Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

[SapphireSteel]

I think it might have been locked b/c I believe their "checks" actually only consisted of listening checks. And they would probably lock it in case one of the (older) kids woke up and decided to see where Mommy and Daddy were (I'm talking about the group in general). And I believe I read somewhere in the rogatories where someone (accidentally) admitted that the Tanners' actually locked their patio door on the previous nights.

I'm not talking about the night of the "abduction." Because IMO, that whole night was staged and the death happened before the Tapas dinner begun. So everything that night, IMO, was staged. However, I believe that if it had just been a regular night, the door would have been locked. And they would have just done listening checks, meaning they would just go around the outside of the rooms and listen to check if any of the kids were crying. Because if any kid was awake, obviously they would be making noise, either crying to knocking on the door, something. IF it was all quiet, that meant all-clear, they could go back to their dinner/drinking.

:goodpost:

ITA.

I will bet the house that G&K never checked anyone's children including their own, that entire holiday.

Why would they? They'd decided it was "safe". No one checks their sleeping kids every half hour when they're at home, and the McCanns have already told us they felt as safe and nearby as if they were "dining at the bottom of the garden".

Either you figure it's ok and they are "safe" or you don't.

If you are slightly worried, obviously stay in, but if you must go party, why not get a baby monitor?

They sell them in Portugal and the UK and all over Europe, and we know the McCanns had practised this style of "child care" during other holidays too so why didn't they already have one?. :dunno:

My guess is they didn't get up and check, ever, until that night.

ITA that the entire evening was staged, up to and including Gerry calling the Aerobics Instructor over to join their table at a salient time. More staging.

:sick:

 

[Donjeta]

I bet if this case had ever gone to trial you would have another scientist interpreting the results which would contradict this scientist

Agh these forensic experts. Who to believe?

JMO, the trouble seems to be that there seem to be alleles from three to five people and they can't tell which alleles came from which person. So you can't use the normal DNA identification that allows you to match a certain string of DNA to the likelihood that someone else has exactly the same string.

You can just calculate the statistical likelihood that you could find the same alleles if you sample the DNA of three to five people. And if two of those three to five people are the biological parents of Madeleine, well, you are in luck...

If we assume that the dog alert were correct and they must alerted at dead bodies, and then we look at the DNA results that could have come from a combination of Gerry and Kate and the twins and say that the DNA must have come from Madeleine because she's the only one that could be dead, and if we use that to prove that Madeleine died and that's what the dogs alerted at...... I think it's circular reasoning. We're using the assumption that the dogs were right and that Madeleine is dead to prove the conclusion that the dogs were right and Madeleine is dead.

Not saying that the dogs had to be wrong or that Madeleine didn't die in that apartment, just that the evidence turned out inconclusive.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Disappointing to see we have a new e-fit yet we are still criticising the dogs.

The DNA was consistent with Madeleine and was found in the Cadaver alert locations.

It should not have been there in the first place.

Aparently it depends on what you choose to believe as to what the DNA proved or didn't prove.

 

[haden]

We don't know that they alerted on the DNA that was found in the samples. Wherever we sample, we might find DNA that is unrelated to the scent that triggered the alert, and for all we know the forensic people DNA could have gotten there after the dog alert. Presumably they went there to look and see and take samples where the dogs alerted and they might have gone there contaminated the samples by sneezing or something. Perhaps they were allergic to the dogs.

Finding DNA in a sample does not indicate that the DNA source is the cause of the alert, necessarily.

We could find DNA in any number of random places that no dog ever alerted at.

But these dogs as well as on cadaver both alert on dry blood, dry blood from living humans.
Do we agree on this or I have to post the quote from their handler?

And how do we know where the dogs have alerted on cadaver and where on dry blood?

Unless there is a dead body nobody can know that!

 

[CHERIE.T]

That what you saying in here is simply not true.

There was no 100% match to Madeleine ever found in any of the spots where the dogs alerted.

The closest they came to Madeleine was in the car boot, 15 out of 19, with 19 belonging to more than 3 people, therefore inconclusive.

bumping for reference

 

[~n/t~]

If that was the case why did Amaral not get a second opinion. Why have we never heard of another scientific expert refuting these views on DNA. The FSS were one of the leading independent authorities on DNA analysis in the world. Sometimes we have to accept the experts .

