Amaral and the dogs

[ShiningInLuz]

I have no idea where it has been stated that results would be inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se, other than in blogs and TV pundit "experts". I see no reason why they couldn't be, but simply not submitted as conclusive evidence.

The 'inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se" was merely a question my brain invented.

Let me try this again, if you would be so kind.

What is the number of matches required within Portugal in order for it have any kind of validity in court?

If the FSS tried 20, found Madeleine had one duplicate, then 15 out of 19 sounds close (before anyone piles in, I mean in a superficial manner).

However, if Portugal's standard was 30, and Madeleine still had say, just the 1 duplicate, then 15 out of 29 sounds, at the same superficial level, as a waste of time.

That was the thinking behind my request for a cite.

Does Portugal test 15x2 all the time, or a sub-set thereof (pick any 10 from 15), and how far up the stats does it have to go to have any form of legal credibility?

[Eleanor]

The 'inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se" was merely a question my brain invented.

Let me try this again, if you would be so kind.

What is the number of matches required within Portugal in order for it have any kind of validity in court?

If the FSS tried 20, found Madeleine had one duplicate, then 15 out of 19 sounds close (before anyone piles in, I mean in a superficial manner).

However, if Portugal's standard was 30, and Madeleine still had say, just the 1 duplicate, then 15 out of 29 sounds, at the same superficial level, as a waste of time.

That was the thinking behind my request for a cite.

Does Portugal test 15x2 all the time, or a sub-set thereof (pick any 10 from 15), and how far up the stats does it have to go to have any form of legal credibility?

I think it has to be a 95% match.  But I could be wrong about this

[Alfred R Jones]

I think it has to be a 95% match.  But I could be wrong about this

Don't all human beings have a 95% DNA match to chimpanzees?  Well some do anyway...

[stephen25000]

Don't all human beings have a 95% DNA match to chimpanzees?  Well some do anyway...

Actually Alfred it's approx. 98%

I did hear once that a chimpanzee called Lucy, had a higher I.Q. than an ex-President of the United States.

That could be a rumour though.

[Alfred R Jones]

Actually Alfred it's approx. 98%

I did hear once that a chimpanzee called Lucy, had a higher I.Q. than an ex-President of the United States.

That could be a rumour though.

The question is - would a dog alert to a chimp cadaver...?  &%+((£

[stephen25000]

The question is - would a dog alert to a chimp cadaver...?  &%+((£

If I remember correctly Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes, compared to our 23, but I would imagine maybe apart from a few football players,  , they can be differentiated.

[Carana]

The 'inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se" was merely a question my brain invented.

Let me try this again, if you would be so kind.

What is the number of matches required within Portugal in order for it have any kind of validity in court?

If the FSS tried 20, found Madeleine had one duplicate, then 15 out of 19 sounds close (before anyone piles in, I mean in a superficial manner).

However, if Portugal's standard was 30, and Madeleine still had say, just the 1 duplicate, then 15 out of 29 sounds, at the same superficial level, as a waste of time.

That was the thinking behind my request for a cite.

Does Portugal test 15x2 all the time, or a sub-set thereof (pick any 10 from 15), and how far up the stats does it have to go to have any form of legal credibility?

I'm not sure that I can answer your question, Shining.

I'd have to check back again, but AFIK, PT courts admitted specks of unidentified human blood as evidence of Joana Cipriano's alleged bloody "fate"... The forensic report doesn't appear to be online, but the fact that no profile appears to have been obtained linking any of the specks to the child seems to have been considered an inconsequential detail.

ETA: It's up to the various countries to establish the quantity and marker locations they use for criminal forensic purposes. The UK was making noises about moving up to 16 markers ages ago, but I don't know if they have done yet or not.
.

[Carana]

The 'inadmissible in a Portuguese court per se" was merely a question my brain invented.

Let me try this again, if you would be so kind.

What is the number of matches required within Portugal in order for it have any kind of validity in court?

