MADELEINE'S DNA - definitive study.

[jassi]

But did they?  Was it confirmed that Madeleine was the biological daughter of Kate and Gerry McCann?

The experts say she was and in the absence of data to prove otherwise, then what they say has to be accepted.

[Alice Purjorick]

Oh, for goodness' sake, yes!

Jeez put this in the calendar. I agree with your sentiment ferryman!

[Carana]

But did they?  Was it confirmed that Madeleine was the biological daughter of Kate and Gerry McCann?

There are several DNA threads on here.

1. Saliva on the Rothley pillowcase indicated DNA from a female child that corresponded to a natural child of the McCanns, and who - upon comparison - was not Amelie.

2. There is no known other female child aside from Madeleine and Amelie.

3. There was another sample provided later (quite possibly a birth heel-prick test), which appears to have corresponded to the same DNA as on the pillowcase.

4. Unless one is seriously into absurd conspiracy theories, the two samples correspond to what forensic scientists believe to be her DNA.

5. The fact that 15 components of her DNA were found in the car means little - as there were 15 components compatible with hers within a soup of 37 (or 38 or whatever the amount was), composed of between 3-5 people in a car used by numerous relatives (all of whom share some of her components).

[stephen25000]

Jeez put this in the calendar. I agree with your sentiment ferryman!

It's a bloody miracle.

[Robittybob1]

It's a bloody miracle.

Don't get too excited Alice only agrees with the sentiment at this stage.

[stephen25000]

Don't get too excited Alice only agrees with the sentiment at this stage.

It's not exciting.

Just ironic.

[Alice Purjorick]

Don't get too excited Alice only agrees with the sentiment at this stage.

Well just to clear that up I do not believe there was ever much doubt that GM & KM were Madeleine's parents.
Don't give me the Amaral crap as I would have ensured that was the case before I wasted time and money on potentially fruitless DNA tests. Let's know for sure who the parents are before we go off half cocked. No pun intended. You still have, however, the risk of the old "it's a wise man who knows his own father" saw.

[Robittybob1]

Well just to clear that up I do not believe there was ever much doubt that GM & KM were Madeleine's parents.
Don't give me the Amaral crap as I would have ensured that was the case before I wasted time and money on potentially fruitless DNA tests. Let's know for sure who the parents are before we go off half cocked. No pun intended. You still have, however, the risk of the old "it's a wise man who knows his own father" saw.

I was just thinking if the 15 matches that Madeleine had do they all have to match some parts of her parent's DNA.
Is it, if she is a daughter all those matches will be covered in Gerry's or Kate's DNA. 
I am so green on the subject I don't even know what they were matching.
As I said before this is a learning exercise for me.
There were 20 places where madeleine's DNA should have matched either Gerry's or Kate's but since they shared one site themselves there was a total of 19 sites to match.  I understand that bit.  But there ended up being many more portions than required which showed the sample was made up from more than 1 person.
Did you understand what they said about that?

[John]

I was just thinking if the 15 matches that Madeleine had do they all have to match some parts of her parent's DNA.
Is it, if she is a daughter all those matches will be covered in Gerry's or Kate's DNA. 
I am so green on the subject I don't even know what they were matching.
As I said before this is a learning exercise for me.
There were 20 places where madeleine's DNA should have matched either Gerry's or Kate's but since they shared one site themselves there was a total of 19 sites to match.  I understand that bit.  But there ended up being many more portions than required which showed the sample was made up from more than 1 person.
Did you understand what they said about that?

A child's DNA will contain at least some markers from each parent.  Off topic I know but did you know that some humans have two set's of DNA?

http://www.babycenter.com/0_strange-but-true-one-person-born-with-two-sets-of-dna-a-chim_10364937.bc


Identical twins possess almost identical DNA which requires a special test to distinguish between them. Scientists can sequence the entire genome of both individuals and look for any subtle, rare differences that may have resulted from genetic mutations, but the procedure is expensive and takes about a month.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/

[Carana]

I was just thinking if the 15 matches that Madeleine had do they all have to match some parts of her parent's DNA.
Is it, if she is a daughter all those matches will be covered in Gerry's or Kate's DNA. 
I am so green on the subject I don't even know what they were matching.
As I said before this is a learning exercise for me.
There were 20 places where madeleine's DNA should have matched either Gerry's or Kate's but since they shared one site themselves there was a total of 19 sites to match.  I understand that bit.  But there ended up being many more portions than required which showed the sample was made up from more than 1 person.
Did you understand what they said about that?