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I don't recall when he was removed from the case. Was it before or after this report?

I've seen conflicting arguments at trials from very prominent experts so no I don't necessarily have to accept this particular experts findings. It would have been good to have another analysis but I doubt that will ever happen unless this case goes to trial. I won't hold my breath.

 

[SapphireSteel]

That what you saying in here is simply not true.

There was no 100% match to Madeleine ever found in any of the spots where the dogs alerted.

The closest they came to Madeleine was in the car boot, 15 out of 19, with 19 belonging to more than 3 people, therefore inconclusive.

Please show me the last time LE said they had a "100% match" for DNA. Seriously, please link to someone official saying that, either in testimony or out of it.

They rarely, if ever say it, due to the nature of DNA.

What they say is "it is a trillion to one that it belongs to anyone else".

In this case, the odds are....x....that it belongs to anyone but Madeleine.

I don't know what that percentage of likelihood is but 15/19 alleles seems pretty high.

 

[~n/t~]

Disappointing to see we have a new e-fit yet we are still criticising the dogs.

The DNA was consistent with Madeleine and was found in the Cadaver alert locations.

It should not have been there in the first place.

What efit? Tractorman took over the headlines..

 

[SapphireSteel]

DNA for dummies -

The allele 10 at the locus CSF1PO was observed 109 times in a population sample of 432 alleles (216 people). Therefore it is reasonable to estimate that there is a chance p=0.25 that any particular CSF1PO allele, selected at random, would be a 10. Similarly, the chance is about q=0.31 for a random CSP1PO allele to be 11. Prior to typing the suspect, if we assume that he is not the donor of the evidence then we can think of him as someone who received a CSF1PO allele at random from each of his parents. The chance to receive 10 from his mother and 11 from his father is therefore pq, and to receive 11 from mother and 10 from father is another pq, so the probability to be 10,11 by chance is 2pq. Hence about 16% of people have the 10,11 genotype at the CSF1PO locus.

At the TPOX locus, since both alleles are the same there is only one term – pp or p2, which represents the combined probability of inheriting the allele 8 from each parent. Hence about 28% of people have the same TPOX genotype as does the evidence. It is to be expected that the proportion of TPOX 8,8 people is still 28% even if attention is restricted only to people who have a particular CSF1PO genotype such as 10,11. Therefore the chance for a person to have the combined genotype in the two loci is 28% of 16% – about 4%.

The calculations for the THO1 and vWA loci are similar, and taking them into account whittles the overall chance for a random person to have the combined genotype from 4% down to about 1/7000.

http://dna-view.com/profile.htm

So...about 1/7000 that it NOT be Madeleine's. At least.

:seeya:

 

[haden]

This is the first time I'm hearing about this.

Here is the link to the non identified fingerprint on the patio doors

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm#p4p967

Side of the patio door: One adequate print recovered but not matched to known persons.

- Outside of one patio door: Eight inadequate prints were recovered.- Outside of [the other] patio door: One inadequate print was recovered.- Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered.

Pages 1470-07, 1498 Processo vol 6 Various Interpol communications from police in eight countries around the world re: comparison of fingerprints with those retained in the databases of those countries
Several prints were unusable for comparison purposes; all others were compared with no results.

 

[SapphireSteel]

What efit? Tractorman took over the headlines..

Oh yes Tractorman who we have not heard another word about.



It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Where was the e-fit in Kate's book? She didn't even reference it. The news that they threatened their own detective agency with legal action if they revealed it has also sunk without a trace.

:scared:

The British media has a lot to answer for :moo:

 

[aa9511]

I see we're back to the dog arguments. The fact that one of the dogs alerted to cadaver is enough for me to put 2 and 2 together. Actually it is one piece of the puzzle which includes a missing child and multiple inconsistent statments by the Tapas group. As well as bizarre actions by the parents.

Look at the Martin MacNeill trial where he was just found guilty on largely circumstantial evidence. I really didn't think they would get a guilty verdict on that case, but they did.

It is not outrageous for some of us to put together cadaver alert with missing child with heavy possibility that DNA in the precise alerted locations are heavily weighed towards beings Madeleine's.