If the FSS tried 20, found Madeleine had one duplicate, then 15 out of 19 sounds close (before anyone piles in, I mean in a superficial manner).

However, if Portugal's standard was 30, and Madeleine still had say, just the 1 duplicate, then 15 out of 29 sounds, at the same superficial level, as a waste of time.

That was the thinking behind my request for a cite.

Does Portugal test 15x2 all the time, or a sub-set thereof (pick any 10 from 15), and how far up the stats does it have to go to have any form of legal credibility?

I see your point: 15/19 sounds more interesting than 15/29... but it's all still a matter of probability and in a mixed, degraded sample there's no way of knowing whether the missing alleles are due to degradation or whether they were never there in the first place.

I tried to see whether the UK had changed their system yet or not... I'm still not sure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21626086

There are other DNA tests possible, btw.

Forensic DNA research appears to have advanced by leaps and bounds in the past few years, but I haven't really kept up with the latest news.

The link below is now quite ancient, but it illustrates how different geographical areas concentrated on certain marker locations. I assume that the ethnic mix is a consideration.

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/str_fact.htm

[Carana]

@ Shining

A thought for the pot that I touched upon earlier.

If say, for some unlikely reason, I was claiming to be you - that's easy to work out if we both gave uncontaminated mouth swabs. The moment the results show alleles in my profile that aren't in yours, it's established that we aren't the same person.

However, it's a different kettle of fish to try to establish someone's potential presence at a location at a certain point of time when you are peering into a genetic minestrone in a car boot.

[Carana]

I think it has to be a 95% match.  But I could be wrong about this

It depends what you're trying to establish.

You can't be 95% someone's child. Either all the marker components examnined match or they don't. If some don't, then you're not that person's child.

If you're trying to establish that a victim / or a perp was somewhere at a certain time, I see no reason why one party or the other couldn't try to add that possibility / probability as one factor among others. Depending on the system, the judge might chuck it out or not. The defence for the other side might contest it. Or no one contests it and jurors nod like donkeys.

People are on death row for far less.

[Eleanor]

It depends what you're trying to establish.

You can't be 95% someone's child. Either all the marker components examnined match or they don't. If some don't, then you're not that person's child.

If you're trying to establish that a victim / or a perp was somewhere at a certain time, I see no reason why one party or the other couldn't try to add that possibility / probability as one factor among others. Depending on the system, the judge might chuck it out or not. The defence for the other side might contest it. Or no one contests it and jurors nod like donkeys.

People are on death row for far less.

That's what worries me.

[ferryman]

It depends what you're trying to establish.

You can't be 95% someone's child. Either all the marker components examnined match or they don't. If some don't, then you're not that person's child.

If you're trying to establish that a victim / or a perp was somewhere at a certain time, I see no reason why one party or the other couldn't try to add that possibility / probability as one factor among others. Depending on the system, the judge might chuck it out or not. The defence for the other side might contest it. Or no one contests it and jurors nod like donkeys.

People are on death row for far less.

Surely the part I underline needn't, strictly, be true if there is more than one contributor to the mix?

[Carana]

Surely the part I underline needn't, strictly, be true if there is more than one contributor to the mix?

If someone is trying to prove paternity, it would help to have tests using clean mouth swabs.

The situation in bootgate is more ambiguous. In theory, I would have thought that a modern court wouldn't even entertain it as evidence... but then the Cipriano trial was just 10 years ago...

Another point is that even if there had been all 19 in that soup of 37, it still wouldn't mean that she had ever been in that car... it could easily be that both her parents had touched the same spot while unloading the car one day. And even if it had been her DNA, there are a number of innocuous reasons why it could be there, all of which somewhat more likely than transporting a thawing corpse.

[Mr Gray]

Surely now that the alerts have been proved to be undisputed facts by the Portuguese courts then the Portuguese courts would have to accept them as evidence

[G-Unit]

Surely now that the alerts have been proved to be undisputed facts by the Portuguese courts then the Portuguese courts would have to accept them as evidence

I don't think there was ever any doubt that the dogs alerted, was there?