|
|
Post by Ashley on Jul 8, 2010 14:09:16 GMT -5
Sir, according to our DNA analysts you've been at the scene of the crime. You also possibly have rabies and mated with a german shepard about a week ago. Actually... you can get DNA from a leaf, and it is fairly accurate... but not as discriminating as say from a non-monozygotic twin. XD You can't mate with German Shephards though... well, not the dog variety at least... and hell, depending on the sample, you may or may not find traces of viral particles... but the state you'd have to BE IN to leave behind neuronal tissue... (read: are you a zombie, is THAT how you're still walking around...?) If you watch TruTV's Forensic Files, a LOT of the stuff they cover there winds up in anything Brockheimer touches. I think our dearest Chia was referring to an episode of CSI (which one I can't remember) where they lift someone's DNA off of a leaf, *blink* For the record it is perfectly possible to "mate" with a German Shepard trust me if those idiotic rednecks can find a way to do it with a horse they can do it with a dog. It's just disgusting and wrong and ew. *blink* |
|
|
|
Post by vanessasquest on Jul 8, 2010 15:25:13 GMT -5
^_^''' I really hate to be a hard ...ehem, "mate" refers to sexually reproducing, no human can 'mate' with anything shy of another human, hence why we're in the same species... a dog can mate with a wolf, but only produces female offspring (at least for F1) ...people can have sex with animals... that's true, but they can't mate. Sorry, semantics I know. Well, if DNA was on a leaf with enough of a sample you could collect it off that, you just wouldn't degrade the cells of the plant to get it... again, it's possible if they found a source of it.  ? You would have to sweat profusely, or bleed onto it (or shoot a load...?) anyhow... yeah, it can be done... even saliva, and if you're really good at sample collecting, DNA from urine is possible if you get to it before the ammonia degrades it too greatly. ^_^''''''''''''''' *Raises hand* I'm a scientist, can you tell? XD |
|
chiazu
Slash Sweetie
Posts: 241
|
Post by chiazu on Jul 8, 2010 21:19:56 GMT -5
I know if thee was enough sweat on there, they could have, but it was one drop. ONE DROP!! It's just not possible for there to be enough dna left after being on the Sun and evaporating. That's why I shun CSI and their green laser beam.
|
|
|
|
Post by vanessasquest on Jul 9, 2010 0:10:38 GMT -5
...Um, one drop evaporated or not is irrelevant... I mean, if it's within a two-day window... PCR can be used to increase levels of DNA extremely... XD quick and kinda cheaply, too... so one drop might be all they need, but it has to be within 2 days (and ideally under 24 hours) if ya really want anything that'll give you hits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ashley on Jul 14, 2010 14:17:58 GMT -5
The main problem I have with the sweat thing (and well tons of other DNA evidence used in crime shows besides the time-warp that is hollywood) is that for the results to hold up in court they need to be able to provide the defense with enough of the same DNA so that (if they so chose) they'd be able to have their own "independent scientists" test the DNA. So yes, it would provide them with a lead but in court it wouldn't be permissible. *TruCrime Junkie* |
|
|
|
Post by vanessasquest on Jul 14, 2010 17:36:41 GMT -5
The main problem I have with the sweat thing (and well tons of other DNA evidence used in crime shows besides the time-warp that is hollywood) is that for the results to hold up in court they need to be able to provide the defense with enough of the same DNA so that (if they so chose) they'd be able to have their own "independent scientists" test the DNA. So yes, it would provide them with a lead but in court it wouldn't be permissible. *TruCrime Junkie* ... Um, are you familiar with PCR, dear? If you're not that's cool, but PCR 'clones' DNA and in a tried-and-true manner of replication to raise the amounts you have exponentially, and they've used speckles of blood that were the size of pin-drops that were located under brims of tires (you know, when people go through the trouble of killing a person then clean out their car and forget to get that little nook but hit just about every other cranny) and are able to use that, hands down, in court. And I can assure you, blood-- the usable stuff isn't the red cells, it's the white cells and other nucleated cells present. Point it, it's STILL viable. Believe me. I took genetics on several levels and as a crime-junky and true-crime junky I read up on this stuff too, I mean maybe your area doesn't have as lenient a jurisdiction, or maybe you're being referred to others, but for the most part you HAVE enough lab samples to test after you duplicate it. It seems hard to believe, but trust me... they've done it before with less and kept it in for the trial. PS-- this is an odd argument to get into. XD |
|
|
|
Post by Ashley on Jul 14, 2010 18:40:37 GMT -5