 

[Donjeta]

Please show me the last time LE said they had a "100% match" for DNA. Seriously, please link to someone official saying that, either in testimony or out of it.

They rarely, if ever say it, due to the nature of DNA.

What they say is "it is a trillion to one that it belongs to anyone else".

In this case, the odds are....x....that it belongs to anyone but Madeleine.

I don't know what that percentage of likelihood is but 15/19 alleles seems pretty high.

Not really... If they knew that all those 15 alleles came from the same person it would presumably be pretty high. But from what I understand they're saying the 37 alleles that they found are a mix of three to five people and they don't know which person contributed which alleles. Then it's not about the likelihood of finding that particular string of alleles that matches Madeleine but the likelihood of sampling three to five individuals and finding alleles that match Madeleine's. Let's say Gerry and Kate and the twins contributed their DNA into the mix. Half of Madeleine's DNA came from Kate, half came from Gerry, the twins would be about 25 % the same as Madeleine.
Since they don't know that all those 15 alleles that match Madeleine's came from the same person it could be that some came from Gerry's DNA, some from Kate's, some from the twins.


To complicate the matters, some alleles are rather common and are shared with a large percentage of the population so if there was a fifth person even that one could randomly have had some alleles in common with Madeleine even if they weren't biologically related.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

DNA for dummies -

The allele 10 at the locus CSF1PO was observed 109 times in a population sample of 432 alleles (216 people). Therefore it is reasonable to estimate that there is a chance p=0.25 that any particular CSF1PO allele, selected at random, would be a 10. Similarly, the chance is about q=0.31 for a random CSP1PO allele to be 11. Prior to typing the suspect, if we assume that he is not the donor of the evidence then we can think of him as someone who received a CSF1PO allele at random from each of his parents. The chance to receive 10 from his mother and 11 from his father is therefore pq, and to receive 11 from mother and 10 from father is another pq, so the probability to be 10,11 by chance is 2pq. Hence about 16% of people have the 10,11 genotype at the CSF1PO locus.

At the TPOX locus, since both alleles are the same there is only one term – pp or p2, which represents the combined probability of inheriting the allele 8 from each parent. Hence about 28% of people have the same TPOX genotype as does the evidence. It is to be expected that the proportion of TPOX 8,8 people is still 28% even if attention is restricted only to people who have a particular CSF1PO genotype such as 10,11. Therefore the chance for a person to have the combined genotype in the two loci is 28% of 16% – about 4%.

The calculations for the THO1 and vWA loci are similar, and taking them into account whittles the overall chance for a random person to have the combined genotype from 4% down to about 1/7000.

http://dna-view.com/profile.htm

So...about 1/7000 that it NOT be Madeleine's. At least.

:seeya:

1 in 7000? That is not big odds.

"The chance is 1/7000 that some (particular) person other than the suspect would leave a stain like the actual stain."

http://dna-view.com/profile.htm

 

[Donjeta]

DNA for dummies -

The allele 10 at the locus CSF1PO was observed 109 times in a population sample of 432 alleles (216 people). Therefore it is reasonable to estimate that there is a chance p=0.25 that any particular CSF1PO allele, selected at random, would be a 10. Similarly, the chance is about q=0.31 for a random CSP1PO allele to be 11. Prior to typing the suspect, if we assume that he is not the donor of the evidence then we can think of him as someone who received a CSF1PO allele at random from each of his parents. The chance to receive 10 from his mother and 11 from his father is therefore pq, and to receive 11 from mother and 10 from father is another pq, so the probability to be 10,11 by chance is 2pq. Hence about 16% of people have the 10,11 genotype at the CSF1PO locus.

At the TPOX locus, since both alleles are the same there is only one term – pp or p2, which represents the combined probability of inheriting the allele 8 from each parent. Hence about 28% of people have the same TPOX genotype as does the evidence. It is to be expected that the proportion of TPOX 8,8 people is still 28% even if attention is restricted only to people who have a particular CSF1PO genotype such as 10,11. Therefore the chance for a person to have the combined genotype in the two loci is 28% of 16% – about 4%.

