It doesn’t have to be the case that someone would be purposely avoiding leaving DNA. In those days mail was our way of communicating, paying bills, etc. You would often have a stack of letters/bills and you would be sick of the taste of the glue by the time you were done. Been there, done that. So it was common for people to use a wet sponge for stamps and sealing envelopes. Sponges and other devises for doing so were available wherever you bought stationary. Pretty much every secretary had one on their desk.

The Bates case should be solvable through forensic genealogy and Parabon, right? They have hair samples and maybe other sources. Is Riverside doing this?

When Riverside/the FBI or whomever ran DNA on the hair from the Bates scene in 2001, they ran mitochondrial DNA. I assume this means that since the hair was torn out from her offender’s head, it has no root structure and therefore you cannot get nuclear DNA from it. But that is only an assumption based on the notion that if they COULD get nuclear DNA in 2001 they would have. Just IMHO.

Cut hair samples are not of course entirely useless- they in fact do just fine for a very specific type of test known as the MtDNA test. The MtDNA test (Mitochondrial DNA test) is used to determine whether two people share the same maternal line and given the low rate of mutation in the type of DNA, this test is rather accurate. However, this is the only type of hair DNA test you can have carried out unless you can specifically see a white ball attached to the end of the hair (this little ball would be the hair root).

If hairs have been ripped or torn from the scalp or plucked, then you can send these in for DNA testing. Hair DNA testing with freshly plucked hair is of course always better and a minimum of 5 hairs is recommended. If the hair is very old, one can opt to use advanced testing methods but these will come at an added, extra cost. Nevertheless, whether the hair is old or freshly plucked, you can still conduct your hair DNA paternity test.
https://www.homednadirect.co.uk/knowled … a-testing/

If CJB ripped a sizeable number of hairs in a desperate struggle for life, one might expect at least one or two root attachments.

The Bates case should be solvable through forensic genealogy and Parabon, right? They have hair samples and maybe other sources. Is Riverside doing this?

Who knows what Riverside is doing, if anything. "Bob Barnett" is their guy, and no one else. What gets me is that their current staff isn’t bound by their predecessors’ mistakes, and should give the Bates case a thorough review.

Hi,

Someone was talking about getting a full facial reconstruction from the Riverside DNA. I did point out that there is such a thing as mtDNA. That type of DNA is different from nuclear DNA and will not contain the info necessary for Parabon. Parabon needs nuclear DNA.

ON a different website, I asked if they do have six DNA markers, what kind of numbers are we talking about in terms of "X to 1," so to speak. A guy replied saying it could vary wildly depending on which markers, but he gave an estimate of 1 million to 1.

If that’s right, or close to right, it’s still very good evidence. I would guess the population of California at that time was 10 million(?). So based on that estimate, it would be like 10, 11, 12 Californians had that DNA. Although it’s a little more complex than that, presumably, given population turnover.