mtDNA- Mitochondrial DNA -questions

[reefshadow]

He was not grasping at straws, he was stating scientific FACT. Now, he is putting "spin" on it.

I truly do not mean to sound snarky here, but, did you read the definitions of opaque I posted? It IS a black band. It is NOT clear. If it were clear, it would ALLOW light to pass through it. Opaque MEANS allowing little to no light to pass through it. ANY color can be opaque.

One more thing. The banding does NOT occur when the "hair dies". It occurs when the PERSON dies with the hair still attached to the scalp. Therefore, if hair falls out of a live persons head there will be NO BANDING. If it falls out post mortem, it WILL have a band on it.

I agree with your entire post except the last line. Post mortem banding does not always occur on hair that falls out of the scalp of a deceased person. It is only a possibility that it may.

 

[MarleneM]

Sorry, I shouldn't have said it that. Can't speak for someone else, but the fact that he is now working for the defense proves volumes to me. aka, he knew he was grasping at the time.

If the band is "opaque" then why call it a black band? Call it clear (not that it would matter to me.) When the hair dies, the banding occurs. Prosecution better have some damm good witnesses to prove otherwise.

At the very least, I hope the prosecution has a jury that can define common words like "opaque" with little instruction or KC's trial will take longer than OJ's.

 

[donnam]

I agree with your entire post except the last line. Post mortem banding does not always occur on hair that falls out of the scalp of a deceased person. It is only a possibility that it may.

You are correct, it MAY. HOWEVER, it will not occur on a hair that falls from a live persons scalp. So, if you have a hair with root banding, it DID come from a dead persons scalp.

 

[Indigo]

A test which may help differentiate one family member's mtDNA from another. Wonder if this test has been done or can be done in Caylee's case?

Supercritical fluid extraction–gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (SFE-GC/MS) identifies peaks from styling products, shampoos and a host of other chemicals in/on the hair. One source, Hair in Toxicology by Desmond John Tobin, Royal Society of Chemistry (Great Britain),says as little as 40ug is sufficient for testing.


http://www.astm.org/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/JFS2002193_483.htm

 

[want2help]

Ok, now when you say "clear" do you mean colorless, or not opaque?

Funniest. Post. FWIW, I have opaque panty hose, but they are black. Meaning they are black, but still somewhat sheer & see through.

Great posts, donnam. This death band has been discussed to death, and
Im glad you explained it. Again. Your links/posts were very basic and easy to understand.

 

[impatientredhead]

Links have been posted ad nauseam about this subject on this board. I will look for one for you.
Your husband is right that when a hair falls out it starts to decompose. HOWEVER, that hair will NOT have root banding on it. The root banding ONLY happens when the hair comes from a person who is already dead WHEN the hair comes out.
As for Kobalinski, he changed his tune on this when he started getting paid by the defense.

This is correct. Hair that falls out naturally will breakdown eventually, but the type of banding being dicussed here is caused by a bacteria that is present during decomposition of the body. The bacteria is breaking down the tissue of the scalp and around the follicles. The hair then comes loose from that breakdown and has this banding on it. That is my understanding.

Does anyone have a link to a sucessful prosecution using this type of evidence? If they somehow get that item excluded based on the science, well it is the only thing showing Caylee was in the trunk versus just a body.

 

[RevCrim]

Just wondering if the strand of hair can also be tested for drugs.

Or any other hair that may be in Kaylee's hairbrush>

The reason I'm curious is if there was no actual Nanny and I don't personally think there was--was she giving this child drugs and what drugs would make a child sleep all night? Or all day? I would think if you gave a child Xanax too often or an adult dose, wouldn't the child act strangely> And wouldn't the grandparents notice? Is this why the child and KC wore sunglasses so often ,
to hide their dialated pupils?
And...if KC had no money - where would she get Xanax or any other drugs?
She would have to steal money- hock other peoples items, or trade or sell sex for drugs...If it was sex- where was Kaylee during this time? In a closet?
In the trunk? Drugged? With another hooker?
Is it possible to keep a child so small drugged all day and all night without it killing the child or putting the child in a coma?
Where has this child been through for the last 1-1/2 to 2 yrs since the Grd's stopped watching her? And...where has she been? H-h-mmm?

