GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #6

[Mamamerced]

I wanted people to discuss the new DNA evidence and possibilities of how it was deposited on the clothing, and not retreat from that evidence, but I see now that that's an impossibility. People want to just put it out of mind. I think there are a small number of us here who are just very curious about the crime and understanding EVERYTHING that happened, but most here just want to see that SC gets put away for good and that's it. I understand that now.

Some people have posted their thoughts on the DNA evidence, Moxie, but not indepth enough for you, apparently. It has thrown many of us for a loop and so are reeling a bit. Let them have a chance to digest the information before getting upset with and scolding them for not jumping right in on speculation. I don't think anyone here is "putting it out of mind". I imagine many, like me, are waiting to learn more.

 

[heartgoesout]

yes yes Mamma! There have been times that several pages later I'm like hold up I get it, I just digested it and now I'm ready to talk about it.

 

[Moxie_McTavish]

Moxie, I get you.
I was going to post before I saw your post, that I have not fully wrapped my head around the DNA evidence. It's exhausting to take it all in when I don't fully understand the ins and outs of DNA. Thus, my exclusion from that topic.

At this point there is not an establishment of who the clothes even belong to. So it can work either way.
I do ask why the clothing seemed relevant to the investigators but the fanny bag did not. It had to have had some significance for investigators to pay attention to it.

We have tossed around the accomplice idea for awhile now. The DNA at this point neither confirms or denies this possibility.

Thank you, HGO.
I am no expert on DNA but I took a course on Evolutionary Biology in college and learned about DNA, alleles, etc. so I understand the basics of what they're talking about.

I really hope that they state what size of jeans SC wore. But which witness would they call to testify to this so that it wouldn't be labeled as heresay? The CEO of Levi-Strauss? LOL

I doubt there was an accomplice, but I'm still very fascinated by the genetic contributor who had code 29 at the same points of partial DNA on both the gray hoodie and the blue jeans, found several miles apart.

 

[heartgoesout]

I would be willing to listen to a cliff note, dumbed down version of the science behind your thought process of the DNA and why it intrigues you so much.

 

[Kapua]

It's not really an apt comparison, there's no doubt whatsoever that a murder occurred in this case, and that has nothing to do with the DNA evidence.

--------------------------------------------
I appreciate you (or anyone at all...) doing a bit of brainstorming as to how so much other DNA got on the clothes. I am bothered when people minimize hard evidence just because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas. :

I don't appreciate you deciding for the board what is or is not an "apt comparison". It was an "apt comparison" for me.

I am not "minimizing" the so-called "hard" evidence. IMHO, all evidence is valid. DNA that has been exposed to the elements is, again IMHO, similar to a smudged fingerprint.

 

[Nikki Lisette]

I didn't catch the DNA testimony so I won't comment on what was found or lack thereof but I will say that DNA is not a cut and dry science. It's always evolving and like some theorems, the results can go on for infinity. Was the DNA found on the jeans and hoodie that of a human or canine?


I love DNA talk, biology and cell distribution. I'm all for it. The only explanation I get for SC's lack of DNA on his Goodwill pants and hoodie is that he wore layers. The outer layers get soiled and he can strip down and keep it moving.

 

[MakaniKitty]

Then I will direct that post to other posters who do seem to be attributing those leaps in logic to me, like RunDaSurf, Kapua, PeterTosh, and whoever else.
I have NEVER suggested that SC is not responsible for this crime, and as of right now, I believe he did EVERYTHING on his own. I believe in looking at the totality of evidence. All of it. Everything. Like fitting ALL of the pieces into a puzzle.

I dabble a bit in science, and speaking for myself only, sometimes all the pieces just don't fit. (I think OJ Simpson's lawyer got him acquitted based on that argument.) I agree it's frustrating, especially as I am a stickler for making sense of everything. I personally am not getting wrapped up in the DNA evidence of this case (mostly because it goes right over my head!), but I'm open to listening and learning from others who have insights into this. I appreciate reading everyone's contributions to this site, even if I disagree with their views; we're here because we care about what happened to Charli and Joshua, and we all want to know the truth and see justice served.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[heartgoesout]

I have on loose pants that I washed, put in my closet afterwards and am now wearing after 3 days in my closet. I've had them on for 4 hours at home.
Assuming there is not a hair that got loose and attached itself, is my DNA on these pants? And if so, is that DNA dead skin cells or what?

 

[Moxie_McTavish]

I would be willing to listen to a cliff note, dumbed down version of the science behind your thought process of the DNA and why it intrigues you so much.

I'm not posting any more about DNA.

I can see that the DNA evidence presented in the trial has created all sorts of defensiveness in certain members of this forum who feel like they have to "put out the fire" and try to maintain the status quo.

And I can see that I myself - the way I've approached the subject - has also ruffled feathers and gotten people into a hostile state. So I'm done.