I don't know if my attempts at explaining it will be of any help to you:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6311.msg273367#msg273367

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6311.msg273406#msg273406

There's more on pp. 403-405 of that thread as well.

[Carana]

I was just thinking if the 15 matches that Madeleine had do they all have to match some parts of her parent's DNA.
Is it, if she is a daughter all those matches will be covered in Gerry's or Kate's DNA. 
I am so green on the subject I don't even know what they were matching.
As I said before this is a learning exercise for me.
There were 20 places where madeleine's DNA should have matched either Gerry's or Kate's but since they shared one site themselves there was a total of 19 sites to match.  I understand that bit.  But there ended up being many more portions than required which showed the sample was made up from more than 1 person.
Did you understand what they said about that?

Are you confusing the surrogate reference / later reference samples with the sample found in the boot?

The reference samples were analysed to determine what her DNA profile was, using the UK's standard nuclear forensic DNA test.

The boot sample was different: it was to analyse the DNA results of whatever was found in the boot. In the boot, they found a total of 37 alleles at the 10 marker / loci (locations) used by the UK's forensic service. Out of a hypothetical total of 20 alleles - in her case 19 due to the fact that she inherited an identical allele value from both parents - they found that there were 37 allele values in total and that therefore several people had left their DNA in that sample.

Individual alleles are not unique to a single individual: you and I may easily share 6 or more individual ones (even in the small number of locations searched for forensic purposes). We may even share two alleles at the same marker / loci (location), and I doubt very much that we are related. If we were related, we may well share more than that. It's the combination of the totality of the alleles found at the specific locations that distinguish one person from another for most intents and purposes.

There have been mistakes in the past when forensic DNA was first used as, at least in the UK, they only looked at 6 markers instead of the current 10. Forensic services in several other countries look at more than 10, but they are not always identical locations. The last time I looked, Interpol still had a database of 6, but there may be several reasons for that.




I'm not sure if my attempts at explaining will be of any help:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6311.msg273406#msg273406

There's more on pp. 403-405 as well.

[Carana]

A child's DNA will contain at least some markers from each parent.  Off topic I know but did you know that some humans have two set's of DNA?

http://www.babycenter.com/0_strange-but-true-one-person-born-with-two-sets-of-dna-a-chim_10364937.bc


Identical twins possess almost identical DNA which requires a special test to distinguish between them. Scientists can sequence the entire genome of both individuals and look for any subtle, rare differences that may have resulted from genetic mutations, but the procedure is expensive and takes about a month.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/

Yes, I'd read about that. However, that would seem to be highly unlikely to apply in Madeleine's case, although I expect that it might end up being toted as potential fact by the conspiracy lunacy fringe.

[Alice Purjorick]

I was just thinking if the 15 matches that Madeleine had do they all have to match some parts of her parent's DNA.
Is it, if she is a daughter all those matches will be covered in Gerry's or Kate's DNA. 
I am so green on the subject I don't even know what they were matching.
As I said before this is a learning exercise for me.
There were 20 places where madeleine's DNA should have matched either Gerry's or Kate's but since they shared one site themselves there was a total of 19 sites to match.  I understand that bit.  But there ended up being many more portions than required which showed the sample was made up from more than 1 person.
Did you understand what they said about that?

It is all over my head I am afraid; I did lots of technical, contract law and basic accounting. The DNA and genetics lark is a subject where people with PhD's are thick on the ground. That should illustrate something I believe. I wouldn't place too much reliance on what I could glean from Google. An authoritative book on the topic might be a better choice but it would need to start at the " the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone" level I fear.

[Carana]

It is all over my head I am afraid; I did lots of technical, contract law and basic accounting. The DNA and genetics lark is a subject where people with PhD's are thick on the ground. That should illustrate something I believe. I wouldn't place too much reliance on what I could glean from Google. An authoritative book on the topic might be a better choice but it would need to start at the " the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone" level I fear.

I don't think it requires a PhD to understand the forensic DNA results in this case, though. What hasn't helped, IMO, is the fact that various people (including bloggers, some media outlets, certain "researchers" and a certain PJ coordinator of "we policemen, experts" fame) have disseminated their muddled understanding for reasons best known to themselves. 

[Robittybob1]

I don't think it requires a PhD to understand the forensic DNA results in this case, though. What hasn't helped, IMO, is the fact that various people (including bloggers, some media outlets, certain "researchers" and a certain PJ coordinator of "we policemen, experts" fame) have disseminated their muddled understanding for reasons best known to themselves.

I've had a couple of days traveling so my head is in no state to be tackling the DNA issue just yet.  I appreciate your help, I'm not ignoring it.