Why did the FSS in the UK botch the DNA tests?

[debunker]

Could it be that the Portuguese wanted to apply their Law as relates to the number of DNA markers which constitute a match and this was unacceptable to the UK whose baseline is 20 markers for a match under the Law?

NO.

Such LCNDNA from a mixed sample of three or more people can NEVER identify anyone under any legal system.

[gilet]

Could it be that the Portuguese wanted to apply their Law as relates to the number of DNA markers which constitute a match and this was unacceptable to the UK whose baseline is 20 markers for a match under the Law?

But surely UK law is irrelevant to Portuguese justice? I would have expected that the FSS had worked with many other jurisidictions besides the UK and would be aware that such differences existed.

[Chinagirl]

Could it be that the Portuguese wanted to apply their Law as relates to the number of DNA markers which constitute a match and this was unacceptable to the UK whose baseline is 20 markers for a match under the Law?

NO.

Such LCNDNA from a mixed sample of three or more people can NEVER identify anyone under any legal system.

Deserves a bump.

[Carana]

Could it be that the Portuguese wanted to apply their Law as relates to the number of DNA markers which constitute a match and this was unacceptable to the UK whose baseline is 20 markers for a match under the Law?

No, John. The number of alleles examined by the different countries' forensic services is not the issue here.

In that boot sample, they found 15 alleles matching hers in a soup of 37 belonging to between 3 and 5 people in a hire car used by her immediate family, various relations and other people.

Those alleles are not exclusive to her - she inherited them from her parents, after all. A number of them will also match those in her siblings' profiles. And it is quite common to share 5-6 with a total stranger.

The issue is that, because the sample was a soup to which several people had contributed, there is no way of telling whether those 15 were actually hers or were simply the combination of those that she shares with each of the other people who contributed to that sample.

As Debunker pointed out, the initial PT police team didn't seem to understand the soup issue for some reason. Even if there had been all 19 present, the situation would still be the same.

[Chinagirl]

Note well:

Even if there had been all 19 present, the situation would still be the same.

[debunker]

Could it be that the Portuguese wanted to apply their Law as relates to the number of DNA markers which constitute a match and this was unacceptable to the UK whose baseline is 20 markers for a match under the Law?

No, John. The number of alleles examined by the different countries' forensic services is not the issue here.

In that boot sample, they found 15 alleles matching hers in a soup of 37 belonging to between 3 and 5 people in a hire car used by her immediate family, various relations and other people.

Those alleles are not exclusive to her - she inherited them from her parents, after all. A number of them will also match those in her
siblings' profiles. And it is quite common to share 5-6 with a total stranger.

The issue is that, because the sample was a soup to which several people had contributed, there is no way of telling whether those 15 were actually hers or were simply the combination of those that she shares with each of the other people who contributed to that sample.

As Debunker pointed out, the initial PT police team didn't seem to understand the soup issue for some reason. Even if there had been all 19 present, the situation would still be the same.

It is even more complicated than that. Each marker can be attached to several different sites. Normal DNA relies on specific markers being identified at specifi sites. With LCNDNA the site informationis lost, hence the 50% chance that the 37 allele soup would match any three random Europeans.

[Carana]

There are a lot of files NOT available in the files released July 2008

Were ALL the forensic details released?

This suggests they were not.


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/english-in-portimo-to-defend-secrecy.html

English in Portimão to defend secrecy - Correio da Manhã
18 July 2008 | Posted by astro Leave a Comment

‘CM’ reveals – 15 of the 19 genetic markers found

English want secrecy

The McCanns want to hide the data from the Birmingham laboratory

One magistrate and two policemen, including Stuart Prior, responsible for the connection with the PJ, were at the Court in Portimão yesterday, trying to convince the Public Ministry prosecutor Magalhães e Menezes not to release the entire process of the disappearance of Madeleine from the judicial secrecy. One of the situations that the English want is that the preliminary report from the Birmingham lab, which mentions that “15 of the 19 genetic markers that were found in a residue that was collected from the couple’s car’s boot, are a match [with the missing child]” is not made public. Their pretention was denied.

Also the residues that were collected behind the sofa, according to the first report, “coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann”, which led the Portuguese police and also the English liaison officer to fundament their suspicions that the child died between 5.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, and that the body was transported in the car that was rented by the parents 22 days later.

With the lifting of the judicial secrecy next week, some of those documents may be made public. CM knows that the fundaments of the preliminary report, allied to the elements that were collected by the investigation in the meantime, led the authorities onto the path of the parents as suspects of the child’s death. Kate and Gerry McCann later alleged that there were no indicia against them, but another report, signed by Mark Harrisom, the English policeman who was assigned to help the Portuguese authorities, also peremptorily stated that the little girl was dead.

May I suggest that you read this:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

[Carana]

The submission is too long to post. In a nutshell, the UK police services went ballistic about the leaks in the PT press.

Their concerns are under four headings:


A. Material relating to condemned and suspected sex offenders
B. Intelligence Reports
C. Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)
D. Communication between Police Forces

An interesting read.


The prosecutor agreed.


From the Public Prosecutor's Office

Conclusion on 03-07-2008

Apenso VI - 1 Information, lists of suspects of sexual crimes contains elements that refer to matters from the private sphere of citizens that do not have any reference to these case files, as they were sent as informative data to be returned and for the purposes of helping the investigation, their function stopping there. The remaining of these documents in the case files would be a violation of the global defence of private rights of the citizens involved by means of the public divulgation of these elements, in relation to which the interest of the investigation was not justified. There for these reasons please return the two volumes that make up the Apenso Vi - 1 to the PJ, they should be returned to the UK police forces which sent them and to the other police forces that delivered them, according to article no. 86 no. 7 of the CPP.

Ptm 18-07-2008
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

[Eleanor]

The submission is too long to post. In a nutshell, the UK police services went ballistic about the leaks in the PT press.

Their concerns are under four headings:


A. Material relating to condemned and suspected sex offenders
B. Intelligence Reports
C. Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)
D. Communication between Police Forces

An interesting read.


The prosecutor agreed.


From the Public Prosecutor's Office

Conclusion on 03-07-2008

Apenso VI - 1 Information, lists of suspects of sexual crimes contains elements that refer to matters from the private sphere of citizens that do not have any reference to these case files, as they were sent as informative data to be returned and for the purposes of helping the investigation, their function stopping there. The remaining of these documents in the case files would be a violation of the global defence of private rights of the citizens involved by means of the public divulgation of these elements, in relation to which the interest of the investigation was not justified. There for these reasons please return the two volumes that make up the Apenso Vi - 1 to the PJ, they should be returned to the UK police forces which sent them and to the other police forces that delivered them, according to article no. 86 no. 7 of the CPP.

Ptm 18-07-2008
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

Exactly.  That is what the Unreleased Files amount to.  Absolutely no secret evidence against The McCanns.  Just protecting the privacy of some other people.

[Carana]

It's a bit more complicated than that...

[debunker]

It's a bit more complicated than that...

Care to explain?

[Carana]

It's a bit more complicated than that...

Care to explain?

It's not just about privacy.

[debunker]

Care to explain?

[Carana]

Care to explain?

There are 4 main categories of issues.

[debunker]

Care to explain?