 

[elle1919]

Another thing that makes you think hmmm. We all know that science can identify drugs in hair...or is this just the hair follicle? If they did test the hair that was recovered for a drug why didn't we hear about the findings? And wouldn't the defense want to test the hair for traces of chloroform anyway to diffuse the prosecutions theory about Casey possibly using the chloroform on Caylee? I really wonder where all these missing reports are and if the prosecution has more than we know about. If we can deduce all these things and question whether or not such and such was tested for what nots wouldn't the prosecution?

 

[Pink Panther]

I remember reading that they had taken hair from a hairbrush as well. I would think that it could have been tested for drugs. We haven't seen any information so far, to indicate that they have done this type of testing. I've been wondering about the same thing as well.

 

[technicalconfusion]

Just wondering if the strand of hair can also be tested for drugs.

Or any other hair that may be in Kaylee's hairbrush>

The reason I'm curious is if there was no actual Nanny and I don't personally think there was--was she giving this child drugs and what drugs would make a child sleep all night? Or all day? I would think if you gave a child Xanax too often or an adult dose, wouldn't the child act strangely> And wouldn't the grandparents notice? Is this why the child and KC wore sunglasses so often ,
to hide their dialated pupils?
And...if KC had no money - where would she get Xanax or any other drugs?
She would have to steal money- hock other peoples items, or trade or sell sex for drugs...If it was sex- where was Kaylee during this time? In a closet?
In the trunk? Drugged? With another hooker?
Is it possible to keep a child so small drugged all day and all night without it killing the child or putting the child in a coma?
Where has this child been through for the last 1-1/2 to 2 yrs since the Grd's stopped watching her? And...where has she been? H-h-mmm?

I would think that they tested both hairbrush hair and any other hair they found for drugs. We just aren't getting that info.

I'm not sure she was doing drugs. I also don't think she was doing sex for money. I can tell you from my own experience when I used to do drugs - I would get enough of my drug of choice fronted to me to sell, to cover what I wanted/needed.

As far as sunglasses: it's common for folks to wear sunglasses in Florida - my glasses are Transitions - they change when I go into sunlight. When my son was that age he had several pairs of sunglasses - he loved them and wore them all the time. He wasn't drugged.

 

[laniefi]

Yes, the hair can be tested for drugs, however at varying timeframes and I am not sure how long Xanax would/could be detected in hair (if at all).

I did a hair follicle test for my current job and I do know that the agency doing the testing took a good bunch of my hair from the crown of my head.

Not sure if enough hair would be on her hairbrush to do the drug test and still have samples for mDNA, etc.

 

[RevCrim]

Thanks for the imput folks! Other than this child's death, I stress more over where she was and what she may have been put through during her short lifetime.

It's just breaking my heart.

 

[KellioPSL]

everyone keeps saying that she had no money. she had money, she didnt have a job.
she even had money when she was arrested. la went to tone's and picked up kc's belonging's, he returned to his parents house and dumped everything onto the kitchen table, there was a wad of cash, and ca put it in her pocket. she had other peoples credit cards. I just dont think that kc was drugging her, I think ca would have noticed something, she's a nurse. kc also sent a text message, something about watching caylee for 12 hours was harder than work.

 

[Coley]

Most drug tests are for classes of drugs like opiates or benzos in general. Xanax has a half life of up to 27 hours. It takes 5 half lives for the drug to reach undetectable levels, so 5 x 27 = 135 hours for the drug to clear which is about 6 days.

 

[MD MOMMY]

everyone keeps saying that she had no money. she had money, she didnt have a job.
she even had money when she was arrested. la went to tone's and picked up kc's belonging's, he returned to his parents house and dumped everything onto the kitchen table, there was a wad of cash, and ca put it in her pocket. she had other peoples credit cards. I just dont think that kc was drugging her, I think ca would have noticed something, she's a nurse. kc also sent a text message, something about watching caylee for 12 hours was harder than work.

She did have some money that CA pocketed but IIRC it was ROUGHLY $140 or somewhere in that neighborhood. This was possibly from the $250 check she cashed of Amy's at Bank of America. She had her moms Penney's card as well.

