The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

The below info can be found at. http://bf-field-jour...-study-ans.html

Some other names for those who want them but are not energetic enough to look them up:

To paraphrase what the critics are saying, all 110 samples are contaminated with human DNA. In their opinions this is the only way to explain these "odd" results. Dr. Ketchum contracted the following laboratories to run BLIND test on the samples. All these labs duplicated the "odd" results. Remember some of these labs are forensic labs used by law enforcement. People are in jail because of the work of these labs. So the assertion by the critics is these labs contaminated the samples. If so there are many people in jail that need to be let go because these laboratories can not be trusted to process the evidence.

<snip>

i think that most critics assert that the samples were "contaminated" before the labs got them. an assertion that falls into the category of common sense considering the source of most of them.

[Guest njjohn]

Dr. Ketchum used the following for hire laboratories in a BLIND STUDY of the DNA:

"The following laboratories provided sequencing and analysis

Again, most of the places have responded that they did no analysis. They just ran them and submitted everything back to Dr. Ketchum.

Sarah Bollinger is no longer listed as an author in the paper. She was edited out last week or the week before. The extra comma still remains, oops.

Dr. Igor Burtsev just pulled the Yeti story in Russia to increase tourism. He even had Dr. Meldrum come out who saw through it.

Dr. Raymond Wallace has his title in Ministry, not sciences. He is not a doctor in any shape or form. Here's his own words:

Rayford Wallace on April 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm said:

….(He keeps “outing†me as a doctor, but don’t take that too seriously. I’m neither a Ph.D. or an M.D. I have a D.Min. That is a preacher’s degree. But keep in mind that preacher’s learn a lot about a lot of things.) But again, I don’t know: I ain’t no expert.

It's good to rehash old articles though. It brings to light just how transparent this has been and how glaring the inconsistencies are.

[Guest]

Pat W. and Tom P. were reported on JREF as having said they never even saw the paper, and njjohn also ran a letter from one of the universities claiming they only ran the tests and did NOT do the in-depth study as claimed by Dr. Ketchum.

But yes, review is always nice. This has been a very long thread and people have likely forgotten points already covered so many times before.

[southernyahoo]

The moment chain of custody was broken, as in the case with Family Tree, this became untrue. Criminal and forensic standards begin and end with maintaining rigorous chain of custody.

I;m curious to know what is considered a break in the chain of custody. The samples or their aliquots were sent to family tree , they sequence it, read it and reported the results for each sample. Did Family tree experience any confusion on which result went with each sample? It would seem that in a blind study, the outsource lab should only identify a sample with a code letter or number. Surely they knew who sent the samples or they could not report the results.

The samples were sent to Family Tree DNA after initial screening for HV1 and cytochrome b at DNA Diagnostics The source of the samples was withheld from Family Tree DNA.

They only needed to be able to distinguish the samples from each other and report or send data back for each one.

Are you implying the courier could have tampered with them? The aliquots would be a sealed bottle or tube no?

[Guest njjohn]

It just shows the chain of custody pdf is incomplete. It should show everywhere it was sent, who handled it and the haplotypes of those individuals as well. Even though they are labs, it needs to be listed.

SY - if I were you, I'd request the full mtDNA genome data if it's available and confidentially see if anyone will analyze it for you. It will either validate her personal claims to you, or it won't. Since it's already sequenced, no lab work needs to be done and at the very least, you have a piece of history for yourself down the road. It would be interesting to see if she supplies just the fasta file, or the complete DNA report.

[southernyahoo]

It just shows the chain of custody pdf is incomplete. It should show everywhere it was sent, who handled it and the haplotypes of those individuals as well. Even though they are labs, it needs to be listed.

You could simply list whoever you wanted, it wouldn't prove they either did or did not contaminate the sample. This is where we have to accept the quality control these labs employ to ensure a single profile is found and that it is checked against profiles these labs have on their staff.

