MADELEINE'S DNA - definitive study.

[ferryman]

Is that just your opinion or do you have a cite to confirm that was the official position of the FSS ?

Whatever was the official position of the FSS it seems (the FSS) failed, to explain the forensic results in terms certain elements of the PJ were able to understand.

To be clear, more of a failure on the part of the PJ than the FSS.

John Lowe tried to keep it as simple and clear as he could.

[Carana]

Actually the DNA results were very complicated, which is why they were unable to make any meaningful interpretation from them.

Hmmm.

The actual DNA results weren't complicated. However, the results couldn't answer the issue as to whether the 15 alleles - out of the soup of 37 - were even hers (which could have been there for totally innocent reasons even if there had been some way of proving that they belonged to her: moving belongings, for example), let alone whether they were indicative of a dead child's remains.

[Carana]

To know the official position of the FSS to the disclosures would be interesting.  Diplomacy seems to have a big part to play.

IMO, the initial email from Lowe was an attempt to explain the basics, presumably for the attention of anyone unfamiliar with the subject at all: one bit comes from Mummy, the other bit comes from Daddy...

The formal report is just that... formal. Not intended for the same audience.

[Mr Gray]

Is that just your opinion or do you have a cite to confirm that was the official position of the FSS ?

If I can understand the DNA results and many on here can they can't be complicated

[Robittybob1]

IMO, the initial email from Lowe was an attempt to explain the basics, presumably for the attention of anyone unfamiliar with the subject at all: one bit comes from Mummy, the other bit comes from Daddy...
....

That would be taking it back to the basics.

[Robittybob1]

If I can understand the DNA results and many on here can they can't be complicated

Anyone can think they have understood it but the real test is proving they have they understood it correctly.  How can you be sure you've understood it correctly?  What proof can you provide?  Give us some insight that you have by which we can assess your perfect knowledge on the topic please?

[Carana]

That would be taking it back to the basics.

Erm, yes. LOL

Let's try a different approach.

Between 3-5 people decide to make a mixed soup. Each person brings along a number of ingredients. A number of the ingredients are the same (carrot, onion, sweetcorn, beans...) A few other different ingredients are whatever any of the people had in their cupboard / fridge.

Once the soup is made, you can't say that any of the vegetables in common were contributed by any one particular person. On the other hand, neither can you exclude that a combination of the same vegetables dumped into the pot were not donated by a particular person.

If a chili pepper and bits of courgette are found (and were not contributed by the supposed victim), then one or more other people contributed to that soup, as well as their own bits of carrot, sweetcorn and beans.

[Carana]

Anyone can think they have understood it but the real test is proving they have they understood it correctly.  How can you be sure you've understood it correctly?  What proof can you provide?  Give us some insight that you have by which we can assess your perfect knowledge on the topic please?

What is it that you don't understand, Rob?

Corte Real (the head of the PT forensic service) came to the same conclusion as Lowe.

[Robittybob1]

What is it that you don't understand, Rob?

Corte Real (the head of the PT forensic service) came to the same conclusion as Lowe.

I'm not questioning your understanding, in fact you have repeatedly shown us you do understand.  It just that I have never attempted to understand it but this time I was going to try.
In the past I have understood they had Madeleine's DNA profile. (the pillow and the heel prick sample)
That profile showed she was the biological offspring of her parents Kate and Gerry.

[Carana]

I'm not questioning your understanding, in fact you have repeatedly shown us you do understand.  It just that I have never attempted to understand it but this time I was going to try.
In the past I have understood they had Madeleine's DNA profile. (the pillow and the heel prick sample)
That that profile showed she was the biological offspring of her parents Kate and Gerry.

Yes. The pillow sample was a presumptive reference. I've never seen anything to indicate that it was a mixed sample. The other sample, stated as being a reference one appears to coinciide. It's not entirely clear whether the second one was indeed a heel-prick one, but that would seem to be the most logical source.

[G-Unit]

Any help?


An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

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

I've no idea whether Amaral even got this bit correct, but for what it's worth, there were apparently only 5 alleles in the flat sample - which, if true, means absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Five alleles could be compatible with yours, mine or those of virtually anyone else, or even a mixture.


