Tadpole12 said is correct in determining JR's markers for locus TH01, doesn't that mean JR has matching alleles at 12 out of the 13 markers? If that's the case, isn't JR's DNA just as likely as BR's to be one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1?" Or am I missing something?
Hey Heather / Tadpole,
The point of the post isnt to figure out exactly whose DNA is at the scene. We know it doesnt belong to one other person. The point is to highlight the misdirection of Ramsey/Lacy in claiming it does. Why does there need to be a misdirection? Thats the point; what does their misdirection tell us? It is important to note, John Ramsey was excluded from every sample collected. Burke Ramsey was not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey Heather / Tadpole,
The point of the post isn’t to figure out exactly whose DNA is at the scene. We know it doesn’t belong to one other person. The point is to highlight the misdirection of Ramsey/Lacy in claiming it does. Why does there need to be a misdirection? That’s the point; what does their misdirection tell us? It is important to note, John Ramsey was excluded from every sample collected. Burke Ramsey was not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://webcache.googleusercontent....apter-14-slides.ppt+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
Mixed Sample, Obligate Alleles (not present in the victim reference)
PR = D851179 - 14
PR = CSF1PO - 12
PR = D16S539 - 11
JR = D75820 - 12
JR/BR = D18551 - 16
BR = TH01 - 7