You can be done if you want, it is no concern of mine. I already know what is going on. I don't think you understand mtDNA. I don't think you even know what mtDNA is...don't understand STR DNA testing, I don't think you could explain either to me. Because what you are saying is what someone who Kratz is trying to spin would. If you don't understand something, ask questions! Clearly from you don't understand! Mt DNA clearly IDs a body, it is an exact link to the mother and that is what that did!! You wouldn't use a shabby partial autosomal STR profile when have a perfect match. Why don't you show me how they came up the the exact same statistic for mtDNA and a partial profile. How do I know that??? EXPerience! You know what the statistics would be for her mtDNA being a match to her mother? Near 100%. THE STATISICS THEY ARE GIVING ARE FOR MATCHING THE BONES WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION, FOR THE MT DNA IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. WHAT MATTERS WHEN IDing a BODY IS HOW CLOSE IT MATCHES THE FAMILY, FOR SURE A MOTHER. IT IS MATERNALLY INHERITED. BUT THEY ALSO COULD BELONG STATISTICALLY A LOT HIGHER, TO A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE IN THAT AREA. BECAUSE THE MT DNA COME FROM MOTHER CHILDREN ALL THE WAY BACK IN TIME. THE DISTRIBUTION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, YOU CAN'T HAVE THE SAME STATS.

The STR DNA she came up with tested 7 different loci. At each loci, depending on each one, there could be from 6 to 20 some different alleles possible. You have to do a frequency distribution for each allele separately (because they will be different), then when you have the frequency at each loci, you multiply them. And heterozygous and homozygous are calculated differently. And the lab could be asked for how they came up with their results. See if you understood the stats, you would know what they are saying could not be correct. The same # could not be correct. I don't need a "source" to know that! Sherry is the one who is supposed to prove her statistics. So you think Sheriff Pagel made up all that VERY accurate information and gave it to the media? That he was that smart? What should concern you more is that Kratz and Culhane are conspiring. You should be interesting in getting a lot more information. You don't even know what the raw data for that STR DNA looks like, it could be crap!
If you understood, you would not be 'done', you would just be starting!

Look, you don't understand stats, you don't understand the science, and you don't understand the legal significance. If you want to support the results of that lab fine. Be done. You don't need to tell me. And please do not thing that you are going to be able to tell me anything about DNA or statistics.

There are formulas for profiles you now. Do you now it? Sherry is supposed to provided exactly how she came up with those statistics. 'I AM CONFUSED'?? I don't think you know who I am or background.

There is nothing more irritating to me than people who don't know what they are talking about making statements! Why not at least try to learn something.... I have spent a lifetime of a career studying mtDNA, the statistics are not just 'the same for mtDNA"... The exact same statistics one in a billion for the mtDNA and 7 loci of nuclear STR DNA are not even near to the same thing. If you understood anything about any of this, you would not be "done' , you would just be beginning to ask questions! At least if you are done, you will not muddy up things with meaningless banter. Why would you go to scientists and tell them what they should know? I've worked on a PhD in this, have you? I went in to the field of mt geneitcs because I have 3 relatives with and mtDNA genetic disease.... I've spend 2 and a 1/2 decades studying this, have you? And you think I am confused??. Unless you want to learn, you should be done. And you learn by asking questions of people who do, and I'm not suggesting me. Not by pretending you do. If not, at least by being done you will not muddy up space. You are exactly what the desired outcome was, and proof that their strategy worked.