Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

After observing PEZ2 bands, it was determined that they provided insufficient data to aid in our analysis WHY?. Mitochondrial DNA samples obtained from the victim and two suspects indicated that all dogs are all of the same maternal line. This is in keeping with the fact that both suspects’ dogs came from the same breeder. CONTROLS??The VWF.X samples provide similar number of base pairs among all dogs, which increases probability that the dogs of the suspects are immediately related. The PEZ 15 samples, though not fully complete in hair and saliva, reinforce the conclusion from the VWF.X samples that the dogs of the suspects share the same maternal lineage and paternal lineage. Gender analysis of the samples provides inconclusive and inconsistent data WHY? CONTROLS? compared to the known genders of the suspects’ dogs WHICH ARE?. BUT WHAT ABOUT THURSDAY DATA? DO YOU HAVE A DATA TABLE/FIGURES HERE? SAME IN BP AND WHAT ELSE?  PROPER BP RANGE?
Findings from mtDNA analysis do support a constant profile independent of tissue type. EXPLAIN THIS? ANY INFO THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS/ ANY LITERATURE REFERENCE? There is a probability of 5.1E-3 (???)...NOT CORRECT HERE for two mtDNA fragments from random canines to match in the way the mtDNA fragments matched in samples between suspects and the crime scene. mtDNA analysis does not exclude any of the suspects from further investigation. For the VWF.X nuclear locus, the probability that two unrelated canines would share the same number of short tandem repeats as both suspects and evidence do, is 0.319. For the PEZ 15 nuclear locus, the probability that two unrelated canines would share the same number of short tandem repeats as both suspects and evidence do, is 0.043. WHAT IS THE COMBINED STR PROBABILITY? The probability that two that two unrelated canines would share the same bands in mtDNA and nuclear DNA analysis as both suspects and evidence do, is 6.99E-5. (???) NOT CORRECT HEREThis final calculated probability certainly implicates the two suspects, but it does not conclusively determine the identity of the killer. WHICH MEANS 1 IN HOW MANY DOGS?? SIG FIGS??
Evidence not only does not single out a suspect but also raises questions which further investigation must address. One issue that arises is that the two suspects’ dogs are clearly closely related, so there must be additional background checks MEANING? on the two canines and the breeder of the dogs. In addition, other dogs bred from the same two parental lines must be investigated to ensure no other suspects in this case.
Inconsistent results from all canine samples, specifically from the gender analysis, suggest that samples from the crime scene and from suspects’ dogs must be recollected. WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CLEAN UP THIS DATA? Because of the nature of the genetic similarities of the suspects’ dogs, gender analysis will provide the most conclusive evidence towards one suspect’s dog over the other. ABSOLUTELY!! BUT WHY IS THIS SO? WHAT DO WE KNOW?
Potential sources of error include contamination of the collected samples HOW?, experimental error in mixing of PCR reagent and amplification, and damage to PAGE gel.

...