GA: There is a recent report and there are two other reports. The first one mentions 15 alleles and here is the main question, it places the focus, they place the focus on that part of the exam from the vehicle, in the second [report] they then focus on the apartment, if on one side 15 alleles were not enough, in the other there were only 5 alleles that matched Madeleine McCann's genetic profile, what could be read there was that there were almost no problems. Because it's easily justifiable. It may not be justifiable with the cadaver odour on the spot where the blood sample was collected, but therefore, inside the house it is easy to justify, it's more difficult with a car that was rented more than twenty days later. So this is where the major confusion lies.

(Source:
"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI, broadcast live on 28 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for transcription and translation
Thanks to Joana Morais for collage

This is the transcript of an interview with Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, by Júlia Pinheiro, on 'As Tardes da Júlia', TVI, broadcast live on the 28th of July 2008.)

I'm still not clear where you got this number of alleles from, sorry;

there were apparently only 5 alleles in the flat sample

[Carana]

I'm still not clear where you got this number of alleles from, sorry;

there were apparently only 5 alleles in the flat sample

I was referring to your post: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7862.msg373819#msg373819

in which you'd said that:


"What was confirmed was that the pillowcase from Rothley had DNA on it consistent with a natural child of the McCanns. The DNA also matched a sample provided by Leicester Police in October 2007. There is also this;

With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann. (swab 3A)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm

So the DNA from the pillowcase, from the LP sample and on swab 3A all matched. Swab 3A was taken from the floor of 5A behind the sofa."

The way I understood what you were saying (or at least how it could be interpreted) is that there was a full match of her DNA profile on Swab 3A - which doesn't appear to be the case.

I haven't found anything other than swab 3a that Amaral could have been referring to, unless someone else has. Where he got the information that there were only 5 alleles... I have no idea as it can't be corroborated from the files.

Even if there HAD been a full profile match... she'd lived there for 5 days.

Don't forget that these swabs were taken months after her disappearance - and the flat was not only a holiday rental unit, but had been relet four times before these swabs were taken.

[Alice Purjorick]

If I can understand the DNA results and many on here can they can't be complicated

So no cite and only your word that you have understanding of the DNA results.
Sorry chief no cigar
Next please.

[G-Unit]

I was referring to your post: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7862.msg373819#msg373819

in which you'd said that:


"What was confirmed was that the pillowcase from Rothley had DNA on it consistent with a natural child of the McCanns. The DNA also matched a sample provided by Leicester Police in October 2007. There is also this;

With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann. (swab 3A)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm

So the DNA from the pillowcase, from the LP sample and on swab 3A all matched. Swab 3A was taken from the floor of 5A behind the sofa."

The way I understood what you were saying (or at least how it could be interpreted) is that there was a full match of her DNA profile on Swab 3A - which doesn't appear to be the case.

I haven't found anything other than swab 3a that Amaral could have been referring to, unless someone else has. Where he got the information that there were only 5 alleles... I have no idea as it can't be corroborated from the files.

Even if there HAD been a full profile match... she'd lived there for 5 days.

Don't forget that these swabs were taken months after her disappearance - and the flat was not only a holiday rental unit, but had been relet four times before these swabs were taken.

Well I never mentioned Amaral or 5 alleles, so I don't know where you got either of those. My information about swab 3A came from here;

Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ
on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA
profile

This serves to add [to the case file] a laboratory examination report prepared
in England, written in English and translated into Portuguese, delivered to this
police force on 4 September 2007 by English police officer Stuart Prior.

This laboratory report tells about the examinations made of two trace evidence
recoveries, one behind the living room sofa in apartment 5A and the other in the
boot area of the vehicle used by the McCann family, hired [by them] from the end of May this year.

In some of these recoveries (samples) DNA was found whose components are also
found in the profile of Madeleine McCann.

With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed
DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann.

In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified
DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components.

This was written by Joao Carlos on 11th September. Was it him or Prior who got it wrong, and not Amaral?

[Alice Purjorick]

Whatever was the official position of the FSS it seems (the FSS) failed, to explain the forensic results in terms certain elements of the PJ were able to understand.

To be clear, more of a failure on the part of the PJ than the FSS.

John Lowe tried to keep it as simple and clear as he could.

So the same question to you:
Is that your opinion or is it fact? If you are passing it of as fact a cite might come in handy.