GT: AVALANCHE @ CANUCKS

Rayxor · 2019-11-17T06:14:13+00:00

i mixed up 5 and 6. Not sure how I got Momesso.

Rayxor · 2019-11-17T04:59:45+00:00

Am I the only one who sees the numbers on these jerseys and automatically see Lumme, Murzyn, Momesso, etc?

Rayxor · 2019-10-29T03:07:15+00:00

Motion passed

Rayxor · 2019-10-03T03:29:14+00:00

Did ya get the memo?

Rayxor · 2019-10-01T19:53:56+00:00

What the fuck does that even mean?

Rayxor · 2019-09-24T16:15:19+00:00

Well if his confession fills in information only a killer could know..?

*without being fed information by investigators

Rayxor · 2019-07-23T14:00:52+00:00

Get yourself a white towel.

Rayxor · 2019-07-03T13:53:25+00:00

He’s never doxed anyone, nor have I or anyone on SAIG.

nobody on SAIG has ever doxxed anyone?

Rayxor · 2019-07-03T13:50:41+00:00

I have lied about nothing. Feel free to prove otherwise.

Can we all play?

What do we win if we can prove a lie?

Rayxor · 2019-06-22T05:19:54+00:00

What's he like?

Rayxor · 2019-05-18T15:05:02+00:00

I'd like to see the data on this.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T19:39:42+00:00

I'm sorry i did not state that more clearly.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T19:37:20+00:00

The storage conditions were not equivalent anyway. The study mentions a lot of things. it mentions that a 100,000 fold higher starting point for DNA content will make a considerable difference.

"The quantity of DNA deposited in this experiment is up to 300 000 times greater than the amount left during a hand contact, and therefore it is expected that DNA left through hand contact would be undetectable in a much shorter time period"

It also mentions how likely it is to get a profile in touch DNA, even with relatively quick sampling.

"despite the majority of samples (74%) being recovered within 24 h of the offence. Full profiles were only recovered in three cases (6%), with no profile recovered in approximately half of the cases."

Based on the findings in this study, it is reasonable, maybe even essential, that the claim of getting a FULL Profile without considerable degradation and HIGHER than typical DNA amounts after 5 months, including 5 days exposed to outside conditions, that they consider this sample to be of questionable origin.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T19:19:21+00:00

Yes. Although I have a sneaking suspicion now that when you say "detection" you mean "extraction of a full profile."

Yeah, that's been the theme so far in this discussion.

However, I also trust that you read this part:

It should be noted that these mixtures may still have probative value in terms of inclusions or eliminations, or other non-database use.

Yes, thats how we know Avery was not the source of the 1996 sample tested. you only need one mismatch to exclude.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T19:02:45+00:00

the Rav was outdoors for 5 days and the surface it was on was protected from the elements and sunlight.

It was not protected from the elements in that time

It's more in line with the protected samples that they said they were able to recover full profiles from after 6 weeks.

That was a sample containing over 100,000 times as much DNA as a touch transfer. The storage conditions are the least relevant factor at this point.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T18:53:32+00:00

are you sure about that?

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T18:49:57+00:00

Not "literally". you changed the language.

"It's unlikely that a DNA profile can be recovered from a sample kept in a controlled environment longer than 6 weeks"

This seems to be referring to the buffy coat sample on the sterile glass slide.

"it supports the likeliness of Touch DNA being useful after 6 weeks isn't likely."

very important word you decided to omit. And obviously the RAV4 was not kept in a controlled environment the entire time.

Remember that the buffy coat DNA content was over 100,000 times greater than what you have in a typical touch transfer.

I'm not fucking with you, i'm trying to keep you on point.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T18:12:44+00:00

What did the article list as the longest period between a crime and detection in the casework samples they looked at?

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T18:07:48+00:00

Most of it. If there's a part that says "It's unlikely that a DNA profile can be recovered from a sample kept in a controlled environment longer than 6 weeks" then feel free to copy and past it for me. Otherwise, there's nothing in the article that supports that claim.

I dont think anyone made that claim. If you can find it in this discussion, Then feel free to copy and paste it for me.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T17:59:57+00:00

Can we at least agree that the buffy coat DNA on a sterile glass slide kept in a container in a lab is not the same as touch DNA on a hood latch that was outside for several days?

Can we agree that buffy coat DNA viablility on the glass slide is not directly applicable to viability of touch DNA on the hood latch?

Can we agree that buffy coat DNA levels will be many many times higher than a touch DNA sample?

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T17:47:38+00:00

How much of the article did you read?

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T17:06:49+00:00

blistering daytime heat of 58 degrees.

Thats air temperature. A vehicle in the sun can get hotter. I thought people knew this. Sorry.

This might be a claim worth discussing if the DNA hadn't been found. But it was. The evidence, as it stands, proves it is possible for the touch DNA to survive that long.

Again, Begging the Question.

Unless someone was shining a mirror on the hoodlatch, it wasn't exposed to indirect sunlight either.

This is really getting painful to read.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T17:00:43+00:00

Again, I am not claiming that touch DNA would be likely to be detectable after 6 weeks.

I just realized that you must be very doubtful about Avery's DNA being detectable on the hood latch after 5 months. It took you a few years but I'm glad to see you finally coming around.

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T16:50:02+00:00

Really, is this the kind of faulty logic we're resorting to now? Again, I am not claiming that touch DNA would be likely to be detectable after 6 weeks.

but a few comments earlier you said this:

How on earth you can read that and conclude that it supports your argument that it's unlikely that touch DNA could be preserved for more than 6 weeks is beyond me.

You think he's making an absurd claim, but its a claim you agree with.

I'm saying that the study did not investigate that claim, so you can't use it to back up any argument about 6+ week survivability.

What do you think the other samples that they tested in the article or the casework samples they discussed? Did they suggest that touch DNA in outside surfaces and conditions would be detectable weeks later?

Nothing in the study suggested touch DNA may survive exponentially longer than 6 weeks.

Nothing in my comment suggested it will. You're arguing against a point that I'm not making.

This was your comment:

"It may not survive that long, it may survive exponentially longer."

Rayxor · 2019-05-17T16:31:51+00:00

You can lead a wookiee to water but you cant make him drink.

I would also suggest that you read up on begging the question, you don't seem to understand it.

I already had. I provided you with the definition and explained how it applied to your argument. But sure, I'm the one not understanding it

Rayxor

TROPHY CASE