Recent Posts1
DB Cooper / Re: Suspects And Confessions
« Last post by georger on Today at 12:07:02 AM »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
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 profile full codis nuclear results. In addition it says two specimens (swabs?) from two items were combined for analysis, a Q40 and a 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.
let me attach the file...