Can find where staff genetic data is given for each science paper in genetics?

Edited April 2, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Guest thermalman]

Dr. Ketchum used the following for hire laboratories in a BLIND STUDY of the DNA:

"The following laboratories provided sequencing and analysis

Again, most of the places have responded that they did no analysis. They just ran them and submitted everything back to Dr. Ketchum.

Dr. Raymond Wallace has his title in Ministry, not sciences. He is not a doctor in any shape or form. Here's his own words:

Rayford Wallace on April 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm said:

….(He keeps “outing†me as a doctor, but don’t take that too seriously. I’m neither a Ph.D. or an M.D. I have a D.Min. That is a preacher’s degree. But keep in mind that preacher’s learn a lot about a lot of things.) But again, I don’t know: I ain’t no expert.

It's good to rehash old articles though. It brings to light just how transparent this has been and how glaring the inconsistencies are.

Assuming the statements you posted, are correct. We trust you've done your due diligence in determining two things:

1) "Again, most of the places have responded that they did no analysis."

You've been in personal contact with them all, in order to state what you did as truth, and assuming there is no NDA in place, which would allow the contacts to deny telling you the truth?

2) "Dr. Raymond Wallace has his title in Ministry, not sciences. He is not a doctor in any shape or form."

You've steadfastly investigated and determined that this is the only Dr. Raymond Wallace in the whole wide world that MK is referring to? Leaving no room for error or doubt that there might be another Dr. Raymond Wallace, that MK could be referring to?

Edited April 2, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Therm....I personally don't believe that all of the samples were contaminated by the contributors, nor do I believe they were all human. Statistically, both scenarios seem highly unlikely. I also think it's absurd to believe they all came from BF. I'm not necessarily sure what she is claiming about those 111 samples, but considering that a majority of the samples were found in the woods without corroborating evidence that they were from a BF, I have a tough time believing that there aren't a lot of samples submitted from bears, moose, etc. But knowing that BF is real, I'd also think there were probably BF samples in there somewhere too. I just don't trust her claims, or abilities based on what I've seen from her.

As far as forensic scientists getting people put in jail goes....I'd say that I'd have a pretty good chance of getting any charges dropped if MK was the forensic scientist that did any analysis that got me convicted by her testimony alone, at this point. Plus, her paper doesn't seem to have enough data to get anybody convicted either. If there were three people involved in a serious crime(the three nuDNA samples) I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict them based on the evidence put forth on the paper alone. Do you not think in a court of law if she were the expert witness, that her antics/business history wouldn't be brought into play regarding her credibility?

She has the luxury with this study of not being held to the same standards that a forensic scientist would be held to if this were a trial, and feel comparisons to jail convictions are moot. I also feel the second that I could cite a reference to her claiming that she felt as if she has worked with Angel DNA, or that BF's used ESP on her(which there are a couple of people that could back both of those statements) that her testimony wouldn't be worth the testimony of a 3-strike felon. People's prior history come into play regarding the veracity of their testimony.

[Guest Silent Sam]

I;m curious to know what is considered a break in the chain of custody.

A break in custody would be any point where evidence left one person's possession, came into another person's possession, and/or returned to the first person's possession without a proper accounting. For example I take possession of a piece of evidence. I sign and date a log stating such, along with any other required information. You need this sample, so I sign it out of my custody. You sign for it, date it, and add any other required information. When it leaves your custody back to me, you sign off on it, and I sign it back into my custody. No documenting of the actual identity of the item is required. Chain of custody simply exists to say who had X and when did they have it.

The samples or their aliquots were sent to family tree , they sequence it, read it and reported the results for each sample. Did Family tree experience any confusion on which result went with each sample? It would seem that in a blind study, the outsource lab should only identify a sample with a code letter or number. Surely they knew who sent the samples or they could not report the results.

