Match the photos of the victims' pieces of evidence. Explaining your rationale of doing so.
Question 6:
The DNA profile showed evidence for a father and son. In addition there was DNA profiling pattern that matched one living twin (Tanya Rosilawati). With this, match the evidence to these victims who were earlier filed for missing persons. Explain your rationale.
Cleary enough that the DNA profiling has shown evidence for a father and
a son, which has the highest possibility goes to Herman
Hartono and his son, Adi Hartono. In addition to that, DNA profiling works in a
way that they copied the regions known as Short Tandem Repeats, or STRs,
which are composed of short units of DNA—just four or five bases long—that are
repeated numerous times in a row. In
most investigation, 13 such STR regions, all located in the non-coding
DNA between our genes, are analyzed for the number of repeated units they
contain. In this part, Adi Hartono and his father, Herman‘s both DNA matches
most of the respective region of the STR.
As
for the one of the living twin, Tanya Rosilawati’s DNA being matched in the DNA
profiling, the reason behind this still is being unclear. It may be due to human error that mismatched
the DNA profiling of the sample from the crime scene.
Conclusion:
After analyzing all the
information collected and after much rational considerations, the jaw in pic 3
might belong to Anya Suriati. To justify this statement, her report of missing
by her father add on to this reasoning. Besides that, from the picture shown,
the mental protuberance is prominent so I assume that it belongs to a
girl's skull instead. With all the evidence collected regarding picture 3, I
reckon that the murdered victim of this case is Anya Suriati. However, this
assumption can only be confirmed once the DNA profile is revealed. If it
matches her twin sister, Tanya Rosilawati, it means the skull belongs to Anya
Suriati.
