Found Deceased UK - Susan McLean, 61, U.S. tourist, Aberfeldy, Scotland, 17 May 2015

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

1pinklilies said:
How? Do you think they can tell by just looking?
The only option for the lip balm is a full DNA, it makes sense to do the same on the blanket at the same time.
Hopeful for a speedy outcome.
Click to expand...

They can only tell by looking if they hold their mouth just right, throw salt over their shoulder, squint into the sun, and click their ruby red slippers three times.

So, no, I don't think they can tell by just looking. But if I understand blood testing correctly, a determination of human or animal blood can sometimes be made within 30 minutes. And once they know the blood is from a human, then a full DNA test would probably follow, which I imagine is good police procedure. Because if the blood on the collie's collar is human, but not Susan's, then the police have another problem. If it is Susan's, they can totally focus the next search on the area hippy hippy has identified as the place the collie encountered the blood.

I agree, a full DNA profile will be very helpful no matter what. I, too, hope for a speedy outcome.

(1pinklilies, perhaps tomorrow you should get out on the other side of the bed. :) )
 
windrower said:
They can only tell by looking if they hold their mouth just right, throw salt over their shoulder, squint into the sun, and click their ruby red slippers three times.

So, no, I don't think they can tell by just looking. But if I understand blood testing correctly, a determination of human or animal blood can sometimes be made within 30 minutes. And once they know the blood is from a human, then a full DNA test would probably follow, which I imagine is good police procedure. Because if the blood on the collie's collar is human, but not Susan's, then the police have another problem. If it is Susan's, they can totally focus the next search on the area hippy hippy has identified as the place the collie encountered the blood.

I agree, a full DNA profile will be very helpful no matter what. I, too, hope for a speedy outcome.

(1pinklilies, perhaps tomorrow you should get out on the other side of the bed. :) )
Click to expand...

Windrower, I apologise to you for my comment. Your reply did make me chuckle :)
 
Purplepixii said:
ahhhh the Daily Mail, we love it here in the UK, it makes good loo roll (along with the "red top" papers). I would take anything they write (and I mean "write" in the loosest sense of the word) with a bucket of salt oh & ignore the ignoramus readership too!

Still crossing my fingers for Jill & HH to have success in this case! :grouphug:
Click to expand...

It's one of the most widely read online newspapers, with a large international readership, and both US and Australian versions, and is often quicker to report US news than the US papers themselves, as has been acknowledged on this forum and others. I know it is de rigeur to mock the Daily Mail, but it's amazing how fast it is to report news that others miss, and if you ignore the sensationalist headlines the bones of the articles are as accurate as those you are likely to read elsewhere. I'm British and I don't agree with your loo roll analogy. I can think of plenty of others that would make better loo roll than the Daily Mail. And as for insulting its 'ignoramus' readership - you are basically insulting everyone of every nationality who reads it - 23 million hits per month, including many of us here.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nrs-d...ewspaper-print-and-online-23m-readers-month-0
 
I've been checking daily for more updates about Susan. I am so grateful for Hippy Hippy and Lumberjill and all their efforts, I'm also grateful for her husband and friends coming on WS to provide info and talk with us. It's so heartwarming to see everyone ban together like they have to find Susan, I hope today is the day.
 
Lumberjill said:
DNA not Susan's, says Police Scotland: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/lo...-missing-susan-mclean-police-confirm-1.892412

I find it most remarkable that NO DNA was found on the lip balm. Hope they are re-doing the analysis.
Click to expand...

Maybe the lip balm HH found was a brand new one, unused, nothing to collect from it. Susan's husband did state he didn't recognise it as hers, I'm not sure who informed us of that but it's here in this thread.

They've done well getting the results back by Wednesday when they quoted a week.
Glad it's not Susan's DNA, that leaves hope but where to go from here?
 
If the blood wasn't hers why is the lip balm still significant? Did her family confirm she owned that type of lip balm?
I thought the logic of testing the lip balm was that it was found near to where the dog got bloody thus it could have been Susans if the blood was hers.

DNA can get washed away by rain so it isn't that shocking that no DNA was found on the lip balm.
 
Well. Wow that the DNA has been done already, but I am left with mixed emotions.....

I am thankful our amazing Hippy Hippy no longer feels she could've/should've done more that day. HH, these last 10 weeks must have been so hard, fearing what you feared most. Rest easy now and refocus.

Equivet & Lumberjill, this could have yielded an answer for you albeit a horrible one. I am glad it's not Susans but we all need to get our thinking caps on about what to do next.

Group hug :grouphug:
 
I cannot decide whether I am relieved, or disappointed that the blood isn't Susan's. Had it been hers, I think we would be further forward in trying to find her and working out what happened. It would narrow the search area.