 

[KellioPSL]

She did have some money that CA pocketed but IIRC it was ROUGHLY $140 or somewhere in that neighborhood. This was possibly from the $250 check she cashed of Amy's at Bank of America. She had her moms Penney's card as well.

she also stole $400 from amy, and borrowed $80 from amy.

 

[kgeaux]

I understood from the report (so far!) that there were no specimens in which nuclear DNA could be found. Just the hair sample without the follicle, so mtDNA only.

I may be wrong, but I thought the hair DID have a root bulb on it. However, the root bulb was "preserved" and not tested because it would have ruined the banding if LE had pursued nuclear DNA.

LE believes mtDNA will be strong enough, because the hair must have come from Casey, Lee, Cindy, or Caylee. And Caylee would be the only one whose hair could possibly have banding, since the others are quite obviously alive.

My first thread on this board. Can someone explain to me why DNA is not important in this case? I would like to know more about the hair banding, which my husband and I have debated profusely for days. I would also like to know who Caylee's father is. It is important information we need to know.

Hi, dunlurken. Welcome! I am just "supposing" but I really think what I've posted above is why LE does not want to destroy the root bulb end of the hair.

I see your husband believes that any hair which falls out would then "die" and develop banding. This is not how I understand the science. The banding would actually form while the hair is attached to a dead person's head. As the body decomposes, some hairs will fall out, and they will show the banding that formed during decomp.

This science is apparently very new, and not yet accepted in all areas; well, unless the undated articles I read were far in the past......there is still some debate about the banding and cause.

 

[kgeaux]

Yes, the hair can be tested for drugs, however at varying timeframes and I am not sure how long Xanax would/could be detected in hair (if at all).

I did a hair follicle test for my current job and I do know that the agency doing the testing took a good bunch of my hair from the crown of my head.

Not sure if enough hair would be on her hairbrush to do the drug test and still have samples for mDNA, etc.

I had a drug test done on my hair, too. I'm pretty sure my test wasn't a hair follicle test, because they used scissors to clip a section of hair close to the scalp, but they didn't pull my hair out by the roots! YIKES!

We had a great debate the other day about "twins" having the same DNA. Not sure what that matters at this point, but identical twins have the same DNA.

As I stated earlier, I think the father of Caylee is very IMPORTANT, and that needs to be addressed ASAP. There is speculation that Lee is Caylee's dad. I find that sick and distubring, but stranger things have happened. I watched a show the other night where siblings were in "love" and refused to give the other one up.

There I said it.

I believe the day LP said that, he said it in response to the release of mtDNA testing. He misunderstood that Lee and Caylee would have the same mtDNA "innocently" and he thought the only way they could share mtDNA was if Lee was Caylee's dad. He based his statement on his misunderstanding of the science, IOW. There is no reason to believe Lee is Caylee's father.

However, I do wish LE could verify who the dad is, and verify that he is deceased. (Otherwise, we may find defense stating that Zanni never had Caylee, after all. Bio dad stole her! Casey just lied about it because she was too embarrased to tell family that Caylee's dad was really alive.)

 

[JBean]

bumpity bump

 

[DawnTCB]

Thanks for bumping this JBean, just in time because I have a question.

What I understand is, the only DNA report for Caylee that has been released so far is the mtDNA report on the hair from the trunk and comparing it to the known buccal sample from KC.

And, in looking at the report (and I am no scientist), the mDNA is identical to KC's. The exact wording is "Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences were obtained from the Q12.1 hair from the Q12 debris from the left side of the trunk liner and item K1 buccal sample identified as coming from CASEY ANTHONY identified as the mother of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY". The mtDNA sequences from obtained from items from items Q12.1 and K1 are the same. Therefore neither CASEY ANTHONY nor CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY can be excluded as the source of the Q12.1 hair."

Here's my question: If the mtDNA is identical to KC (as it should be, since mtDNA is passed from mother to child), then there is absolutely no possibility to infer anything at all about the paternity of the child from her mtDNA, correct? If we had the complete DNA sequence, we might be able to infer something from the DNA as to the paternity, but with the mtDNA, all we have is a carbon copy of KC's mtDNA and absolutely no data from the father at all. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.