Author Topic: Suspects And Confessions  (Read 517629 times)

Offline EU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Thanked: 292 times
    • ERIC ULIS: From the History Channel
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4665 on: April 09, 2021, 01:15:04 PM »
We know he was unresolved because they interviewed him and took his DNA.
Some men see things as they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

RFK
 

Offline andrade1812

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
  • Thanked: 91 times
    • My Website
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4666 on: April 09, 2021, 01:20:40 PM »
After 2004?
 

Offline EU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Thanked: 292 times
    • ERIC ULIS: From the History Channel
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4667 on: April 09, 2021, 01:24:30 PM »
His DNA was collected and submitted in either 2003 or 2004. I believe the test was done in 2006.
Some men see things as they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

RFK
 
The following users thanked this post: andrade1812

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4668 on: April 09, 2021, 05:14:49 PM »
So, the FBI are experts in conducting DNA tests, but total buffoons in reconstructing a flight paths.

Got it!

 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9356
  • Thanked: 933 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4669 on: April 09, 2021, 05:16:14 PM »
Keep in mind the FBI had nothing to do with the flight path. all the information was given to them.
 

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4670 on: April 09, 2021, 08:10:28 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Keep in mind the FBI had nothing to do with the flight path. all the information was given to them.
I know. Just giving EU a wank.  :rofl:
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9356
  • Thanked: 933 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4671 on: April 09, 2021, 08:27:25 PM »
No sex talk on here  :rofl:
 
The following users thanked this post: Parrotheadvol

Offline Parrotheadvol

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4672 on: April 13, 2021, 10:42:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Sheridan matches to 1%, That still leaves a ton of people who would also test positive. Odds would still be a false positive.

If he was a match to 1%, I doubt the FBI would be releasing anything that showed that, regardless of who asked for it.
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4673 on: April 13, 2021, 11:24:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Sheridan matches to 1%, That still leaves a ton of people who would also test positive. Odds would still be a false positive.

Not sure what you mean?  Given the nature of the data the FBI has, the FBI has said many times the data can only EXCLUDE. There cant be any MATCHES let alone a "match" to 1% with anyone. ?

Sheridan can only be EXCLUDED or not, nothing more. The FBI does NOT have a full codis profile to begin with! There can be no "matches" to anything or anyone!

I wish you people would get this straight.  ;)

 
« Last Edit: April 13, 2021, 11:27:42 PM by georger »
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4674 on: April 13, 2021, 11:28:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Sheridan matches to 1%, That still leaves a ton of people who would also test positive. Odds would still be a false positive.

If he was a match to 1%, I doubt the FBI would be releasing anything that showed that, regardless of who asked for it.

How could there be a 1% match? Match to what? PLEASE EXPLAIN!!
 

Offline Parrotheadvol

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4675 on: April 13, 2021, 11:41:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Sheridan matches to 1%, That still leaves a ton of people who would also test positive. Odds would still be a false positive.

If he was a match to 1%, I doubt the FBI would be releasing anything that showed that, regardless of who asked for it.

How could there be a 1% match? Match to what? PLEASE EXPLAIN!!

Georger, I will readily admit that I know little to nothing about DNA and any of the terms being thrown around here. It's simply not my thing, which is why I stay out of this conversation for the most part. I was simply quoting someone else that said "1%". The point that I was trying to make is this: We have always been told that the DNA that they have (if it's even Cooper's) can only eliminate someone. So if they had a comparison that could not eliminate someone, I doubt very seriously they would release that info on a FOIA request. That's just my opinion.
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4676 on: April 14, 2021, 12:07:02 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Sheridan matches to 1%, That still leaves a ton of people who would also test positive. Odds would still be a false positive.

If he was a match to 1%, I doubt the FBI would be releasing anything that showed that, regardless of who asked for it.

How could there be a 1% match? Match to what? PLEASE EXPLAIN!!

Georger, I will readily admit that I know little to nothing about DNA and any of the terms being thrown around here. It's simply not my thing, which is why I stay out of this conversation for the most part. I was simply quoting someone else that said "1%". The point that I was trying to make is this: We have always been told that the DNA that they have (if it's even Cooper's) can only eliminate someone. So if they had a comparison that could not eliminate someone, I doubt very seriously they would release that info on a FOIA request. That's just my opinion.