That being said however, I'm glad that it isn't hers, simply because I don't want to think of her suffering.

No idea why this case has touched me so much. Maybe it's just that as a Scot, I feel closer to this case than with others. I cannot put my finger on it. But I check for updates daily. I wish I had no commitments so that I could help hippyhippy and lumberjill with their searching. I want to do something. But for now, I'll just have to offer my support through this platform.

Wherever you are Susan, I hope you are found soon. [emoji257]
 
Wow! It is a relief that it was not Susan's DNA, but where to now? I am so sorry for Susan's family and friends. Please know you are in my thoughts and prayers!

Lumberjill and Hippy Hippy, you are two very special people.
 
Lumberjill said:
DNA not Susan's, says Police Scotland: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/lo...-missing-susan-mclean-police-confirm-1.892412

I find it most remarkable that NO DNA was found on the lip balm. Hope they are re-doing the analysis.
Click to expand...

Scientists testing the animal’s collar and blanket said the DNA was “possibly” human but was not that of Susan McLean.
Click to expand...


This is getting stranger by the minute. I hope they will get to the bottom of it.

For the moment, I am relieved that the blood was not that of Susan. I was secretly hoping that it would not be, because it would have been such an awful scenario if they failed to rescue her while they could have.
Of course this leaves us with many other scenarios.... :(

Hippy hippy an Lumberjill, three loud cheers for you, have a drink on the house and please keep up the good work, now that Susan's case has caught the attention of the media at last.



:coffeecup:
 
1pinklillies, hh thought it had been used as it had a convex surface. hippy hippy, are you out there? We miss you! Susan's son was sure it was not Susan's lip balm, husband was not totally certain that it wasn't. And I ask how many husbands and sons know the brand of lip balm that a woman uses?

Ironside, to me, both the bloody dog blanket and collar AND the lip balm were highly significant. Any could have been Susan's. Any positive would have given us a great guidance on location. The "no DNA" on lip balm seems to mean testing error to me, esp if hh confirms that yes, the lip balm had been used. I hope the lap opened up the jingle bells on the collar and flushed out any residues of blood. The lip balm had the lid on the tube. How would DNA get washed away? I'd think there would be a high likelihood of DNA on the plastic tube edges supporting the balm that rub across lips.
 
Yes, there HAS to be somebody's DNA on a used lipbalm. It may not be the easiest surface to lift it from though. So it was a chapstick type lipbalm, I had a vaseline tin style in my mind.

Lumberjill - what are your thoughts on whether the blood may be human, seems like the police would know that by now, did you get any particular vibes from them at all?

And are you able to text HH, check she's ok for us?
 
Sitting here with my husband, watching the evening news and reading this. I asked my husband what brand of lip balm I use. Granted, I have a very compulsive habit of getting in the car, usually as a passenger, and putting lip balm on. Surprisingly, my husband did know the brand, but was wrong as far as the application type- squeeze tube versus roll up tube.

I am actually surprised he would know. I would not have bet that he would.

Another possibility I thought of concerning the lip balm- Susan may have picked up a brand while traveling that she might not of normally used, due to being in a foreign country. I've always thought I tend to get dehydrated while traveling, for a variety of reasons, and could see Susan stopping somewhere to grab something for dry, chapped lips.
 
Is it unusual that they can definitively rule out that it was Susan's blood, but not whether it was human or not? That just sounds strange, but I don't know anything about the difference between human and animal DNA.
 
Lumberjill said:
DNA not Susan's, says Police Scotland: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/lo...-missing-susan-mclean-police-confirm-1.892412

I find it most remarkable that NO DNA was found on the lip balm. Hope they are re-doing the analysis.
Click to expand...

Scientists testing the animal’s collar and blanket said the DNA was “possibly” human but was not that of Susan McLean.
Click to expand...
That quote from the article makes me wonder if the DNA was only "possibly" human, how can they get a full enough sample to know for sure it wasn't hers? Am I making sense?? lol If they have a good DNA profile, they should be able to tell for sure if it's human or not? Anyone know more on this because I have no clue. MOO
 
Hoosgirl said:
Is it unusual that they can definitively rule out that it was Susan's blood, but not whether it was human or not? That just sounds strange, but I don't know anything about the difference between human and animal DNA.
Click to expand...

LOL, just wrote pretty much the same thing.... on the same track!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 69 more.
Total: 2,284 (members: 70, guests: 2,214)

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
2,214
Total visitors
2,284
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,866
Messages
18,100,393
Members
230,942
Latest member
Patturelli
Back
Top