MADELEINE'S DNA - definitive study.

[sadie]

Now why would that be promoted?

Because they were more advanced ?

Think about it.

[Carana]

Any one know why the samples were sent to England for analysis rather than in Portugal itself?

Who footed the bill?

[Carana]

Because they were more advanced ?

Think about it.

Hi Sadie,

Not according to the PT forensic science blog I read a long time ago. In the Madeleine case at least, the PT lab (the INML one) went far beyond the UK standards in terms of the quantity of alleles examined. The UK was (perhaps still is) behind in that respect.

The problem, according to the scientists, was that the sterile conditions needed for LCN analysis required a substantial investment, which they didn't have. If you remember, LCN analysis had been stopped for a while in the UK, so I can see why such an investment wasn't a priority.

ETA: I realise that I may be confusing everyone.

To clarify: PT went beyond the UK standards in terms of regular DNA analysis.

The FSS had the extra capacity to do LCN DNA analysis if needed.

[Carana]

I suspect the UK was promoted as being technically more advanced.

Yes, there may have been an element of that.

The UK was able to do LCN analysis, if needed, and PT didn't have that capacity. There may also be the question of who was paying for it. Plus, I find it possible that the PJ team at the time were hoping that if the results were a clincher, it would carry more weight from a UK lab. And, it was a UK initiative (via Harrison) to bring dogs over, so it may have made sense to let the UK deal with the whole thing.

[Brietta]

Yes, there may have been an element of that.

The UK was able to do LCN analysis, if needed, and PT didn't have that capacity. There may also be the question of who was paying for it. Plus, I find it possible that the PJ team at the time were hoping that if the results were a clincher, it would carry more weight from a UK lab. And, it was a UK initiative (via Harrison) to bring dogs over, so it may have made sense to let the UK deal with the whole thing.

I seem to recall that Rebelo had the materials which had been sent to the FSS in Birmingham returned to Portugal for rechecking?

[barrier]

Because they were more advanced ?

Think about it.

Well the lack of any clarity would suggest otherwise.

[Mr Gray]

Well the lack of any clarity would suggest otherwise.

i found it quite clear...which part couldnt you undestand

[barrier]

i found it quite clear...which part couldnt you undestand

Semen stain?

[Carana]

Semen stain?

Could you expand on your question?

[barrier]

Could you expand on your question?

Did it turn into saliva?

[Carana]

Did it turn into saliva?

There is at least one thread on here, if not more,  about that.

[pathfinder73]

http://media.gettyimages.com/videos/madeleine-mccann-disappearance-british-police-call-for-new-dna-tests-video-id647972022

[Brietta]

Did it turn into saliva?

Snip
The FSS report also considered a spot collected on 4 May 2007 by an earlier forensic analysis team. That spot was on a bedcover of a bed in the room where the 3 children slept in apartment 5A. The bed was the one by the bedroom window i.e. not Madeleine’s. A reagent test had given a weak positive result for semen.

The FSS checked a sample database of 282 volunteers against 4 specific spots. The report does not say who these volunteers were, but judging by the results, they were people connected to apartment 5A in some manner, as a match was found for just one person, a previous occupant. Note a test re Madeleine’s DNA will be covered elsewhere.

The spots were 1, 4, 9 and 16. I have yet to identify where spot 16 was.

The match was against spot 9, and this also matched the stain on the bedcover. The person identified was Charlie Gordon, a boy aged 2 years and 3 months when he was in the apartment, together with father Paul Gordon and mother Saleigh Gordon. They had been in 5A for the week prior to the visit of the McCanns.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/madeleine-blood-spatter-analysis-2/


Now whether or not the original analysis of the stained bedspread was carried out in the Portuguese forensics lab or not, I have no idea; if you are interested the information should be easy enough to find ... but I think there is a reasonable chance it might have been.

But whatever, the fact that it was a match for a previous occupant of the bed raises two points for me the first of which is that I will never look on hotel bedspreads with the same confidence in their cleanliness I used to and the absolute fact that there is nothing untoward or mysterious about the definition of the source of the forensic trace.

