Did the McCann"s sudden flight from Portugal engender suspicion?

[Alice Purjorick]

If you only have a small amount of material or it is degraded then I suppose LCN is better than nowt.


Provided one understands the limitations.

Like these limitations you mean?

The whole process was considered unreliable.
This is from the link above which some will undoubtedly not be bothered to open
 LCN DNA testing has been validated only by the FSS's own scientists, rather than by outside experts, and the defence's continual questioning of the method was aided by a test result from a failed bomb explosion in Lisburn, in April 1998, that Sean Hoey was also charged with.

When the defused device was analysed using the FSS's technique, the strongest initial DNA profile was found to be that of a teenage boy from Nottinghamshire.
 In an attempt to bolster their case, the prosecution called Peter Gill, one of the inventors of the LCN technique. But under cross examination he said some of the results put forward by the prosecution were "valueless", and that LCN was a complex area in which there were "shades of grey".

That led Mr Justice Weir to say: "When this evidence is presented on behalf of the prosecution, no-one talks about it in terms of shades of grey. It's put forward as evidence I can rely on."

[Jean-Pierre]

Like these limitations you mean?

The whole process was considered unreliable.
This is from the link above which some will undoubtedly not be bothered to open
 LCN DNA testing has been validated only by the FSS's own scientists, rather than by outside experts, and the defence's continual questioning of the method was aided by a test result from a failed bomb explosion in Lisburn, in April 1998, that Sean Hoey was also charged with.

When the defused device was analysed using the FSS's technique, the strongest initial DNA profile was found to be that of a teenage boy from Nottinghamshire.
 In an attempt to bolster their case, the prosecution called Peter Gill, one of the inventors of the LCN technique. But under cross examination he said some of the results put forward by the prosecution were "valueless", and that LCN was a complex area in which there were "shades of grey".

That led Mr Justice Weir to say: "When this evidence is presented on behalf of the prosecution, no-one talks about it in terms of shades of grey. It's put forward as evidence I can rely on."

LCN DNA testing is revolutionary (in that it allows a DNA profile to be procuded from very poor material.  And can give an indication but the limitations need to be made clear and understood by those analysing the results.

This leads to two problems:

(a) There is commercial pressure on the labs which causes over exaggeration of the effectiveness of the technique.

(b) The prosecution can get a bit overexcited and forget to mention the limitations and that caution is needed.


Which underlines the need for a good defence team who can provide the necessary counterbalance.  It is too easy for the court to get carried away with "expert" opinion. And means that the legal aid "reforms" are so incredibly shortsighted and will cost more money in the end. 

Sorry for the slightly off topic rant -

I'll get my coat.   


 

[Alice Purjorick]

Like these limitations you mean?

The whole process was considered unreliable.
This is from the link above which some will undoubtedly not be bothered to open
 LCN DNA testing has been validated only by the FSS's own scientists, rather than by outside experts, and the defence's continual questioning of the method was aided by a test result from a failed bomb explosion in Lisburn, in April 1998, that Sean Hoey was also charged with.

When the defused device was analysed using the FSS's technique, the strongest initial DNA profile was found to be that of a teenage boy from Nottinghamshire.
 In an attempt to bolster their case, the prosecution called Peter Gill, one of the inventors of the LCN technique. But under cross examination he said some of the results put forward by the prosecution were "valueless", and that LCN was a complex area in which there were "shades of grey".

That led Mr Justice Weir to say: "When this evidence is presented on behalf of the prosecution, no-one talks about it in terms of shades of grey. It's put forward as evidence I can rely on."

ooops wrong place

[Alice Purjorick]

LCN DNA testing is revolutionary (in that it allows a DNA profile to be procuded from very poor material.  And can give an indication but the limitations need to be made clear and understood by those analysing the results.

This leads to two problems:

(a) There is commercial pressure on the labs which causes over exaggeration of the effectiveness of the technique.

(b) The prosecution can get a bit overexcited and forget to mention the limitations and that caution is needed.


Which underlines the need for a good defence team who can provide the necessary counterbalance.  It is too easy for the court to get carried away with "expert" opinion. And means that the legal aid "reforms" are so incredibly shortsighted and will cost more money in the end. 

Sorry for the slightly off topic rant -

I'll get my coat.   

I don't see designing structures or pressure vessels with such a lackadaisical attitude.
Yeah well it might fall down/fail/burst/ [delete as applicable] it's a grey area.
The fact that the FSS was greased and the new outfit uses a different test is perhaps indicia as Dr Amaral might say   

[Mr Gray]

I don't see designing structures or pressure vessels with such a lackadaisical attitude.
Yeah well it might fall down/fail/burst/ [delete as applicable] it's a grey area.
The fact that the FSS was greased and the new outfit uses a different test is perhaps indicia as Dr Amaral might say   

Amaral didn't seem to understand dna ..full stop.....if you read was is said about LCN DNA you will realise it is not the technique that was criticised but the interpretation of the results....Just because the accused dna was recognised at the scene does not prove he had been there as the presence could be explained by cross contamination..

