The DNA results used to implicate the McCanns revisited.

[Angelo222]

So it is clear that the FSS were warning on 3rd September 2007 that the DNA results were inconclusive yet the PJ chose to claim otherwise while conducting the arguido interview with Gerry on the 7th September.  Says it all??

[Carana]

15 is the number for paternity.

Do you have a reliable source for that?

[Carana]

Angelo

May I ask what you edited out of my post, please?

[Angelo222]

Angelo

May I ask what you edited out of my post, please?

Sure, just a small typo, changed Lowe'semail to Lowe's e-mail

[Angelo222]

I find this comment by Mr Amaral in his book remarkable.

At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: “With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England.” I look at my colleagues and see that they are as stupified as I am.

[Jean-Pierre]

I agree, Angelo.  I think perhaps Amaral "misremembered" some things for his book. 

[DCI]

I find this comment by Mr Amaral in his book remarkable.

At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: “With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England.” I look at my colleagues and see that they are as stupified as I am.

I'd like to know what answer Stuart got, from the FSS. 

Didn't Amaral have the UK police followed for their every move to be watched?

[Carana]

So it is clear that the FSS were warning on 3rd September 2007 that the DNA results were inconclusive yet the PJ chose to claim otherwise while conducting the arguido interview with Gerry on the 7th September.  Says it all??

If I'm not mistaken, under the new legislation that would have come into effect a week later, the arguidos would have had the right to know the evidence for the "reasoned suspicions" against them. I'll try to double-check that.

[AnneGuedes]

So it is clear that the FSS were warning on 3rd September 2007 that the DNA results were inconclusive yet the PJ chose to claim otherwise while conducting the arguido interview with Gerry on the 7th September.  Says it all??

The Portuguese were convinced the LCN was the nec plus ultra, which it wasn't. They should have read Prof Allan Jamieson "warning of the dangers of not understanding the potential for honest error and margins of error. These new techniques are undoubtedly of tremendous value as intelligence in criminal investigation. In cold cases the requirement for other corroborative evidence must reflect the increased uncertainty in the LCN results."
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-2/1003857.aspx#.UhYuMNduuck

[Carana]

Sure, just a small typo, changed Lowe'semail to Lowe's e-mail

Ah. Thanks.

[Carana]

I agree, Angelo.  I think perhaps Amaral "misremembered" some things for his book.

Well, Luz assured us that it was true as someone in that room (apparently not Amaral) confirmed it to her. I did ask if that "someone" understood English, but I never got a reply.

[Jean-Pierre]

I'd like to know what answer Stuart got, from the FSS. 

Didn't Amaral have the UK police followed for their every move to be watched?

Are you working on the assumtion that this conversation actually took place, DCI?

[AnneGuedes]

If I'm not mistaken, under the new legislation that would have come into effect a week later, the arguidos would have had the right to know the evidence for the "reasoned suspicions" against them. I'll try to double-check that.

The arguidos "ancient law" had a lot of rights, about the same the assistants in the process have (a requirement the McCanns did and that was granted by the PM).

[Carana]

I find this comment by Mr Amaral in his book remarkable.

Particularly as further up he stated that the PJ team didn't share Prior's "disappointment" with the results.

[DCI]

Are you working on the assumtion that this conversation actually took place, DCI?

No JP, quite the opposite, sorry, I was being sarcastic!