Perhaps if there were less 'mystery' associated with the oft satisfactorily explained minutia of everything in preference to reliance on salient facts there would be a lot less uncalled for 'mystery' associated with Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

[Carana]

Snip
The FSS report also considered a spot collected on 4 May 2007 by an earlier forensic analysis team. That spot was on a bedcover of a bed in the room where the 3 children slept in apartment 5A. The bed was the one by the bedroom window i.e. not Madeleine’s. A reagent test had given a weak positive result for semen.

The FSS checked a sample database of 282 volunteers against 4 specific spots. The report does not say who these volunteers were, but judging by the results, they were people connected to apartment 5A in some manner, as a match was found for just one person, a previous occupant. Note a test re Madeleine’s DNA will be covered elsewhere.

The spots were 1, 4, 9 and 16. I have yet to identify where spot 16 was.

The match was against spot 9, and this also matched the stain on the bedcover. The person identified was Charlie Gordon, a boy aged 2 years and 3 months when he was in the apartment, together with father Paul Gordon and mother Saleigh Gordon. They had been in 5A for the week prior to the visit of the McCanns.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/madeleine-blood-spatter-analysis-2/


Now whether or not the original analysis of the stained bedspread was carried out in the Portuguese forensics lab or not, I have no idea; if you are interested the information should be easy enough to find ... but I think there is a reasonable chance it might have been.

But whatever, the fact that it was a match for a previous occupant of the bed raises two points for me the first of which is that I will never look on hotel bedspreads with the same confidence in their cleanliness I used to and the absolute fact that there is nothing untoward or mysterious about the definition of the source of the forensic trace.

Perhaps if there were less 'mystery' associated with the oft satisfactorily explained minutia of everything in preference to reliance on salient facts there would be a lot less uncalled for 'mystery' associated with Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

Yes, it was sent and was analysed (considered slightly positive for semen). For some reason, there was no further check as to whether it was or not.

The DNA didn't correspond to any reference sample.

After the recovery of hairs described above there proceeded the search for possible traces of semen, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, there being identified various [several] areas where fluorescence characteristic of this type of trace evidence was seen.

The areas where the fluorescence was seen were submitted to a "Phosphatise test" search there being a slightly positive reaction (purplish colour) only in area of the bed-cover of the single bed opposite to the bed from where the minor disappeared, a piece of that bed-cover being collected and placed inside a paper envelope in accordance with instructions issued by the Biology Section of the LPC, it being referenced as trace evidence #5;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm


FIRST INML REPORT 9 JULY 2007
(...)

 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL RECEIVED

(...)

- 1 piece of cloth in envelope no. 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children's bedroom.
Fragment of cloth, mauve/violet in colour with square motifs, circular in form about 10cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a Crime-light.
09-Processos Vol IX Page 2422-2439

(...)

CONCLUSIONS
4th- With respect to autosomic STRs the male genetic profile identified from the spot on the cloth fragment (bedspread of the bed next to window in the children's bedroom- Env 5) did not match any profile from the reference samples.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, it was sent and was analysed (considered slightly positive for semen). For some reason, there was no further check as to whether it was or not.

The DNA didn't correspond to any reference sample.

After the recovery of hairs described above there proceeded the search for possible traces of semen, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, there being identified various [several] areas where fluorescence characteristic of this type of trace evidence was seen.

The areas where the fluorescence was seen were submitted to a "Phosphatise test" search there being a slightly positive reaction (purplish colour) only in area of the bed-cover of the single bed opposite to the bed from where the minor disappeared, a piece of that bed-cover being collected and placed inside a paper envelope in accordance with instructions issued by the Biology Section of the LPC, it being referenced as trace evidence #5;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm


FIRST INML REPORT 9 JULY 2007
(...)

 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL RECEIVED

(...)

- 1 piece of cloth in envelope no. 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children's bedroom.
Fragment of cloth, mauve/violet in colour with square motifs, circular in form about 10cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a Crime-light.
09-Processos Vol IX Page 2422-2439

(...)

CONCLUSIONS
4th- With respect to autosomic STRs the male genetic profile identified from the spot on the cloth fragment (bedspread of the bed next to window in the children's bedroom- Env 5) did not match any profile from the reference samples.

Do you think the spots were compared to Gerry McCann's reference sample?