John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

HiDeHo wrote:A comment to note from an HDH member...

There werent 37 markers in M's profile sample .  19 unique to her , unique above all others, and 15 of those markers unique above all others, were identified and matched.

I doubt there’s a scientist in the world who would stand up in court and say it’s impossible that MM’s DNA couldn’t have gotten into that vehicle..  This sample along with sample found in the apartment may be crucial to solving this crime! .… it’s just beyond belief that there are people who not only resist this idea but to all intents and purposes are determined to try and bury the possibility that  it was Madeleine’s DNA under a mountain of excuses and negligence. 

The forensic report like the rest of the police files aren’t going to go away. 

The forensic report does not exclude the possibility that she contributed to the evidence, it does not exclude her, yet we are to believe it is neither inconclusive nor conclusive. The authors opinion, that the results  “could not determine whether or not”,   leaves it wide open to interpretation. It might be or it might not be, it may be or it may not be… if anything the report deliberately leads people to believe details which we know aren’t factual. A prime example of this being that scientists DNA could account for extra markers in samples. 

This is very deceptive because although not exactly wrong, it does not inform the reader that there were systems and methods in place to prevent exactly this type of thing from happening, nor does the report inform people that the chances of the DNA originating from the scientists is 100% zero, given they could not possibly have contributed to the original sample in the car itself, the same applies to 99.9% of the population, because they weren’t in that car or anywhere near it when the evidence was left.   ..Those are  true facts that cannot be disputed.   

We’ve heard all kinds of excuses for these samples from DNA soup to you name it.  Has anyone ever heard of a DNA ‘ soup ‘ that generated a definite profile of a victim but was written off because it may have been generated by chance?  Here’s some more hard facts for you, when a profile comes from a mixed sample, that profile can be treated as a single source / primary profile. 

 But let’s not go over and over DNA and genetics, lets stick to simplicities, -  all 19 markers in her profile sample were unique to her, unique above all others, and 15 of those were identified – 15 unique above all others within that sample :  Another fact, DNA with a 100% match should have been in the car, to suggest it got there by ‘ chance?’,  is not only ridiculous, it’s also misleading. There is more a  “chance “  that her DNA could NOT have gotten into that car. 

But of course when you accept that her DNA will have gotten into that car, you enter into whole different arena. It no longer becomes a chance event. The chance event is the main person’s unique DNA profile being found in a forensic sample which stands out from anything else and wasn’t and still isn’t seen as any old DNA transfer. 

 Just like the confirmed sample in their apartment..

willowthewisp wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi is that Mike7777 nose in the Renault car in place of Keela's, sniffing Sea Bass or the dripping "Beef residue,BS"?
In respect,Mike7777,this must be the first time in"History of Crime" that a Police force,UK chose to have evidence of a DNA sample to be "Destroyed after testing" in an unproven case of the demise of a missing person,Madeleine?

mike7777 wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi is that Mike7777 nose in the Renault car in place of Keela's, sniffing Sea Bass or the dripping "Beef residue,BS"?
In respect,Mike7777,this must be the first time in"History of Crime" that a Police force,UK chose to have evidence of a DNA sample to be "Destroyed after testing" in an unproven case of the demise of a missing person,Madeleine?

The FSS didn't decide to destroy the samples ...the destruction was in line with legislation. From what I have seen the PJ had an opportunity to ask for the samples to be preserved which they did not take

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi is that Mike7777 nose in the Renault car in place of Keela's, sniffing Sea Bass or the dripping "Beef residue,BS"?
In respect,Mike7777,this must be the first time in"History of Crime" that a Police force,UK chose to have evidence of a DNA sample to be "Destroyed after testing" in an unproven case of the demise of a missing person,Madeleine?

The FSS didn't decide to destroy the samples ...the destruction was in line with legislation. From what I have seen the PJ had an opportunity to ask for the samples to be preserved which they did not take

Were they told?

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi is that Mike7777 nose in the Renault car in place of Keela's, sniffing Sea Bass or the dripping "Beef residue,BS"?
In respect,Mike7777,this must be the first time in"History of Crime" that a Police force,UK chose to have evidence of a DNA sample to be "Destroyed after testing" in an unproven case of the demise of a missing person,Madeleine?

