Shall we try to understand why the LCNDNA in the Scenic is inconclusive

[debunker]

Any takers?

Seems to be a deafening silence when confronted with facts.

What facts ?

... havn't seen any proposed on this thread so far

What, exactly,  are we meant to be  'confronting'  here

You asked this question.I see you are on line now. I note you are still not confronting the facts.

[ferryman]

I think this from Lowe's email to Stuart Prior provides the answer, doesn't it?

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -

When was the DNA deposited - 
How was the DNA deposited - 
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from - 
Was a crime committed -

Of course, in context, he is referring, specifically, to LCN DNA as it applies to results from the boot of the car.

He is not making a general comment about LCN DNA which, for example, finally solved the crime of the murder of Stephen Lawrence and put the culprits in prison.

[debunker]

I think this from Lowe's email to Stuart Prior provides the answer, doesn't it?

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -

When was the DNA deposited - 
How was the DNA deposited - 
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from - 
Was a crime committed -

Of course, in context, he is referring, specifically, to LCN DNA as it applies to results from the boot of the car.

He is not making a general comment about LCN DNA which, for example, finally solved the crime of the murder of Stephen Lawrence and put the culprits in prison.

That was BEFORE he knew that he sample was a mix of 3-5 different people's partial DNA.

[ferryman]

I think this from Lowe's email to Stuart Prior provides the answer, doesn't it?

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -

When was the DNA deposited - 
How was the DNA deposited - 
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from - 
Was a crime committed -

Of course, in context, he is referring, specifically, to LCN DNA as it applies to results from the boot of the car.

He is not making a general comment about LCN DNA which, for example, finally solved the crime of the murder of Stephen Lawrence and put the culprits in prison.

That was BEFORE he knew that he sample was a mix of 3-5 different people's partial DNA.

No it wasn't.

From the same email:

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. 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; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

[debunker]

I think this from Lowe's email to Stuart Prior provides the answer, doesn't it?

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -

When was the DNA deposited - 
How was the DNA deposited - 
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from - 
Was a crime committed -

Of course, in context, he is referring, specifically, to LCN DNA as it applies to results from the boot of the car.

He is not making a general comment about LCN DNA which, for example, finally solved the crime of the murder of Stephen Lawrence and put the culprits in prison.

That was BEFORE he knew that he sample was a mix of 3-5 different people's partial DNA.

No it wasn't.

From the same email:

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. 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; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Sorry. I thought it was from the initial report.

It makes no difference to my contention about the statistics.

[Carana]

So I assume from the lack of any attempt at rebuttal that we all agree that there is no evidence that Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic.

Maybe people will cease claiming that that is true.

Amaral & co., might, I suppose. Lowe tried to explain, as did Corte-Real (who agreed with Lowe).

[debunker]

So I assume from the lack of any attempt at rebuttal that we all agree that there is no evidence that Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic.

Maybe people will cease claiming that that is true.

Amaral & co., might, I suppose. Lowe tried to explain, as did Corte-Real (who agreed with Lowe).

Possibly.

I was referring to rebuttal from people on this site who have insisted erroneously that Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic.

[Redblossom]

So I assume from the lack of any attempt at rebuttal that we all agree that there is no evidence that Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic.

Maybe people will cease claiming that that is true.

No, there is no evidence that it was.

But Mr Lowe of the FSS said it was not possible to say one way or the other, so the possibility remains. It was an inconclusive result, not a ruled out possibility.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

So I assume from the lack of any attempt at rebuttal that we all agree that there is no evidence that Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic.

Maybe people will cease claiming that that is true.

No, there is no evidence that it was.

But Mr Lowe of the FSS said it was not possible to say one way or the other, so the possibility remains. It was an inconclusive result, not a ruled out possibility.

you would of course be prepared to present a case in court based on what you said? (if it was your job)

[debunker]

So I assume from the lack of any attempt at rebuttal that we all agree that there is no evidence that Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic.

Maybe people will cease claiming that that is true.

No, there is no evidence that it was.

But Mr Lowe of the FSS said it was not possible to say one way or the other, so the possibility remains. It was an inconclusive result, not a ruled out possibility.

Which means that it is as likely to have been Madeleine's alleles as any member of, say, the PJ. No evidentiary value in separating her DNA from that of the rest of the population of Europe.

Glad that you understand that.

[Redblossom]

So I assume from the lack of any attempt at rebuttal that we all agree that there is no evidence that Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic.

Maybe people will cease claiming that that is true.

No, there is no evidence that it was.

But Mr Lowe of the FSS said it was not possible to say one way or the other, so the possibility remains. It was an inconclusive result, not a ruled out possibility.

Which means that it is as likely to have been Madeleine's alleles as any member of, say, the PJ. No evidentiary value in separating her DNA from that of the rest of the population of Europe.

Glad that you understand that.

Maybe,  but the FSS said it is impossible to say one way or the other, so whilst there is no EVIDENCE, there also is no evidence it wasnt, those are the facts

[Luz]

Any takers?

No, we shall NOT.