Confusion surrounding Jane Tanner's mtDNA match in Burgau apartment. #McCann

---

Mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA is the DNA that is passed from mother to child, and can be traced back to our very ancestral beginnings. Below is a great link that explains how mtDNA is passed on, and how our own mtDNA is shared by millions of people worldwide:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-researchers-trace/

The fact that a match to Jane Tanner's mtDNA was found in the Burgau apartment, isn't as incriminating as many have been led to believe. It simply means that a hair from a person who shared the same ancestral origin as Jane Tanner, was found in that apartment.

Simply put, if someone was to test a number of hairs from the sweepings of a hair salon, that neither you or I had ever been into, there would be an extremely high likelihood, that many of the hairs would match the mtDNA of you or I.

Written by Bohden.

"Profile identified by letter "C", present in 53 samples, was identical to that of Kate Healy, mother of the victim, meaning those samples were from her or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

So we have:

The “ Profile identified” & The “ Haplotype identified”

What’s the difference?

The “profile” refers to an individual’s unique genetic profile, created from a sample of something such as a hair sample that is unique to that person (a biological reference sample). It indicates that they specifically matched the hair sample(s) found to one person’s profile. They may have also compared them to a data base to check how many other people share the same mtDNA, but the point is it appears that the samples were compared to one individual’s profile and matched ... hence - “ Profile identified”

The “ Haplotype identified” on the other hand doesn’t necessarily mean it is unique to one person but unique to all those people who have inherited the same genes. So the hair sample found was matched through a data base, comparing it to all those who share the same mtDNA – JT being one.

So why does the forensic report say one thing about one sample and something else about another?

The answer to that is simple, because they compared a sample or samples of hair found to a sample taken directly from a person – and matched it - (profile identified). Whereas the other method they compared a sample or samples found to a mtDNA data base - (Haplotype identified).

The reason they did this was because they knew KM had been in apartment 5A so her hair sample along with others who were staying there at the time were taken and compared to any found. - * Q- was JT known to have been in Apt. 5A?, if so was a sample of her hair taken?
JT on the other hand wasn’t known to have been in the apartment in Burgau, nor was she classed as a suspect, so any hair found in the apartment in Burgau was not directly compared to a sample of her hair.

‘The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.’

What I would question is why the forensics didn’t compare the samples found in Burgau to anyone connected to the case. -* if they had samples of everyone connected to the case.
Had they done that then JT would well and truly have been put under the spotlight, particularly if it was found that the hair samples found in the Burgau apartment not only had the same mtDNA but also the same physical characteristics as a sample of her hair. – Like the samples identified as belonging to KM , they would have had to specify the ‘ profile was identical’ – hence a match!


Finally, Just to add, without trying to confuse people more.

Normally forensics would first compare hair samples found to a suspects / victims hair samples before doing mtDNA analysis / testing.

Unfortunately mtDNA testing destroys the hair sample(s) leaving it impossible to then compare one, or two in this case, to an individual’s actual profile hair sample. That is of course if they did use both of the hairs found in Burgau for the actual test and didn’t retain one, or split/ cut the hairs to retain partial samples for future analysis.

As much as some of us would like it to be her hair, the forensics didn’t and as yet hasn’t confirmed it."

Reply · Report Post