The FSS didn't decide to destroy the samples ...the destruction was in line with legislation. From what I have seen the PJ had an opportunity to ask for the samples to be preserved which they did not take

Were they told?

I believe they were...FSS followed guidelines

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi is that Mike7777 nose in the Renault car in place of Keela's, sniffing Sea Bass or the dripping "Beef residue,BS"?
In respect,Mike7777,this must be the first time in"History of Crime" that a Police force,UK chose to have evidence of a DNA sample to be "Destroyed after testing" in an unproven case of the demise of a missing person,Madeleine?

The FSS didn't decide to destroy the samples ...the destruction was in line with legislation. From what I have seen the PJ had an opportunity to ask for the samples to be preserved which they did not take

Were they told?

I believe they were...FSS followed guidelines

Nina wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi is that Mike7777 nose in the Renault car in place of Keela's, sniffing Sea Bass or the dripping "Beef residue,BS"?
In respect,Mike7777,this must be the first time in"History of Crime" that a Police force,UK chose to have evidence of a DNA sample to be "Destroyed after testing" in an unproven case of the demise of a missing person,Madeleine?

The FSS didn't decide to destroy the samples ...the destruction was in line with legislation. From what I have seen the PJ had an opportunity to ask for the samples to be preserved which they did not take

Were they told?

I believe they were...FSS followed guidelines

What are the guidelines?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Parents less and less credible?

Since the file is accessible to the press, each medium has its commentary. All Portuguese newspapers disclose disturbing elements put into question the assertions of parents. Indeed, many elements remain difficult to explain. Many details, facts and testimony contradicted the statements and declarations of parents and their friends. Of course the details revealed in the press will not be in favour of the McCann family. And for good reason, investigators have forged an opinion against them and this view appears over the pages. Attention, however, does not make me say what I did not say: I do not pretend that the PJ directed to the investigation based on his convictions on the contrary! The survey was conducted as they should. These are the contradictions, inconsistencies gross lack of cooperation, inappropriate reactions of parents who have naturally led investigators (who are professionals, let us not forget) to suspect the parents. You know all the disturbing elements that we are talking about:

* Kate who returns to his friends shouting: "They abducted Madeleine" but leaving his children in the apartment where kidnapping has been committed.

* Friends who engage in its research but who do not see in their own apartment if it is not there or if their children are still there.

* The room perfectly cleaned and Madeleine's bed not undone. (Thanks to the abductor to have redone the bed or wasn't Madeleine was not in her bed at the time of his disappearance)

* The fact that British diplomacy has been advised and exert pressure on a police investigation (Kate acknowledged in a British newspaper a few days ago, have telephoned British Prime Minister asking him to put pressure on the investigation to "advance it"

* The contradictory statements concerning forced the door (which was not), old and forced shutters (who were not either).

* Witnesses who do not see the same things that parents and their friends while at the same locations at the same hour (299 witnesses were interviewed).
* Inconsistencies in the statements of the friends group.
* The lack of cooperation by the group.
* The refusal to participate in a reconstruction (Yet crucial to know what happened to Madeleine - Is not the only objective?)
* The blood found in the room.
* The smell of corpses detected.
* Etc.


If these attitudes are proven, it is understandable that investigators have begun to have serious suspicions. There are many other and sometimes more striking that these small example I gave you. The press will submit others over the following days. The largest of discussing and articles will be published around the one hand dogs trackers which I make a summary:

The actions of British dogs specially trained to detect the smell of corpses and human blood has been decisive for suspectong Gerry and Kate . Facing coincidences in the action of two dogs, who reported the same places and the same objects, authorities were forced to admit the possible involvement of parents in the disappearance of their daughter and to designate them "arguidos" to confront the elements that could lead to an indictment. Inspectors explain that dogs have given signs of detection, smell corpse and human blood in places and on the following items:


In the apartment where Madeleine disappeared (In the room of the couple and in the living room)
In the garden
In the vehicle rented by parents 24 days after the disappearance of Maddie.
On two clothing Kate
On the toy of Maddie that Kate has not released the day following the disappearance.

