Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[G-Unit]

There's loads of information about it on the internet;  I found a good site when this conversation began but I can't remember which one and I'm not trawling through my history to find it.

I think there is relevant information here ...

Snip
Since the FBI's National DNA Index System, or NDIS, came online in 1998, forensic labs in the United States have been generating profiles by analyzing a specific set of 13 genetic markers.

Starting January 1, 2017, that number will rise to 20, an advance made possible by close collaboration between scientists at the FBI and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The additional markers will vastly increase the statistical certainty of DNA identifications and allow investigators to identify suspects that could slip through the cracks today.
________________________________________________________________________

"But if you start with 20 markers, seven can drop out and you'll still have what's considered a full profile today," Coble said.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-fbi-dna-profiles-powerful-cases.html

That means the US is going to analyse 20 markers instead of 13. The UK has always analysed 20 markers. 

[Brietta]

That means the US is going to analyse 20 markers instead of 13. The UK has always analysed 20 markers.

The point being made recalls the magic number 13 which has been under discussion ... ""But if you start with 20 markers, seven can drop out and you'll still have what's considered a full profile today," Coble said.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-fbi-dna-profiles-powerful-cases.html  ... making, what do you think of Sheila's amended DNA count of 17 markers ?

Not sure if you are correct with the 20 ... isn't it something more like 27?

[G-Unit]

The point being made recalls the magic number 13 which has been under discussion ... ""But if you start with 20 markers, seven can drop out and you'll still have what's considered a full profile today," Coble said.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-fbi-dna-profiles-powerful-cases.html  ... making, what do you think of Sheila's amended DNA count of 17 markers ?

Not sure if you are correct with the 20 ... isn't it something more like 27?

The US authorities always thought 13 bands were sufficient for a match and stored 13 in their Database. The UK stored 16;

Currently the sixteen loci of the DNA-17 system are analysed, resulting in a string of 32 numbers, being two allele repeats from each of the sixteen loci.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database

The UK authorities thought 13 bands could arise by chance;

Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found. 
[number 496] http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

In 2007 the FSS took a very different approach to DNA matches. They rejected the idea that Madeleine McCann's DNA was in a mixed sample despite having identified 15 of her bands. That's because the bands can't be allocated to specific people in a mixed sample. According to John Lowe, that is. He had Madeleine's full DNA profile too, which the scientists in 2000 didn't have for June or Sheila.

DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which it inherits from their natural father (paternal)...

Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart...Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors...

It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

[Vertigo Swirl]

The US authorities always thought 13 bands were sufficient for a match and stored 13 in their Database. The UK stored 16;

Currently the sixteen loci of the DNA-17 system are analysed, resulting in a string of 32 numbers, being two allele repeats from each of the sixteen loci.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database

The UK authorities thought 13 bands could arise by chance;

Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found. 
[number 496] http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

In 2007 the FSS took a very different approach to DNA matches. They rejected the idea that Madeleine McCann's DNA was in a mixed sample despite having identified 15 of her bands. That's because the bands can't be allocated to specific people in a mixed sample. According to John Lowe, that is. He had Madeleine's full DNA profile too, which the scientists in 2000 didn't have for June or Sheila.

DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which it inherits from their natural father (paternal)...

Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart...Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors...

It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

It’s so incredibly ironic isn’t it?  I have never once seen you cast doubt on the “perfect match” DNA results on the Madeleine forum but here you are doing just that in your defence of JB!

[G-Unit]

It’s so incredibly ironic isn’t it?  I have never once seen you cast doubt on the “perfect match” DNA results on the Madeleine forum but here you are doing just that in your defence of JB!

What is ironic is how the FSS changed in seven years. In 2000 they claimed to be able to identify Sheila Caffell using a mixed sample and comparing it with Sheila's mother's DNA only. In 2007 they had Madeleine McCann's own DNA, confirming her as the offspring of both her parents, but still couldn't identify her from a mixed sample.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What is ironic is how the FSS changed in seven years. In 2000 they claimed to be able to identify Sheila Caffell using a mixed sample and comparing it with Sheila's mother's DNA only. In 2007 they had Madeleine McCann's own DNA, confirming her as the offspring of both her parents, but still couldn't identify her from a mixed sample.

Have you considered the possibility that the sample simply didn’t contain Madeleine’s DNA at all, while the result for Sheila’s was more identifiable because it actually did come from her?

[G-Unit]

Have you considered the possibility that the sample simply didn’t contain Madeleine’s DNA at all, while the result for Sheila’s was more identifiable because it actually did come from her?