[Mr Gray]

This was the statement by prof Dan Krane,

Low Copy Number tests are much more prone to flexible interpretation, than with the conventional tests.

"Because of its great sensitivity, there are much greater concerns about the persistence of DNA and its ability to be transferred from one article to another.

"It's just too easy for contamination to occur, or for DNA to have become associated with an article through very innocent, very old contact."

No criticism of the technique...just the interpretation. No one disputed that Sean Hoey's DNA was found at the crime scene by analysis by the FSS using LCN techniques...what was disputed was how it got there

[Carana]

There were many with that belief.
Read what Professor Dan Kane and Mr Justice Weir said at the trial of Sean Hoey in December 2007.
Also the comments on LCN techniques made by the procedures deviser Peter Gill, at the Hoey trial; his statement led to caustic comments about the reliability of the techniques by Mr Justice Weir.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7154189.stm

Yes, I'm aware of controversial cases involving LCN.

However, in this case, where there was not enough DNA to do the tests via other means, LCN was the only other option, AFAIK. So it was that or nothing.

As it is so sensitive, contamination can occur, and requires stringent protocols and sterile conditions. An interesting Portuguese forensic blog that I'd once found explained that it wasn't that PT didn't have the technical expertise to be able to do LCN, but it was that the investment in the conditions necessary were too high (at least at the time - the blog articles would have been around 2008).

But that's not my issue with Amaral's understanding of forensics.

He makes it sound as if the lab had confirmed blood - which it hadn't... you have to read much further down to discover that, according to him, it had to be blood as Keela had reacted. (Perhaps Keela was correct, but if she is indeed capable of detecting blood to molecular level, then there's no way of detecting whose it may have been - it could even be from someone who'd previously rented the car.)

He then says that he'd been informed that 50% of Gerry's alleles were found it the sample... (Perhaps, but that's not in the FSS reports. So that must be hearsay.)

And then, this leap into fuzzy logic asserting that the remainder must therefore be blood from one of his children, and it couldn't have been one of the twins because the lab had their profiles.

In a sample containing 37 alleles from between 3 to 5 donors, and in which only 15 of Madeleine's alleles were found, and in which no blood had been identified by forensic means, that categorical assertion just doesn't follow.

As only 15 were found, either her full profile had been in it, but the sample had been degraded by the sun, humidity or whatever else, or the alleles didn't belong to her and were simply the combination of those alleles in her profile which were also present in the profiles of the various donors.

And even if it had been her DNA in the car... it still doesn't mean anything sinister at all.

[Carana]

Intriguingly, he avoids saying that Madeleine had inherited all of Gerry's 10 components found in the car (if ever his information of 50% were true), neither does he mention how many of Kate's were found. There might only have been e.g., 3-4 of her components inherited from those found corresponding to his profile ... but that wouldn't fit with the theory.

If he had known, why on earth would he have missed the opportunity to say so?

[Carana]

As for the second case, after an explanation about the DNA components in Madeleine’s genetic profile, it concludes that 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine’s profile are present in the sample examined. Only 4 short of 100% reliability. The FSS specialists qualify the results as, “complex,” and state that these 15 markers are not enough to conclude with certainty that it’s definitely Madeleine’s DNA profile, especially as Low Copy Number picked out a total of 37 in the sample. That means that at least three individuals contributed to this result.

Either he really doesn't understand or he's deliberately being misleading.

There could have been all 19 of her components in that soup of 37. It still wouldn't mean that it was a 100% certainty that it was indeed her as opposed to a combination of all the donors found in that sample.


And this bit:

Another question was simple: why did the DNA profile from those three donors contribute to Madeleine’s DNA profile and not to that of any other person, like the scientist who carried out the test?

I don't even understand what he doesn't understand...

[Mr Gray]

As for the second case, after an explanation about the DNA components in Madeleine’s genetic profile, it concludes that 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine’s profile are present in the sample examined. Only 4 short of 100% reliability. The FSS specialists qualify the results as, “complex,” and state that these 15 markers are not enough to conclude with certainty that it’s definitely Madeleine’s DNA profile, especially as Low Copy Number picked out a total of 37 in the sample. That means that at least three individuals contributed to this result.

Either he really doesn't understand or he's deliberately being misleading.

There could have been all 19 of her components in that soup of 37. It still wouldn't mean that it was a 100% certainty that it was indeed her as opposed to a combination of all the donors found in that sample.


And this bit:

Another question was simple: why did the DNA profile from those three donors contribute to Madeleine’s DNA profile and not to that of any other person, like the scientist who carried out the test?[/i]

I don't even understand what he doesn't understand...