FBI 21625 lab report indicates a standard codis test was done which returned a partial profile on 9 loci of some value, enough to exclude but not enough to match. Kit used was the AmpFSTR Profiler Plus PCR Amplification Kit (PE Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) - a 2001 multiplex PCR reaction kit designed to amplify nine tetrameric repeat loci on nine separate chromosomes plus a homologous region of the Amelogenin gene on the X and Y chromosomes which indicates sex. Manual for kit is still available   You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login › sfs › cms_040971         The kit manual needs to be examined... I want to know who designed this kit and for what purpose.

FBI 21625 ends with: No other dna examinations were conducted.  Which implies no Mitochondrial examination was done, which is interesting given the fact many have claimed the nuclear dna specimen(s) were 'degraded'? Some labs would move on to a Mitochondrial test if the specimens are too degraded to yield a full codis result. In addition it says two specimens (swabs?) from two items were combined for the analysis, a specimen Q40 and another specimen Q41.

From the information to date, I dont see there are grounds for talking about 'matches' of any kind. Exclusion perhaps, but not 'matches'. My stance is very conservative because for one thing we don't know the 9 loci which produced a result nor the strength of each result. We are operating on limited information.   

let me attach the file...
« Last Edit: April 14, 2021, 02:44:16 AM by georger »
 

Offline EU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Thanked: 292 times
    • ERIC ULIS: From the History Channel
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4677 on: April 14, 2021, 11:29:09 AM »
This is precisely why I have used the term "inconclusive" which Chaucer apparently has not had the ability to comprehend.

Again, given what the FBI was working with there can only be two outcomes concerning these DNA comparison tests:

1) No match. Therefore, suspect eliminated.

2) Match to some degree. Therefore, suspect cannot be eliminated. Therefore, "inconclusive" as to whether the suspect is DB Cooper or not because the test cannot guarantee the suspect is DBC.

Also, as is typical, the FBI documents related to the DNA testing program are problematic. Specifically, I do not like the language used to describe certain things and the lack of specificity related to who was actually tested. Were McCoy, the Shelton suspect and/or the Egg Harbor suspect actually tested?

Moreover, Sheridan Peterson is not mentioned at all. Where are the 302's related to his test? Where is his name in the papers? Where is anything from Santa Rosa?

This is precisely why I urge caution when reviewing these documents and others. This is also why getting a specific set of documents that relates to Sheridan's test is valuable.

Anyone who has read the 20K plus pages of FBI files should well understand by this point that the documents can be very misleading and outright wrong at times. Other times they're spot on.
Some men see things as they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

RFK
 

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4678 on: April 14, 2021, 12:27:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is precisely why I have used the term "inconclusive" which Chaucer apparently has not had the ability to comprehend.
This is not what "inconclusive" means in regards to a DNA test. There is a difference between the terms "inconclusive" and "cannot be excluded". I have explained this to you several times. I have even provided CASE LAW that states this. At this point, it appears that you are just being willfully ignorant.

If Peterson's DNA test came back inconclusive, IT DOES NOT MEAN he is Cooper. It DOES NOT MEAN he "could" be Cooper. It DOES NOT MEAN that "maybe" he could be Cooper. Comprende?

It doesn't matter anyway because we all know that even if the FBI says that Sheridan's DNA test excluded him, you're going to do mental and verbal gymnastics to question those results and keep peddling him as a suspect. The whole thing is theater.
 

Offline EU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Thanked: 292 times
    • ERIC ULIS: From the History Channel
Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Reply #4679 on: April 14, 2021, 12:37:36 PM »
Has it occurred to you that you're just not very bright?

"Inconclusive" is my word. You get that right?

The test is going to come back one of two ways...Eliminate or Cannot Eliminate. I am using the word "inconclusive" for the "Cannot Eliminate" result so as to be clear that this result does not mean he is definitely DBC.

If the result is Cannot Eliminate, I do not know the precise language they would use because I have never seen such a result.

This is not a court of law. This is a discussion on an Internet forum.

That said...Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I rest my case.

Cheers!
Some men see things as they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

RFK