taffodills
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2023
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 20
If my surmise is correct then that would mean the whole scene was deliberate and fake. So if we follow the cadence of the scene, could we say the blood found on the victim is "planted" too? That would be the logical path to take. If the blood then is planted, who does it belong too? I would start by determining if it is human blood or animal blood because the scene contains a degree of trickery and the crime scene reported Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. So was the blood taken from the crime scene tested to see if it belonged to a human? If not, then it is anyone's guess as to what the DNA profile, processed from the crime scene, belongs to; investigators may have the DNA profile of a beaver.
The identification of blood samples is a crucial facet of forensic investigations, particularly for violent crimes. One step in forensic serology (i.e., the analysis of bodily fluids) that is often skipped or overlooked is the determination that a bloodstain is of human or nonhuman origin. Typically, subsequent to identifying a stain as blood using a presumptive blood test, which have the propensity of providing false positive results, the stain is submitted for extraction of a DNA profile to compare with those in a database. It is extremely uncommon that evidentiary bloodstains are confirmed as being of human origin throughout the serological analysis. Therefore, time, money, and other resources can be wasted on obtaining a DNA profile from a bloodstain that may not be of human origin; if the intent was to obtain a human DNA profile and not that of an animal.
In recent years, science has created nondestructive testing for blood to determine if it is animal or human; they can also identify the species if it is an animal.
"Now a new technique can rapidly tell the difference between human blood and that of nearly a dozen animal species, all without needing to destroy the samples in question." "Current blood exams usually destroy tested samples and any DNA evidence along with them. They can often also yield false positive results that falsely suggest a human presence."
If the blood sample is determined to be an animal. What happens next? For example, a beaver is identified as the source of the blood. Take the current DNA profile of this animal and see if we can find its relatives. I would look around the Atlanta area, specifically Marietta, Roswell and east Atlanta for beavers and collect their DNA. I would also look around Boulder, Colorado; namely the college areas and the southern part for beavers to collect DNA. 10-12 years is the typical lifespan for a beaver. So it being 25 years since the crime there should be at least relatives separated by a generation or two that should match. Of course that is if animal DNA testing has progressed to the point that an ancestor can be established. It is roughly 1200 miles between Boulder, CO and Atlanta GA. So unless beavers can fly there should be a distinct DNA profile differentiating the beavers that inhabit the two cities.
On the other hand, if it is human blood that was collected from the scene then it should be treated as "planted". Whos blood is it? Obviously it would not be the perpetrator(s) own blood. Who then would just allow anyone to draw their blood randomly without some cause for concern? It is more likely the human blood was taken from a stranger; someone who unknowingly gave the perpetrator(s) blood. But how is that possible? If the blood was taken from a medical facility, then it is possible. In a medical facility like a laboratory, acute care hospital, long term care hospital, college university, blood bank, research facility or nursing home blood is drawn from patients. The perpetrator(s) had access to a medical facility. The investigators have the DNA profile, so it can be a matter of finding patients who visited a medical facility in around the residence of possible suspects; perhaps DNA profiles from ancestry.com could assist in narrowing the field of possible patients. Hopefully, we can pinpoint the facility of where the blood came from and see if a suspect had access to that facility.
Finally, I like to talk about the manner in which the blood was brought to the crime scene if my above-mentioned surmise is correct. Medical facilities use vials or if you want call them serum tubes that collect blood for tests. These containers contain an anticoagulant to keep the blood from clotting in the tube. If the blood at the scene was transported in a tube, it is likely a tube with anticoagulant was used. Otherwise, when you arrive with the blood without anticoagulant(I'm speaking from the blood being carried for a significant amount of time) it would be dried and clotted and not very easy to spread and drop on a crime scene. So is there a test to see if the blood at the crime scene had anticoagulant in it(sodium heparin; EDTA; lithium heparin; and sodium citrate, etc)?
The identification of blood samples is a crucial facet of forensic investigations, particularly for violent crimes. One step in forensic serology (i.e., the analysis of bodily fluids) that is often skipped or overlooked is the determination that a bloodstain is of human or nonhuman origin. Typically, subsequent to identifying a stain as blood using a presumptive blood test, which have the propensity of providing false positive results, the stain is submitted for extraction of a DNA profile to compare with those in a database. It is extremely uncommon that evidentiary bloodstains are confirmed as being of human origin throughout the serological analysis. Therefore, time, money, and other resources can be wasted on obtaining a DNA profile from a bloodstain that may not be of human origin; if the intent was to obtain a human DNA profile and not that of an animal.
In recent years, science has created nondestructive testing for blood to determine if it is animal or human; they can also identify the species if it is an animal.
"Now a new technique can rapidly tell the difference between human blood and that of nearly a dozen animal species, all without needing to destroy the samples in question." "Current blood exams usually destroy tested samples and any DNA evidence along with them. They can often also yield false positive results that falsely suggest a human presence."
If the blood sample is determined to be an animal. What happens next? For example, a beaver is identified as the source of the blood. Take the current DNA profile of this animal and see if we can find its relatives. I would look around the Atlanta area, specifically Marietta, Roswell and east Atlanta for beavers and collect their DNA. I would also look around Boulder, Colorado; namely the college areas and the southern part for beavers to collect DNA. 10-12 years is the typical lifespan for a beaver. So it being 25 years since the crime there should be at least relatives separated by a generation or two that should match. Of course that is if animal DNA testing has progressed to the point that an ancestor can be established. It is roughly 1200 miles between Boulder, CO and Atlanta GA. So unless beavers can fly there should be a distinct DNA profile differentiating the beavers that inhabit the two cities.
On the other hand, if it is human blood that was collected from the scene then it should be treated as "planted". Whos blood is it? Obviously it would not be the perpetrator(s) own blood. Who then would just allow anyone to draw their blood randomly without some cause for concern? It is more likely the human blood was taken from a stranger; someone who unknowingly gave the perpetrator(s) blood. But how is that possible? If the blood was taken from a medical facility, then it is possible. In a medical facility like a laboratory, acute care hospital, long term care hospital, college university, blood bank, research facility or nursing home blood is drawn from patients. The perpetrator(s) had access to a medical facility. The investigators have the DNA profile, so it can be a matter of finding patients who visited a medical facility in around the residence of possible suspects; perhaps DNA profiles from ancestry.com could assist in narrowing the field of possible patients. Hopefully, we can pinpoint the facility of where the blood came from and see if a suspect had access to that facility.
Finally, I like to talk about the manner in which the blood was brought to the crime scene if my above-mentioned surmise is correct. Medical facilities use vials or if you want call them serum tubes that collect blood for tests. These containers contain an anticoagulant to keep the blood from clotting in the tube. If the blood at the scene was transported in a tube, it is likely a tube with anticoagulant was used. Otherwise, when you arrive with the blood without anticoagulant(I'm speaking from the blood being carried for a significant amount of time) it would be dried and clotted and not very easy to spread and drop on a crime scene. So is there a test to see if the blood at the crime scene had anticoagulant in it(sodium heparin; EDTA; lithium heparin; and sodium citrate, etc)?
