|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 29, 2018 17:46:43 GMT -5
The attached is from the Squibb report and about a handkerchief found at the body site. It had no mildew (had not been there long?), no grains of sand and soil like the other debris tested (including the rags left on the baby's body). It seems to have been in pretty good shape. There were two areas of mucus stains. Michael - could these stains still be tested for DNA (if the handkerchief is still at the museum). Since it was in better shape than the rags left on the body and had no mildew for being found in the damp woods, chances of it being from whomever put the baby's body there? I've always thought it was worth testing the lookout's handkerchief (also at the museum) and the envelope flaps which are still sealed (some were opened along the side with a letter opener).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2018 18:18:12 GMT -5
Michael - could these stains still be tested for DNA (if the handkerchief is still at the museum). The first thing I would do is caution you about the item itself. There was a lot of stuff found in that area which may have had nothing to do with the corpse. But who knows? Next, I'm certainly no expert on DNA but I do know that it degrades over time. There's also conditions that speed that destructive process up - like heat. Moisture has a bad effect on DNA as well so if it was found in a body of water or out in the rain that's not a good thing. But I'm with USC - actually even more so - because I would want everything tested no matter what. Why not? If there's nothing there we are no worse off.
|
|