Versions Compared

Key

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

...

        Theoretically, knowing the student owns a male dog and professor Hedd owns a female dog, we can  NEED TO!! use the sex specific gel containing the sex specific loci DNA samples because mtDNA and nuclear DNA samples all fit the same genetic profile.  The samples from Millstone’s body are male ARE THEY??? I DONT AGREE...THE DATA IS MIXED AND INCONCLUSIVE! and knowing the student owns a female dog, we can assume the student was responsible PUT AT THE SCENE NOT RESPONSIBLE for Millstone’s death. CONTROLS HERE? However, the results are faulty HOW? and further testing needs to be done in order for the evidence to completely support a verdict in court.  Further testing includes certain thoroughness and carefulness when handling gels, as they are fragile,BUT THE GELS WORKED FINE...WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE?? WHAT WAS THE ISSUE?? WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE?? and being weary of contaminating evidence HOW?.  Separating samples throughout more gels would allow for an easier analysis of data as well.  The likelihood that the mtDNA of a dog matches another dog by chance is 8%. SIG FIGS?? WHAT ABOUT THE NUCLEAR STRS SPECIFICALLY ASKED IN QUESTION?? Therefore, the probability of having two random dogs with matching nuclear loci (PEZ 2, PEZ 15, VWF.X), mitochondrial control regions (W 3/6), and the same sex is approximately 0.008% or 8 out of 100,000 dogs. (??? TRY AGAIN BUT DEFINITELY USE THE 1 IN HOW MANY DOGS HERE!)

...