In the apartment of friends of McCann in the village of Praia and in vehicles used by Robert Murat - the first accused to be suspected - nothing has been detected by dogs.

And on the other sections will turn around DNA analysis ...

The DNA results.

The media war began. 


The British newspapers do not take the same language as newspapers Portuguese. Thus, Clarence Mitchell, spokesman of the parents, said in the British press: "The DNA results have never been 100% compatible with the DNA of Madeleine.


 A note of caution was expressed at the outset. The police was wrong to pursue this line of inquiry. The Portuguese legal system has acknowledged having no proof, I can confirm that the PJ told Gerry that the DNA of Madeleine had been found in two apartments and in the vehicle then it is clear now that this is not what the first report of the FSS. You have to ask what the police is trying to do by inventing evidence that they did not and they can not not have. One might wonder in these circumstances what is their motivation? ".

We'll make a little "flat" the statements by Mr. Mitchell. From a police point of view, it happens that police say the suspects hold evidence, they did not actually, in order to crack a suspect, it should not be done any how. Indeed, it is difficult to tell a suspect, for example, that his fingerprints were found at the crime scene while the suspect knows wearing gloves throughout its wrongdoing and that consequently the police told n 'What is important! You must be a little seriously. Forward evidence that has not, must remain plausible knowing that if the suspect is indeed the culprit, the police will lose face if they invented evidence that the suspect knew to be false!

On the other hand, the interpretation of Clarence Mitchell DNA results are criticable.. 


To help us in our words, our association uses an expert on the subject. It is Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic University of Louvain (GNEX - UCL).

Children Association Kidnappés: Do you know the technique of LCN and it is commonly used?

S. Adamis: LCN (Low Copy Number) is a technique developed by the laboratories of Forensic Science Service English to analyze samples containing a very small number of DNA molecule. The basic principle is to increase the number of cycles of PCR to increase sensitivity [Gill, 2000; Whitaker, 2001]. This technique has two major drawbacks:

1) it produces unbalanced profiles for one or the other marker, with possible disappearance of an allele due to stochastic effect.

2) it leads to the detection of either allele in the negative controls of unknown origin.

The first drawback led to obtaining profile incomplete, partially wrong and not reproducible. This little reliability goes against the spirit as advocated notably by the ISO 17025 standards in force in our country.
The second requires necessarily work in special conditions to avoid contamination inherent in the environmental conditions and in particular from human DNA present in the dust of the atmosphere or on the surfaces of objects. Seen the limitations of this technique, the conclusions could be easily attacked and cancelled during a trial. This technique is not used routinely in DNA laboratories in Belgium.

AEK: If on an analysis of DNA, 15 markers out of 19 belong to a person "x", can we conclude that this is this person?

SA: If the profile is complete and quality, and that the markers are analyzed information then no doubt! The result is discriminatory. This result is very reliable. The order of error is 1 for 1 billion! It is almost impossible it otherwise. 


For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.

We open a parenthesis. We understand even better the attitude of the PJ. In the face of inconsistencies we are talking about earlier, the police have doubts. Can dogs detect traces of blood and the smell of a corpse. The doubts turn into belief. But it lacks something. All these elements are not sufficient to face charges in a court. It lacks a confirmation. A scientific confirmation. This confirmation comes with the first analysis report which said that 15 DNA markers on 19 belong to Madeleine. It does not need more police. The proof is there. Self-explanatory. The first report analyses prove the guilt of parents in the eyes of investigators. 


This report should be considered as a proof by, I believe, all police forces. Once parents have been placed, logically, in the particular status "arguidos." Of course, an error rate of 1 to 1 billion is not a profile of 100%, it Clarence Mitchell rightly so. 


Where, then, there is a huge surprise. A second report by the FSS comes and totally contradicts the first. Distroying evidence that the police have thought. According to the report, the samples have been contaminated finally making them very unreliable. Several DNA have been mixed to create the DNA of anyone!

EAK: If you get DNA from three different people, can we recreate the DNA of anyone?

