Venice2009 schrieb:es ist aber auch erwiesen, dass ein gleiches DNA Profil, in 2 verschiedenen Blutgruppen gefunden wurde. Da stimmt etwas nicht. @ElvisP
hatte das ein paar Seiten zuvor gepostet Beitrag von ElvisP, Seite 588.
Nein, der McClintock Bericht ist in der Hinsicht Bullshit. Deswegen habe ich den auch nicht zitiert, sondern den von Schanfield. Und Schanfield schreibt eben ausdrücklich, dass man gar nicht feststellen kann, ob es sich um das gleiche Profil handelt, weil das Profil unvollständig ist.
Hättest du die von mir verlinkten Briefe gelesen, wüsstest du auch, dass Schanfield genau das kommentiert:
The DFS certificate contends on page three that the two type O samples (2FE and 6E) and the six type A samples (22DR, 35K, 4DR, 6LR, 7DR, 8DR) all “originated from a common male contributor.” This contention is pure speculation unsupported by science based on the ABO blood types of these samples. The 19 items DNA testable, report out 16 loci. For example, the first item, 10DR, has only 3 fully reported results out of 16 loci. Item 35K has the most reported results: 12 out of 16 loci. For the loci that showed no reported results, it simply may mean that the amount of DNA obtained from the sample was insufficient to detect all of the loci. The DFS certificate shows many loci as identical, but scientifically, there are not enough alleles to say they are the same person. So when the DFS reports consistency with a single male contributor it is misleading since consistency improperly suggests identical or the same. There is no sound scientific reason for calling something consistent with so few alleles. Further, it should be noted that Jens Soering is not consistent with these samples at 7 loci, effectively excluding him as the donor, regardless of their ABO blood type. Another way to look at this is to look at 10DR, whichhad only 3 fully reported results out of 16, and recognize that 13 of the 16 loci are unknown. This means there is an 81% level of uncertainty when comparing 10DR to other samples. Even for item 35K
—
the sample with the most results reported (12 out of 16) and recognize that four alleles are unknown. This means there is a 25% level of uncertainty when comparing 35K to other samples. Given these high potential error rates (25%-81%), it is simply bad science to speculate about a “common male contributor,” who is not Jens Soering. For instance, when comparing 10DR and 35K, the 3 loci of 10DR do indeed match the corresponding three loci of 35K. But that leaves 13 loci uncertain; they might match, but equally well they might not. Further, 10 DR is a female, while 35K is a male, indicating the potential errors in making these comparisons.
Außerdem schließt er aus, dass es sich um eine Vermischung handelt, auch, dass es von den Opfern kommen könnte:
It is my opinion, that Mr. Soering was eliminated as the contributor of Type O blood at the crime scene. Further, because the DNA report does not prove that a contributor of Type A, AB or B has the same DNA as the item 6FE sample, then at least one or more male contributors, each having a “Y” chromosome and with Type O blood other than Mr. Soering were at the crime scene.
Earlier I had stated that there was no mixture or contamination from someone else. I can make that observation because a mixture would show up as having a third allele present (remember that only two alleles appear at any one locus in a single donor sample) and contamination would likewise show added alleles. There is simply no indication that either a mixture or contamination from another source compromised the DNA certificate.
Und das nervt wirklich, wenn jetzt mit etwas, dass überhaupt nichts mit meinem Kommentar zu tun hatte, versucht wird eben dieser zu entkräften. Deshalb dreht sich die Diskussion für die meisten auch im Kreis (nennt sich 'confirmation bias'). Wie gesagt, ließ doch die Briefe von Schanfield anstelle davon irgendwelche Spekulationen anzustellen.
Für das Type 0 Blut sind sowohl Jens wie die Opfer ausgegschlossen. Ansonnsten müsstest du mir erklären wie genau das funktionieren sollte, wenn es keine zugefügten Allelen gibt (also keine Mischung oder Kontamination), das DNA-Profil nicht mit den Opfern übereinstimmt und Jens DNA mit den Samples auch nicht übereinstimmt? Ich sehe keinen Grund dem Befund von Schanfield zu widersprechen.