The calculations for the THO1 and vWA loci are similar, and taking them into account whittles the overall chance for a random person to have the combined genotype from 4% down to about 1/7000.

http://dna-view.com/profile.htm

So...about 1/7000 that it NOT be Madeleine's. At least.

:seeya:

Nope.

Everything in your link relates to a single DNA profile with certain alleles that are all known to come from one person only.

We don't have that in that case. We have random alleles from the DNA of several different people and no way of saying that all the 15 that match Madeleine came from the same person.

And anyway, since some possible matches for the DNA include Madeleine's biological parents each of them has 50 % the same DNA as she does.

 

[gord]

I see we're back to the dog arguments. The fact that one of the dogs alerted to cadaver is enough for me to put 2 and 2 together. Actually it is one piece of the puzzle which includes a missing child and multiple inconsistent statments by the Tapas group. As well as bizarre actions by the parents.

Look at the Martin MacNeill trial where he was just found guilty on largely circumstantial evidence. I really didn't think they would get a guilty verdict on that case, but they did.

It is not outrageous for some of us to put together cadaver alert with missing child with heavy possibility that DNA in the precise alerted locations are heavily weighed towards beings Madeleine's.

Well in this case the police and legal system didn't come to that conclusion. They didn't ever charge the couple. Not all cases are the same.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[gord]

Please show me the last time LE said they had a "100% match" for DNA. Seriously, please link to someone official saying that, either in testimony or out of it.

They rarely, if ever say it, due to the nature of DNA.

What they say is "it is a trillion to one that it belongs to anyone else".

In this case, the odds are....x....that it belongs to anyone but Madeleine.

I don't know what that percentage of likelihood is but 15/19 alleles seems pretty high.

So you think the FSS made an error and got this wrong ? If we are now questioning even the experts on the scene then what can we ever come to a concensus on.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[haden]

I don't know what that percentage of likelihood is but 15/19 alleles seems pretty high.

This would be pretty high if it compared from one to another person. But this compared from one to more than three people, possibly five people.

And here is the John Lowe's explanation. Please can you email him if you have a suspicion of his knowledge and expertise so you can discuss it further with him.

From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Op Task - In Confidence

Stuart

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

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.

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.

Why - ...

Well lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. 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.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

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 -

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

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

 

[SapphireSteel]

Not really... If they knew that all those 15 alleles came from the same person it would presumably be pretty high. But from what I understand they're saying the 37 alleles that they found are a mix of three to five people and they don't know which person contributed which alleles. Then it's not about the likelihood of finding that particular string of alleles that matches Madeleine but the likelihood of sampling three to five individuals and finding alleles that match Madeleine's. Let's say Gerry and Kate and the twins contributed their DNA into the mix. Half of Madeleine's DNA came from Kate, half came from Gerry, the twins would be about 25 % the same as Madeleine.
Since they don't know that all those 15 alleles that match Madeleine's came from the same person it could be that some came from Gerry's DNA, some from Kate's, some from the twins.


To complicate the matters, some alleles are rather common and are shared with a large percentage of the population so if there was a fifth person even that one could randomly have had some alleles in common with Madeleine even if they weren't biologically related.

What are the chances of some random person sharing both Kate and Gerry's DNA and depositing it in the exact spot as a cadaver alert? Seriously, the odds would have to be astronomical especially when you're talking about the underlay in a car boot and cuddle cat.

Someone's calculated it somewhere, I'm sure.

We know the DNA found it is consistent with Madeleines by which I mean, it has 15/19 alleles that she shares.

Therefore while it is true to say "there is not a 100% DNA match to Madeleine" it is also true to say that Madeleine cannot be excluded as a contributor.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

Another question - did they have Madeleine's actual DNA for comparison? I don't know if it was provided. Perhaps they gave them Amelie's toothbrush. Nothing would surprise me with this crew. :dunno:

If it wasn't, then of course they can't match it completely.

 

[SapphireSteel]

This would be pretty high if it compared from one to another person. But this compared from one to more than three people, possibly five people.

And here is the John Lowe's explanation. Please can you email him if you have a suspicion of his knowledge and expertise so you can discuss it further with him.

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

I've highlighted the most important part of Lowe's letter.

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

^^^^^SIMPLE. Not "wrong", or "incorrect". Simple as in, the simple explanation. They lay man's explanation, if you like.