This is irrelevant. Chain of custody has nothing to do with what the sample is or any information regarding it. It simply establishes who has an item and who comes into possession of it (or works with it). I'm sure Family Tree knew who sent the samples, and I'm sure they knew (or thought they knew) who they were sending the samples back to. But with no chain of custody there is no accounting for what happened to the samples or who came into possession of them.

They only needed to be able to distinguish the samples from each other and report or send data back for each one.

Are you implying the courier could have tampered with them? The aliquots would be a sealed bottle or tube no?

In order to conduct the tests Family Tree would need to be able to distinguish samples, but for anyone reviewing or peer reviewing the information it would be important for them to be able to trace the course of each sample as it were tested. I have no idea how the samples were shipped. We can assume they were at least sealed in tamper proof materials but who's to say? Again though it is irrelevant if you can't even establish who had physical custody of the samples at any given time.

The main point of all this is that in Ketchum's paper she states the following in the Collection and Classification section;

They were treated as forensic samples and cataloged to maintain an appropriate chain of custody.

Family Tree's statements directly contradict this statement. When you have these documented inconsistencies and inaccuracies it starts to create a crisis of confidence in the paper and any other information that might be contained within it.

[Guest njjohn]

TM - yes on both accounts.As to the first question, If there was an NDA, they would have said they can't say. They did say they wouldn't answer questions on the data other than to say they did no analysis. They didn't reveal anything that would have jeopardized an NDA in anyway.

And agree with Silent Sam. The chain of custody is up to forensic standards by Dr. Ketchum's saying so. If she didn't claim it to be so, I don't think it would have mattered that the labs were never included on it. But because of the standards she stated, it just shows another contradiction in a long line of contradictions.

And as contradictions go, you haven't seen anything yet.

[southernyahoo]

I see, so if the chain of custody were. Dr. Ketchum to courier to Family tree with no return. This would not be good enough? Did they not sign for reciept of the samples? I still think there is something lost in translation between the intent of your question and what the rep. at Family tree thought you wanted for an answer.

[Guest Silent Sam]

I actually didn't ask a question regarding chain of custody. I just sent a simple inquiry asking for comment on their testing of samples for Ketchum's paper. The reply I received in its entirety was..

Thank you for your email. To answer your question, yes, we did process mtDNA samples for Dr. Ketchum. Information about the tests can be found at our website. We ran either the mtDNA Plus or mtFullSequence.

I cannot comment on anything else. Our lab simply analysed DNA samples that were sent to us. There was no chain of custody for any of the samples, so I cannot verify any information regarding their origin, how they were obtained or how they were processed before we received them.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Silent Sam

[Guest]

Wow, I gotta find a better way to test My family DNA ... The one ( chain of custody thingy ) that I did years ago was nothing like y'all are stating. I must not belong to the tree they stated I belonged to...

[Cotter]

Maybe you are the 'unkown male proginator' DMK is referring to?

Any wild party nights about 15,000 years ago that are a bit 'hazy' for you?

:-)

[southernyahoo]

I found some descriptions for chain of custody that would compare to what SS said for samples that pertain to a legal action.

This one seems to include the use of a courier whom appears to sign once for receipt and at delivery.

http://www.lagoonsonline.com/laboratory-articles/custody.htm

Chain of Custody (or Chain-of-Possession as some other sources suggest). This form is filled out at sample collection and follows the sample through every person involved in the chain of possession until it reaches the laboratory. It includes information such as sample number, location where sample was taken, preservative used in each container, type and size of container for each sample (1 L glass, 500 mL amber glass, 250 mL plastic, 40 mL VOC vials, etc), dates and times of collection, type of sample (water, soil, wastewater, etc), and the name of person collecting the sample. Every time the sample changes possession, the person relinquishing the sample and the person receiving it must sign and date/time the Chain-of-Custody form. For example, the sampler may relinquish the sample to a courier. At the transfer, both parties sign and date/time the form. Then the courier delivers the sample to the laboratory where now the courier and lab representative sign and date/time the form.