They didn't have a DNA profile from Sheila.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They didn't have a DNA profile from Sheila.

I didn’t say they did.

[G-Unit]

I didn’t say they did.

So you mean the DNA they took from the moderator was actually Sheila's? Even if it was, how did they know when they had only her mother's DNA to compare it with?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

They didn't have a DNA profile from Sheila.

You’re wrong, Gunit

They did have Sheila’s DNA.

They also discovered that out of the 20 possible markers/bands we all have in our blood, they found 13 of Sheila’s in the blood found in the silencer when tested in 1985; and in 2002, when advances in analysis had increased in leaps and bounds, they found 17 bands/markers of Sheila’s blood inside the silencer.

As an aside, finding 13 bands HEAVILY suggests the blood belongs to that certain person (Sheila)

But finding a full 17 out of 20 proves undoubtedly it most certainly came from Sheila and no-one else.

I have read several times, that the odds of two people sharing the same 17 bands is a trillion to one. I don’t have it to hand, but I’ve definitely read it more than once, and when I find I will post it.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Vertigo Swirl]

So you mean the DNA they took from the moderator was actually Sheila's? Even if it was, how did they know when they had only her mother's DNA to compare it with?

If it had similarities to Sheila's mother's DNA, but wasn't Sheila's DNA then whose was it? 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

So you mean the DNA they took from the moderator was actually Sheila's? Even if it was, how did they know when they had only her mother's DNA to compare it with?

They also ground down the milk teeth of the twins that Colin had kept for years.

Colin was heartbroken over that!

Jeremy Bamber was hoping against hope that maybe, just maybe, Sheila’s blood hadn’t spattered back into that silencer he used when he shot her dead, so to try and worm his way out of jail he robbed Colin of the only thing he had left of his beautiful little boys: their milk teeth 😔 He would have held those teeth in his hands sometimes, looking at them, touching them, tears running down his cheeks as he remembered when they lost their baby teeth and hid them under their pillow waking up the next morning squealing with delight to find the Tooth Fairy had taken them and left them 50p....

The heartache and pain that revolting evil creature has put people through is absolutely EVIL.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

If it had similarities to Sheila's mother's DNA, but wasn't Sheila's DNA then whose was it?

It was Sheila’s DNA, VS

I’ve put the link up which shows the forensics report

I suspect where the confusion lies is that there’s so much to read, including certain scientific terms which I’m not at all familiar with, and amongst it all I’d the defence’s argument that maybe the blood “wasn’t “ Sheila’s. They were just trying it on, and so gave it their best shot by muddying the waters — but they too knew it was Sheila’s blood, of course they did.

So reading through all the wordy legalities and scientific reports it can be complex, but when you condense it down it ultimately says that the blood was definitely Sheila’s.

[Brietta]

It was Sheila’s DNA, VS

I’ve put the link up which shows the forensics report

I suspect where the confusion lies is that there’s so much to read, including certain scientific terms which I’m not at all familiar with, and amongst it all I’d the defence’s argument that maybe the blood “wasn’t “ Sheila’s. They were just trying it on, and so gave it their best shot by muddying the waters — but they too knew it was Sheila’s blood, of course they did.

So reading through all the wordy legalities and scientific reports it can be complex, but when you condense it down it ultimately says that the blood was definitely Sheila’s.

The opportunity for 'confusion' arises from the scientific inability to determine the number of donors both male but predominantly female who contributed to the mix found inside the moderator, some quite deeply so.

Hardly surprising since four of the victims had been shot at close range while still alive with the probability that the muzzle was right on Sheila's neck.

But there is no confusion about Sheila Caffell's DNA being present. 
Which means there is only one conclusion to be reached about who the shooter was.

[G-Unit]

It was Sheila’s DNA, VS

I’ve put the link up which shows the forensics report

I suspect where the confusion lies is that there’s so much to read, including certain scientific terms which I’m not at all familiar with, and amongst it all I’d the defence’s argument that maybe the blood “wasn’t “ Sheila’s. They were just trying it on, and so gave it their best shot by muddying the waters — but they too knew it was Sheila’s blood, of course they did.

So reading through all the wordy legalities and scientific reports it can be complex, but when you condense it down it ultimately says that the blood was definitely Sheila’s.

I really don't think you should be disseminating untruths by contradicting the rulings of the Appeal Court;

The Court said;

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was...

500. In these circumstances we find it impossible to conclude that any particular finding of DNA necessarily came from blood.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html