Amaral was wrong again...they WOULD have contributed to another persons profile

[Alice Purjorick]

Amaral didn't seem to understand dna ..full stop.....if you read was is said about LCN DNA you will realise it is not the technique that was criticised but the interpretation of the results....Just because the accused dna was recognised at the scene does not prove he had been there as the presence could be explained by cross contamination..

Wouldn't have done him too much good even if he had. FSS were discredited and trashed with LCN in other cases.
Or are you saying Professor Kane and others are wrong?
Well I guess you are as your stock answer to anything you find inconvenient is "you are wrong"or Amaral is a w........

[Mr Gray]

Wouldn't have done him too much good even if he had. FSS were discredited and trashed with LCN in other cases.
Or are you saying Professor Kane and others are wrong?
Well I guess you are as your stock answer to anything you find inconvenient is "you are wrong"or Amaral is a w........

You really are making a fool of yourself...you do not understand Kane's criticism of LCN. Kane never criticised LCN...he criticised the interpretation  of its results. LCN has been used worldwide to convict thousands...not just by the FSS. you need to get your facts right. Professor Kane was absolutely right...and so am I

[Mr Gray]

It has been used in more than 21,000 serious crime cases in the UK and internationally, particularly in "cold" cases. A FSS spokesman said: "LCN DNA analysis is only carried out by the most-experienced DNA scientists, who have undergone special additional training and testing in this area of casework."[5] However, the technique came under attack from the Judge during the trial of Sean Hoey - who was eventually cleared of involvement in the Omagh Bombing. One of the criticisms the judge leveled at LCN was that although the FSS had internally validated and published scientific papers on the technique, there was an alleged lack of external validation by the wider scientific community.[6] Following the Judge's ruling, the use of the technique was suspended in the UK, pending a review by the Crown Prosecution Service. This review was completed and the suspension lifted on the January 14, 2008 with the CPS stating that it had not seen anything to suggest that any current problems exist with LCN

[Alice Purjorick]

Yes, I'm aware of controversial cases involving LCN.

However, in this case, where there was not enough DNA to do the tests via other means, LCN was the only other option, AFAIK. So it was that or nothing.

As it is so sensitive, contamination can occur, and requires stringent protocols and sterile conditions. An interesting Portuguese forensic blog that I'd once found explained that it wasn't that PT didn't have the technical expertise to be able to do LCN, but it was that the investment in the conditions necessary were too high (at least at the time - the blog articles would have been around 2008).

But that's not my issue with Amaral's understanding of forensics.

He makes it sound as if the lab had confirmed blood - which it hadn't... you have to read much further down to discover that, according to him, it had to be blood as Keela had reacted. (Perhaps Keela was correct, but if she is indeed capable of detecting blood to molecular level, then there's no way of detecting whose it may have been - it could even be from someone who'd previously rented the car.)

He then says that he'd been informed that 50% of Gerry's alleles were found it the sample... (Perhaps, but that's not in the FSS reports. So that must be hearsay.)

And then, this leap into fuzzy logic asserting that the remainder must therefore be blood from one of his children, and it couldn't have been one of the twins because the lab had their profiles.

In a sample containing 37 alleles from between 3 to 5 donors, and in which only 15 of Madeleine's alleles were found, and in which no blood had been identified by forensic means, that categorical assertion just doesn't follow.

As only 15 were found, either her full profile had been in it, but the sample had been degraded by the sun, humidity or whatever else, or the alleles didn't belong to her and were simply the combination of those alleles in her profile which were also present in the profiles of the various donors.

And even if it had been her DNA in the car... it still doesn't mean anything sinister at all.

Given the way the FSS were greased in at least one other case how much credibility can be placed on anything they said in the McCann case ? By their own admissions there are "grey areas". So they said "nah 't ain't anything to do with MM, conclusively"; much the same way as they said "oh yes 'twas  Sean Hoey conclusively". Well we now the latter was bollocks as upheld by an English court and basically upheld by evidence given by the originator of the LCN technique. How much do you want to lay on the former being true?

Then there is the issue of their[FSS] representatives refusing to be interviewed by Summers and Swann.

[Mr Gray]

Given the way the FSS were greased in at least one other case how much credibility can be placed on anything they said in the McCann case ? By their own admissions there are "grey areas". So they said "nah 't ain't anything to do with MM, conclusively"; much the same way as they said "oh yes 'twas  Sean Hoey conclusively". Well we now the latter was bollocks as upheld by an English court and basically upheld by evidence given by the originator of the LCN technique. How much do you want to lay on the former being true?

Then there is the issue of their[FSS] representatives refusing to be interviewed by Summers and Swann.

Again you need to get your facts right....The FSS never said it was Sean Hoey conclusively...on that you are 100% wrong...they said it was Sean Hoey's DNA  conclusively and neither the judge, professor Kane nor defence counsel disagreed with that. The question was how Sean Hoeys dna came to be at the crime scene and the court accepted that cross contamination was POSSIBLE and therefore did not accept the evidence