Do you think a Stungun was used?

[Tadpole12]

Heyya AK.

Thanks for the feedback,
valid points.
Not quite like the samples found at crime scenes.- AK
Although in composition could be similar.
DNA in saliva is comprised of buccal epithelial cells and a [percentage] of the DNA in saliva comes from white blood cells.

 

[andreww]

Experts said it MIGHT be saliva. If like me you believe a RDI, then probably it is not saliva, but more likely skin cells. It is easy to explain the existence of skin cells, but a little harder to explain both skin and saliva.

I think back to the Bernardo/Homolka case when investigators put too much stock in a witness's claim that their car may have been a gold camero. Sometimes one wrong assumption can throw a case in a completely wrong direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Experts said it MIGHT be saliva. If like me you believe a RDI, then probably it is not saliva, but more likely skin cells. It is easy to explain the existence of skin cells, but a little harder to explain both skin and saliva.

I think back to the Bernardo/Homolka case when investigators put too much stock in a witness's claim that their car may have been a gold camero. Sometimes one wrong assumption can throw a case in a completely wrong direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That which is BBM is the absolute truth. I couldn't possibly agree more, andreww, but you've really got me scratching my head. Do you agree that we can safely assume amylase was present in the sample analysed as the Phadebas test indicated such? How does this particular assumption affect the direction of the case? (...as compared to assumptions made about HW analyses, behavioral clues, family dynamics, etc. specific to this case)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

That which is BBM is the absolute truth. I couldn't possibly agree more, andreww, but you've really got me scratching my head. Do you agree that we can safely assume amylase was present in the sample analysed as the Phadebas test indicated such? How does this particular assumption affect the direction of the case? (...as compared to assumptions made about HW analyses, behavioral clues, family dynamics, etc. specific to this case)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Phadebas test can yield a false positive with vaginal swabs and fecal matter. The results are not definitive in that area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Experts said it MIGHT be saliva. If like me you believe a RDI, then probably it is not saliva, but more likely skin cells. It is easy to explain the existence of skin cells, but a little harder to explain both skin and saliva.

I think back to the Bernardo/Homolka case when investigators put too much stock in a witness's claim that their car may have been a gold camero. Sometimes one wrong assumption can throw a case in a completely wrong direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t know that the experts said it “might” be, but I do know that no one said that it wasn’t. I also know that if not saliva, then the possibilities raised were sweat (or, from a sneeze).

You’re letting theory determine the meaning and value of evidence.

It is easy to explain skin cells (on leggings) and saliva (or, sweat) on the panties. The killer pulled down the leggings with his bare hands, and he used saliva as a lube for the penetration.
Easy.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

If he used it as lube for penetration, wouldn't there be a whole lot more of it in the folds and interior of her genitalia? Even with a decent wipe down, you'd have to darn near bathe her completely to remove saliva if it was used in that manner.

 

[Mama2JML]

The Phadebas test can yield a false positive with vaginal swabs and fecal matter. The results are not definitive in that area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The test detected the presence of amylase. Period. Regardless, you have not answered my question. Do you care to answer?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

If he used it as lube for penetration, wouldn't there be a whole lot more of it in the folds and interior of her genitalia? Even with a decent wipe down, you'd have to darn near bathe her completely to remove saliva if it was used in that manner.

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe, but maybe not. I certainly see no reason why there would have to be. Regardless, I’m not aware of anything done to find out. So, maybe there was.

Or, maybe not.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe, but maybe not. I certainly see no reason why there would have to be. Regardless, I’m not aware of anything done to find out. So, maybe there was.

Or, maybe not.
...

AK

Swabs were taken. There was no lube or saliva.

 

[andreww]

I don’t know that the experts said it “might” be, but I do know that no one said that it wasn’t. I also know that if not saliva, then the possibilities raised were sweat (or, from a sneeze).

You’re letting theory determine the meaning and value of evidence.

