Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
mtDNA was used to identify Laci Peterson's remains. Connor was connected to Laci using mtDNA:
"WECHT: ... I think that the specific identification will be made by DNA. The baby will be tied into the mother with mitochondrial DNA, this baby from that woman, that's a matrilinial descent, that's a particular kind of DNA, child to mother, like in Saddam Hussein's case with that half-brother who shares the same mother, they can do mitochondrial DNA there."
"There's another kind called mitochondrial DNA," he says. "It's a little more complicated, time-consuming, and that takes longer to get a result. But ultimately, we will be able to determine if the baby is hers. There's no question about that. This mitochondrial DNA is inherited maternally, which means that they would share the exact same form of DNA. So there's no question we'll be able to tell if the baby is hers," he explains.
Determining whether the woman's body is Laci Peterson requires another kind of testing, Koblinski says. "Laci Peterson's mother has the same mitochondrial DNA as Laci Peterson. So we can determine a match there. Or we can look at Laci Peterson's parents and there's something like a paternity test. And in that way tell if it's Laci Peterson."
The mitochondrial DNA analysis of the hair was a match to Laci. The issue with mitochondrial DNA analysis is that a mitochondrial match does not mean conclusively that it was Laci's hair.
As I posted earlier:
The prosecutor, Distaso, was admonished by Judge Delucchi several times for claiming that the hair was Laci's. He was not permitted to say or claim that the hair was a match, because the test results did not and can not provide that level of determination.
In other words, the mitochondrial test did not provide any such data or test result.
The hair did not matchLaci's hair, and the Court would not allow him to say that or claim such a thing.
Moreover, in his closing argument, the prosecutor, Distaso, ended up apologizing to the Court and jury for his continued misrepresentation of the laboratory test results.
"At least one strand of dark hair found on Scott Peterson's boat probably came from his dead wife, a DNA expert testified yesterday at Peterson's trial.
The hair found in a pair of pliers is significant, prosecutors say, because they contend Laci was never on the boat and was unaware her husband had bought one.
Defense lawyers don't concede the hair belonged to Laci and have offered explanations for how it might have ended up there, including she was once on the boat and it may have fallen from Scott Peterson's clothing."
The prosecutor, Distaso, was admonished by Judge Delucchi several times for claiming that the hair was Laci's. He was not permitted to say or claim that the hair was a match, because the test results did not and can not provide that level of determination.
In other words, the mitochondrial test did not provide any such data or test result.
The hair did not matchLaci's hair, and the Court would not allow him to say that or claim such a thing.
Moreover, in his closing argument, the prosecutor, Distaso, ended up apologizing to the Court and jury for his continued misrepresentation of the laboratory test results.
HTH
Exactly. It cannot be conclusively stated that the hair belonged to Laci, but it did match her mtDNA. It could also belong to someone else with the same mtDNA. The mtDNA demonstrated that the hair in the plyers did not come from Scott Peterson.
Exactly. It cannot be conclusively stated that the hair belonged to Laci, but it did match her mtDNA. It could also belong to someone else with the same mtDNA. The mtDNA demonstrated that the hair in the plyers did not come from Scott Peterson.
Correct. The test excluded Scott. The court accepts the term "consistent" when referring to other people that the testing would include, but it forecloses (precludes) a characterization that uses the word "match"
Whether it's Laci's or not, the hair is a moot point. There was credible testimony from Scott's neighbor that Laci was at the warehouse at the same time the boat was there. Even absent that, a secondary transfer of her hair from Scott would not be unusual. We also know, from testimony, that the hair was not entangled in the pliers, and that the State's own expert believed that the pliers hadn't been used recently. What is there left to discuss? It's a non-issue.
Whether it's Laci's or not, the hair is a moot point. There was credible testimony from Scott's neighbor that Laci was at the warehouse at the same time the boat was there. Even absent that, a secondary transfer of her hair from Scott would not be unusual. We also know, from testimony, that the hair was not entangled in the pliers, and that the State's own expert believed that the pliers hadn't been used recently. What is there left to discuss? It's a non-issue.
True. The man is on death row for annihilating his family. That's that. I'm not an advocate of an eye for an eye, so I would prefer that he simply live a long miserable life in a cage.
Correct. The test excluded Scott. The court accepts the term "consistent" when referring to other people that the testing would include, but it forecloses (precludes) a characterization that uses the word "match"
Thanks. The hair in the plyers was consistent with Laci's hair and it had the same mtDNA as Laci, but it cannot be said that the hair came from her head. 1/112 Caucasians have the same mtDNA as Laci, so the fact that the mtDNA matched her does not prove anything. It simply does not rule her out as a possible contributor.