The main problem I have with the sweat thing (and well tons of other DNA evidence used in crime shows besides the time-warp that is hollywood) is that for the results to hold up in court they need to be able to provide the defense with enough of the same DNA so that (if they so chose) they'd be able to have their own "independent scientists" test the DNA. So yes, it would provide them with a lead but in court it wouldn't be permissible. *TruCrime Junkie* ... Um, are you familiar with PCR, dear? If you're not that's cool, but PCR 'clones' DNA and in a tried-and-true manner of replication to raise the amounts you have exponentially, and they've used speckles of blood that were the size of pin-drops that were located under brims of tires (you know, when people go through the trouble of killing a person then clean out their car and forget to get that little nook but hit just about every other cranny) and are able to use that, hands down, in court. And I can assure you, blood-- the usable stuff isn't the red cells, it's the white cells and other nucleated cells present. Point it, it's STILL viable. Believe me. I took genetics on several levels and as a crime-junky and true-crime junky I read up on this stuff too, I mean maybe your area doesn't have as lenient a jurisdiction, or maybe you're being referred to others, but for the most part you HAVE enough lab samples to test after you duplicate it. It seems hard to believe, but trust me... they've done it before with less and kept it in for the trial. PS-- this is an odd argument to get into. XD I have no actual idea where you live; but watching true crime tv shows it's something that's come up seeeveral times. GRANTED most of the time these cases are a bit older so this might be new. But still.....o_0 I dunno; another fault I have with the leaf thing (if it's the csi i watched) they just picked up a random leaf and went "HUH WE'LL CHECK THIS LEAF; OH LOOK THIS ONE LEAF HAS DNA! SWEET!" *rolls eyes* Note: I am not a scientist. SO half the time when I talk about science-tastic stuff, It's what I see on the discovery channel. =3 |
|
chiazu
Slash Sweetie
Posts: 241
|
Post by chiazu on Jul 14, 2010 19:53:02 GMT -5
Are you two fighting because of me, 'cause I should you warn: I can get going when it comes to this kinda thing. For one thing it nothing like they show on tv, reality/documentary/series, nearly all evidence is always circumstantial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ashley on Jul 14, 2010 20:04:32 GMT -5
Um......it's a discussion? o_0 And yeah, some of it is, but there tends to be physical evidence as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by vanessasquest on Jul 14, 2010 21:47:17 GMT -5
Most cases are based on circumstantial evidence, most "science" channels are hacks... and I love watching them anyway for some extent. You're talking about cases dating from mid 90s to earlier... DNA has become MUCH MUCH MUCH more sensitive, reliable, and practical to use, the point is, CSI IS a drama, it's going to be melodramatic about certain things for plot devices, chew things up into itsy-bitsy pieces for us ANDDDDDDD then put it into little birdy-mouths in order to get the point across to people who aren't really as knowledgeable as they want to be. The point is, I don't just watch shows about evidence, I watch the actual court proceedings (TruTV has truly started to suck, since they added the 'Not Reality- ACTUALITY' line... =_= BADDDDD TV... but I LOVE LOVE LOVED CourtTV). Anyhow... *stalker!cling Chiazu* You know if I fought over you I'd finish you...? XD Off? XD And then we'd write crack-fic about an unsub likened to my uber awesome image and have some oddddddddd things to say about it. *Behaves*
|
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jul 15, 2010 13:22:29 GMT -5
Actually... you can get DNA from a leaf, and it is fairly accurate... but not as discriminating as say from a non-monozygotic twin. XD You can't mate with German Shephards though... well, not the dog variety at least... and hell, depending on the sample, you may or may not find traces of viral particles... but the state you'd have to BE IN to leave behind neuronal tissue... (read: are you a zombie, is THAT how you're still walking around...?) If you watch TruTV's Forensic Files, a LOT of the stuff they cover there winds up in anything Brockheimer touches. I was trying to show that DNA could be mixed with a lot of stuff in such case  Upd: to clarify some more, it was sarcastic remark, in no way implying that the person who left the sample mated with the german shepard  |
|
|
|
Post by vanessasquest on Jul 15, 2010 13:43:39 GMT -5
XD I figured sarcasm... but if I see something that can be easily misinterpreted to others I like to clarify (the Scientific ANALyst in me... XD)
|
|
? You would have to sweat profusely, or bleed onto it (or shoot a load...?) anyhow... yeah, it can be done... even saliva, and if you're really good at sample collecting, DNA from urine is possible if you get to it before the ammonia degrades it too greatly. ^_^''''''''''''''' *Raises hand* I'm a scientist, can you tell? XD
