Author Topic: Why now?  (Read 18584 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #300 on: November 28, 2021, 03:33:52 PM »
I'm casting doubt on something said by the PJ. I thought that was acceptable in certain circles?

In this instance the PJ did their investigative job properly.

They noticed something they thought strange regarding DNA information from hair samples.

They did not speculate or jump to conclusions; they sought expert advice from the director of the Portuguese Institute to clarify the matter.

As Carana pointed out in one of her posts ~ the science of DNA was still very much in its infancy in 2007.

The PJ understood and accepted the scientific advice given by the Institute.  This enabled them to progress to the next stage of the investigation.
Had Amaral's team conducted themselves in like professional fashion peoples' lives would have been so much less complicated and it could only have benefitted Madeleine's case.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Carana

Re: Why now?
« Reply #301 on: November 28, 2021, 03:46:43 PM »
Brietta is correct in the Corte Real affirmed that the haplotype wasn't exclusive to JT (or even anyone in her own maternal bloodline). However, it wasn't the INML that stated that it couldn't have been hers, but the chief PJ inspector in the final report who came to that conclusion - presumably, as there was nothing to link a) her to the place, nor, more importantly, b) Madeleine.

I'm not sure anyone in the PJ at the time knew much about DNA in general, let alone mtDNA, and so spotting a haplotype consistent with JT's probably jumped out at them, but at least the post-Amaral team sought clarification.

Offline Carana

Re: Why now?
« Reply #302 on: November 28, 2021, 03:57:49 PM »
In this instance the PJ did their investigative job properly.

They noticed something they thought strange regarding DNA information from hair samples.

They did not speculate or jump to conclusions; they sought expert advice from the director of the Portuguese Institute to clarify the matter.

As Carana pointed out in one of her posts ~ the science of DNA was still very much in its infancy in 2007.

The PJ understood and accepted the scientific advice given by the Institute.  This enabled them to progress to the next stage of the investigation.
Had Amaral's team conducted themselves in like professional fashion peoples' lives would have been so much less complicated and it could only have benefitted Madeleine's case.

DNA had been around for a while in forensics, including in Portugal, by then, but my suspicion is that mtDNA was less known. MtDNA was, of course, already well known in medical research way before Madeleine disappeared.

Offline Carana

Re: Why now?
« Reply #303 on: November 28, 2021, 04:09:10 PM »
To the credit of the Portuguese, as I have pointed out more than once, the INML's DNA analysis system (two slightly overlapping kits, in fact) examined far more areas than the UK's.

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #304 on: November 28, 2021, 04:23:39 PM »
DNA had been around for a while in forensics, including in Portugal, by then, but my suspicion is that mtDNA was less known. MtDNA was, of course, already well known in medical research way before Madeleine disappeared.
Thanks, Carana.
The sciences are not my strong point.

Which is one reason why I find it extraordinary that Amaral's team didn't do what Rebelo's team did when scientific clarification was required.  If one doesn't know there is absolutely no shame in asking someone who does and I think the Portuguese Institute under Real was pretty competent.


Just read your post above.  I was aware that the Portuguese scientists are very professional (probably from reading your posts).  I think the FSS got the main job perhaps because of capacity and expense but certainly not as a reflection on capability.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2021, 04:30:54 PM by Brietta »
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why now?
« Reply #305 on: November 28, 2021, 05:00:34 PM »
Thanks, Carana.
The sciences are not my strong point.

Which is one reason why I find it extraordinary that Amaral's team didn't do what Rebelo's team did when scientific clarification was required.  If one doesn't know there is absolutely no shame in asking someone who does and I think the Portuguese Institute under Real was pretty competent.


Just read your post above.  I was aware that the Portuguese scientists are very professional (probably from reading your posts).  I think the FSS got the main job perhaps because of capacity and expense but certainly not as a reflection on capability.

I'm not sure that the Portuguese lab could have analysed such a small sample.. LCN. DNA.  LCN is not accepted as evidence in Portuguese courts because of it's perceived unreliability.  ..

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #306 on: November 28, 2021, 05:52:12 PM »
I'm not sure that the Portuguese lab could have analysed such a small sample.. LCN. DNA.  LCN is not accepted as evidence in Portuguese courts because of it's perceived unreliability.  ..

Off the top of my head, I think we have had our own problems (Omagh).

It's an interesting thought if LCN is not accepted in the Courts why would the Portuguese have the facility of testing for it.

It is only recently I learned it wasn't.  I thought the FSS did the testing because at the time it was very new and they led the field in its study.

DNA really is a complicated subject and as a result might I say, a poorly understood one by laypeople to boot.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #307 on: November 28, 2021, 06:12:20 PM »
Except that the final reports states:

From pages 4167 to 4182, the forensics report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was appended, whose conclusions do not allow for significant advances in the investigation, but which identify several different haplotypes, some of which match intervenients in the process and others without any identificative value.

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.


The PJ's words, as I said. Whether that's what the report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine said is what I'm interested in.
England - good effort

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #308 on: November 28, 2021, 06:18:00 PM »
The PJ's words, as I said. Whether that's what the report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine said is what I'm interested in.