The fact that the hair looks like Laci's hair, has the same mtDNA, that it was found in Scott's new boat, wrapped in plyers, near evidence of five concrete anchors, and the fact that Laci had never been in the boat (she was a chatterbox who would have shared the boat purchase with her step-father; avid fisherman) lays the foundation for that circumstantial/inductive evidence (where each fact of circumstantial evidence is true).
On Dec 9, he told his girlfriend that his wife would be dead on Christmas - although he didn't actually admit that she was still alive). Dec 10 he purchased a boat that is completely unsuitable for fishing the Bay. He made five concrete anchors. Four of the five anchors are missing, along with his pregnant wife. A hair that could be hers was found in plyers in his brand new boat. There is no evidence that she knew about his boat purchase. He was either playing golf, or fishing the Bay in his row boat the day she was reported missing. She was supposed to be Christmas baking the day she was reported missing, but the last evidence that she was alive were two missing slices of pizza and the Ranch dressing on the kitchen counter (which she liked as a dipper). Her, and their son's, remains were found exactly where he claimed to be fishing. When they were found, he was disguised and attempting to elude police.
Thanks. The hair in the plyers was consistent with Laci's hair and it had the same mtDNA as Laci, but it cannot be said that the hair came from her head. 1/112 Caucasians have the same mtDNA as Laci, so the fact that the mtDNA matched her does not prove anything. It simply does not rule her out as a possible contributor.
The fact that the hair looks like Laci's hair, has the same mtDNA, that it was found in Scott's new boat, wrapped in plyers, near evidence of five concrete anchors, and the fact that Laci had never been in the boat (she was a chatterbox who would have shared the boat purchase with her step-father; avid fisherman) lays the foundation for that circumstantial/inductive evidence (where each fact of circumstantial evidence is true).
On Dec 9, he told his girlfriend that his wife would be dead on Christmas - although he didn't actually admit that she was still alive). Dec 10 he purchased a boat that is completely unsuitable for fishing the Bay. He made five concrete anchors. Four of the five anchors are missing, along with his pregnant wife. A hair that could be hers was found in plyers in his brand new boat. There is no evidence that she knew about his boat purchase. He was either playing golf, or fishing the Bay in his row boat the day she was reported missing. She was supposed to be Christmas baking the day she was reported missing, but the last evidence that she was alive were two missing slices of pizza and the Ranch dressing on the kitchen counter (which she liked as a dipper). Her, and their son's, remains were found exactly where he claimed to be fishing. When they were found, he was disguised and attempting to elude police.
Each fact is not true. For each of your alleged facts are not facts, they are speculation. Moreover, induction cannot create a 24K gold conclusion. Only deduction can, and there are no factually valid and true premises that would provide for that in this situation
Furthermore, no one can say for sure if Laci was in the boat or not other than Laci and Scott. And unless you are a mind reader, no one knows if they planned to tell her Father about the boat at Xmas. But Scott did tell detectives they planned to let her Father use the boat too; he was an active fisherman.
I remember hearing everything unfold in the media and I thought that Scott was probably guilty, but I had some doubts as to it, even back then. The more I learn about this case, the more I believe that Scott Peterson was most likely, wrongfully convicted.
People point to the fact that Laci and Connor's bodies were found in the area where Scott went boating the day Laci disappeared but the information regarding his location on that day was in the media long before the bodies were found. How easy would it be for someone to take that information from the media and dump the bodies at that location because they already knew that Scott would be blamed?
There are a lot of things that don't add up in the case. It's a very sad situation, especially for Laci, Connor and Laci's family. But I also have my doubts that Scott is actually guilty of this horrific crime.
One thing I have trouble wrapping my mind around is the prosecution theory about dumping Laci's body in the Bay. I am very familiar with the route Scott took from Modesto to Berkeley. There's really no dispute about what time Scott left his home and what time he returned. For Scott to be able to put Laci's body in his truck, drive to his warehouse, hook up the boat and trailer, drive from Modesto to Berkeley, launch the boat, get out in the Bay far enough to be able to dump the body without being seen, actually throw Laci's 154 lb body that has been weighted down with concrete anchors overboard without capsizing the fourteen foot aluminum fishing board, and return to shore, hook up the boat and drive back to Modesto would take the kind of clock work precision that I don't think an Israeli commando would be able to pull off.
One thing I have no doubt in my mind is that the guy was convicted in the media even before Amber Frey came forward. He had no chance at a fair trial at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