 

[heartgoesout]

Nikki, the layers make sense...at least for me who truly doesn't understand how DNA transfers.

I get bodily fluids, that's easy, blood, snot, semen, saliva... Does that include sweat? Is sweat an easy DNA collector?

How long does DNA stay on clothing? For example, the washed pants I take out of my closet, do they have remnants of my DNA from the last time I wore them?

 

[Moxie_McTavish]

I don't appreciate you deciding for the board what is or is not an "apt comparison". It was an "apt comparison" for me.

.

I didn't decide for the board. You were responding to my post, and I responded back that it wasn't an apt comparison.
The two things you were comparing in your story were not analogous. Apples and oranges.

Didn't you listen to the DNA testimony the other day, and you came away thinking they'd claimed those were Charli's jeans?
I'm not sure you're in a position to be weighing in on the DNA evidence, you don't seem to have any knowledge of what she was even talking about.

 

[heartgoesout]

I'm not posting any more about DNA.

I can see that the DNA evidence presented in the trial has created all sorts of defensiveness in certain members of this forum who feel like they have to "put out the fire" and try to maintain the status quo.

And I can see that I myself - the way I've approached the subject - has also ruffled feathers and gotten people into a hostile state. So I'm done.

Well I wasn't one of them nor were the other members stating they are also interested. So stop pouting, put on your boots and let's talk DNA. : )

 

[PeterTosh]

I don't appreciate you deciding for the board what is or is not an "apt comparison". It was an "apt comparison" for me.

I am not "minimizing" the so-called "hard" evidence. IMHO, all evidence is valid. DNA that has been exposed to the elements is, again IMHO, similar to a smudged fingerprint.

Might I suggest the Ignore feature?

 

[heartgoesout]

It's sad that a group of adults who care about justice for a murdered women can't keep civilities. What has happened here??
Come on people! Let's get it together. We are all guilty of snide posts. Yes you too.
Imagine if the jury was fighting like this. Charlie and Joshua deserve more than this.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

I have on loose pants that I washed, put in my closet afterwards and am now wearing after 3 days in my closet. I've had them on for 4 hours at home.
Assuming there is not a hair that got loose and attached itself, is my DNA on these pants? And if so, is that DNA dead skin cells or what?

I'm a total layperson, but I'm going to take a crack at your questions! My understanding is that yes, your DNA is on those pants and it's likely from skin cells. There may also be DNA from other family members there, whether from direct contact (i.e. they hung the pants up for you) or from secondary transfer (you touched a doorknob that so-and-so touched previously, transferring so-and-so's DNA to your fingers. When you touched the pants, you transferred your own DNA as well as so-and-so's.)

Nikki, the layers make sense...at least for me who truly doesn't understand how DNA transfers.

I get bodily fluids, that's easy, blood, snot, semen, saliva... Does that include sweat? Is sweat an easy DNA collector?

How long does DNA stay on clothing? For example, the washed pants I take out of my closet, do they have remnants of my DNA from the last time I wore them?

A very good question and not one I know the answer to. My hypothesis is that in the absence of a cleanser that can degrade DNA, such as bleach, that DNA could survive a wash -- perhaps even to be redistributed among all the garments in the load?

I wonder who did SC's laundry?

 

[heartgoesout]

Thanks Christina! So the pants with Charli's blood on them in the trillions was not exposed to the elements enough to degrade that sample. You'd think those pants, minus the pocket hair that is not admissible, would also still have Steven's DNA on them in an amount more than a low and inconclusive 185 if DNA transfers that easily. I will make an effort to understand this better.
Its tough with a job, children, and every day adult responsibilities to completely focus on a perplexing topic.

 

[Sillybilly]

This post lands at random.

Can we please tone down the attitudes in the thread and post with courtesy and respect toward other members.

Stop the personalizing, and address the post and NOT the poster.

:tyou:

 

[Nikki Lisette]

DNA readily available to us would be mucus, saliva, semen, cervical discharge, hair, blood and skin tissue like a scratch beyond your top layer of skin (dandruff). Our saliva has DNA from the cells shed from our cheeks and gums.

Hypothesizing here but if Grandmother is fighting a chronic illness and coughs on the fresh laundry or the laundry basket then I am pretty sure her DNA would be transferred. In healthcare we call that cross contamination and work hard to prevent it from happening.

Also, most reputable big box stores do not allow you to return used airbeds, sleeping bags or mattresses for hygienic reasons. You sweat and drool in your sleep as your body renews and heals itself. You certainly don't want to sleep on top of someone else's secretions. Walmart in Kahului allows tourists to return used bedding and mattress pads. Buyer beware!

Where was I going with this?

 

[Coldpizza]

Please continue here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Makawao-9-Feb-2014-7&p=12891323#post12891323