The PJ's words are the conclusion reached after analysing the scientific data sent to them in response to the request sent to them by the PJ.

Why is it you seem to be struggling with assimilating that as the PJ did?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #309 on: November 28, 2021, 07:49:08 PM »
The PJ's words are the conclusion reached after analysing the scientific data sent to them in response to the request sent to them by the PJ.

Why is it you seem to be struggling with assimilating that as the PJ did?

If I understand correctly what can be discovered from mitochondrial DNA, then the PJ were mistaken.
England - good effort

Offline Carana

Re: Why now?
« Reply #310 on: November 29, 2021, 01:16:16 AM »
Thanks, Carana.
The sciences are not my strong point.

Which is one reason why I find it extraordinary that Amaral's team didn't do what Rebelo's team did when scientific clarification was required.  If one doesn't know there is absolutely no shame in asking someone who does and I think the Portuguese Institute under Real was pretty competent.


Just read your post above.  I was aware that the Portuguese scientists are very professional (probably from reading your posts).  I think the FSS got the main job perhaps because of capacity and expense but certainly not as a reflection on capability.


In some interview or other, from memory, Amaral stated that he wanted the UK to do deal with the forensics so that the Portuguese couldn't be accused of having screwed up. That might have been part of the reasoning, the other possibly being the sheer cost if, as I suspect, the UK offered to pay for it.

Nothing ever bothered me about the work the FSS did on the case. And I thought Lowe's attempt to explain the basics of DNA was a thoughtful gesture. Unfortunately, it seems to have still gone over the heads of Team Amaral.

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #311 on: November 29, 2021, 02:04:24 AM »

In some interview or other, from memory, Amaral stated that he wanted the UK to do deal with the forensics so that the Portuguese couldn't be accused of having screwed up. That might have been part of the reasoning, the other possibly being the sheer cost if, as I suspect, the UK offered to pay for it.

Nothing ever bothered me about the work the FSS did on the case. And I thought Lowe's attempt to explain the basics of DNA was a thoughtful gesture. Unfortunately, it seems to have still gone over the heads of Team Amaral.

Maybe he was still smarting over the fiasco of the initially harvested forensics.  It would have been unfair to blame the Institute for that.  The lab could only get a result if the officers collecting the traces didn't mess that up which I believe they did.  Although finding confirmation of that is like finding hens' teeth.

Maybe it was the expense.  Portugal had never seen a case like this one and by any standards the costs were huge..

I agree about Lowe making the attempt to clarify the information from the lab.  Unfortunately he just had no conception of what he was dealing with and thus the saga took wings based not so much on what he actually said but on what people wanted it to say.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #312 on: November 29, 2021, 09:50:26 AM »
If I understand correctly what can be discovered from mitochondrial DNA, then the PJ were mistaken.

This is what the PJ were told;

Reply Francisco Corte Real ref. 4325 about hapotype S
In response to your letter referred to above, we would like to inform you that a mitochondrial DNA profile does not exclusively and objectively identify a certain person. We would like to point out that after consulting the database of sequences of the mitochondrial DNA control region, EMPOP database, the results obtained allowed the identification of 8 haplotypes identical to haplotype S (no difference) in a universe of 3850 samples from the "West Eurasia" population group, which includes the European populations.

Given that a mitochondrial DNA profile does not exclusively and objectively identify a certain person, the PJ , in the Final Report; made a statement which the evidence did NOT support;

"This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

There's no reason to suspect that Jane Tanner visited the Burgau apartment, but there's no evidence which rules out that possibility beyond reasonable doubt.


England - good effort

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #313 on: November 29, 2021, 10:05:37 AM »
This is what the PJ were told;

Reply Francisco Corte Real ref. 4325 about hapotype S
In response to your letter referred to above, we would like to inform you that a mitochondrial DNA profile does not exclusively and objectively identify a certain person. We would like to point out that after consulting the database of sequences of the mitochondrial DNA control region, EMPOP database, the results obtained allowed the identification of 8 haplotypes identical to haplotype S (no difference) in a universe of 3850 samples from the "West Eurasia" population group, which includes the European populations.

Given that a mitochondrial DNA profile does not exclusively and objectively identify a certain person, the PJ , in the Final Report; made a statement which the evidence did NOT support;

"This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

There's no reason to suspect that Jane Tanner visited the Burgau apartment, but there's no evidence which rules out that possibility beyond reasonable doubt.

Let us transfer the scenario from an apartment in Burgau to an apartment in Luz where a hypothetical hair is recovered bearing the same haplotype carried by Brueckner.

Would your argument then be that the hair represented reasonable doubt of Brueckner's presence in the location in Luz from which the hair had been recovered.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #314 on: November 29, 2021, 11:42:15 AM »
Let us transfer the scenario from an apartment in Burgau to an apartment in Luz where a hypothetical hair is recovered bearing the same haplotype carried by Brueckner.

Would your argument then be that the hair represented reasonable doubt of Brueckner's presence in the location in Luz from which the hair had been recovered.

All it would show is what all the other mitochondrial DNA findings showed; that the hair was from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

It would certainly not prove that Brueckner was ever in 5A because no exact match is possible using mitochondrial DNA, despite the PJ's mistaken claim.





England - good effort