It is easy to explain skin cells (on leggings) and saliva (or, sweat) on the panties. The killer pulled down the leggings with his bare hands, and he used saliva as a lube for the penetration.
Easy.
...

AK

Why was saliva not found on the swabs of her vagina. Who's making stuff up?

 

[andreww]

The test detected the presence of amylase. Period. Regardless, you have not answered my question. Do you care to answer?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did answer.

The only test that “flashes blue,” in the presence of amylase is the Phadebas test. Take note of some of the things which can produce a false positive:

What is the Phadebas Press Test? How specific is it and what can cause a false positive result?
The Phadebas Press Test uses a filterpaper “test sheet” impregnated with an insoluble starch-dye complex. The test sheets are moistened with sterile water and then laid on an article of evidence. Saliva present on the item being examined will contain α-amylase that will hydrolyze the starch in the overlying area of the test sheet. This process releases a blue dye to form a blue stain that co-localizes with the position of the saliva stain. Areas of the evidence that do not contain α-amylase should not show the presence of a blue stain. Phadebas Press Test provides only a presumptive indication of saliva and is not human specific. This test is known to yield false positive results with fecal samples and some investigators have reported positive results with vaginal swabs, human milk, some plant materials and the saliva of animals including dogs and cats. Positive results have also been reported as very likely resulting from secondary transfer of saliva (e.g., from the hands to an article of clothing).

You are talking about a piece of DNA that was commingled with blood that dripped from her vagina. Vaginal swabs can yield false positives. Not much to explain there.

 

[Tawny]

Would blood flash blue?

 

[Anti-K]

Why was saliva not found on the swabs of her vagina. Who's making stuff up?

The area was wiped, so why should we expect traces to be found?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I did answer.

The only test that “flashes blue,” in the presence of amylase is the Phadebas test. Take note of some of the things which can produce a false positive:



You are talking about a piece of DNA that was commingled with blood that dripped from her vagina. Vaginal swabs can yield false positives. Not much to explain there.

Just thought I’d point out that nothing you quoted mentions “things which can produce a false positive.” So, nothing for us to note on that point.

However, from your quote, we do have something to support the “probably is saliva” claim: Positive results have also been reported as very likely resulting from secondary transfer of saliva (e.g., from the hands to an article of clothing).

So, thanks for helping us [IDI) out (again).
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

The area was wiped, so why should we expect traces to be found?
...

AK

Do you know how thorough you would have to be to remove all traces of lubricant from the folds of female genitalia?

 

[Mama2JML]

I did answer.

The only test that “flashes blue,” in the presence of amylase is the Phadebas test. Take note of some of the things which can produce a false positive:



You are talking about a piece of DNA that was commingled with blood that dripped from her vagina. Vaginal swabs can yield false positives. Not much to explain there.

The test predicts the presence of amylase. Amylase WAS PRESENT in the sample tested; distal stain 007-2. It was not a vaginal swab. The foreign DNA collected was found to have been contributed by a HUMAN male. No need to assume anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Do you know how thorough you would have to be to remove all traces of lubricant from the folds of female genitalia?

Well, I guess it depends on how much saliva were talking about. I think, very little (saliva), very small area touched and very little wiping. The fact that no traces were found is consistent with this claim.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I find it interesting that when the evidence (flashed blue) suggests saliva, people argue false positive; but when the evidence is negative all of a sudden there’s nothing wrong with the tests.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

I find it interesting that when the evidence (flashed blue) suggests saliva, people argue false positive; but when the evidence is negative all of a sudden there’s nothing wrong with the tests.
...

AK

I don't have a problem with it being saliva. I just don't think it has anything to do with the crime.

 

[Tawny]

Well, I guess it depends on how much saliva were talking about. I think, very little (saliva), very small area touched and very little wiping. The fact that no traces were found is consistent with this claim.
...

AK

If it was used as lubrication, it would have spread to the inner folds along with the object that was lubricated. Not the same as "touched". Keep in mind, you were the one to suggest lubrication for penetration.