SA: If the DNA is collected DNA mixed with that of 3 individuals in an equivalent manner, then we could actually find the DNA profile of anyone. The mine just like yours. But it is important that the mixture is perfectly equivalent. In which case the reliability rate is very low, from 1 to a billion 1 per 1,000 or 1 in 100. It is therefore more question to consider this result as discriminatory.

So what happened? NRL unreliable? The contaminated samples at the second analysis, but not the first? The first botched analysis by the FSS? There would be a good way of knowing. As two expert reports contradict each other, we practise a third analysis in an independent lab. But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis

ANONYMOUS COMMENTARY ON THE ABOVE INTERVIEW wrote:But in fact, I don't know exactly what they got. I don't understand what John Lowe is saying. This is the statement from him that I find so troubling: "Let's look at the question that is being asked: 'Is there DNA from Madeleine 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 - because Madeleine has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeleine merely appears to match the result by chance."

What is he saying? Um, Mr. Lowe, when the "components" (also known as "markers") within the result (AKA questioned sample) are the same as those in her reference sample (AKA known sample of Madeleine's DNA), then you're SUPPOSED to say "YES," or actually you're supposed to say the final results are inconclusive because 4 of the markers were too degraded to be tested, but all the others matched. How the stuff got where it was found is not the subject of DNA analysis. That's the kind of thing that an expert witness should be prepared to be asked about on the stand at a trial; could the questioned sample of the DNA have gotten where it was found by accidental transference, for example, from another object?

DNA analysis is just that - ANALYSIS. Either they were able to extract markers from the DNA found in the Renault Scenic that were not degraded and could be analysed, or they were not. Either those markers matched the markers in the known sample of Madeleine's DNA taken from her pillow in Rothley, or they did not. Was the gentleman quoted correctly? If so, why all this double-speak? If it's the case, why in heaven's name not just SAY, "There are limits to LCN DNA technology, and the sample from the automobile was too small for any analysis to be definitive." Or, "When we tried to analyse the questioned sample from the automobile, we discovered that the DNA of two or more people were mixed together, and given the minute amount of material we had to work with, we simply were unable to separate them. We cannot say for certain when this happened, but regrettably, it made it impossible for us to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty whether the DNA was Madeleine's."

My guess - and it is just a guess - is that no one leaned on the FSS. I don't think anyone had to. My personal opinion is that they were freaked out by what happened with the trial at Omagh and knew that if they came up with DNA results that didn't stand up in this case, they could kiss their cash cow of being one of the few labs in the world that can do LCN DNA analysis good-by. Trouble is where they are concerned, there is more than one thing that can cause police departments and other agencies the world over to doubt your results. One is to make mistakes and be wrong. Another is to be too afraid to call it when you see it.

HiDeHo wrote:This is a rarely seen but VERY INTERESTING "Enfants kidnappés"  (Belgian police site) interview with Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic University of Louvain (GNEX - UCL) discussing the Madeleine McCann forensics. (date unknown)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Madame Stavroula. Adamis - Expert Judiciaire à l'Unité d'Expertise Génétique de l'Université Catholique de Louvain


Laboratoires des Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc - Université Catolique de Louvain, Belgique 


Direction: Professeur Michel DELMEE

Experts:
Docteur Grégory SCHMIT
Stavroula ADAMIS, Lc en Biologie
Fernand Roekens, Lc en Biologie






[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


(See more here) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But in fact, I don't know exactly what they got. I don't understand what John Lowe is saying. This is the statement from him that I find so troubling: "Let's look at the question that is being asked: 'Is there DNA from Madeleine 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 - because Madeleine has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeleine merely appears to match the result by chance."

What is he saying? Um, Mr. Lowe, when the "components" (also known as "markers") within the result (AKA questioned sample) are the same as those in her reference sample (AKA known sample of Madeleine's DNA), then you're SUPPOSED to say "YES," or actually you're supposed to say the final results are inconclusive because 4 of the markers were too degraded to be tested, but all the others matched. How the stuff got where it was found is not the subject of DNA analysis. That's the kind of thing that an expert witness should be prepared to be asked about on the stand at a trial; could the questioned sample of the DNA have gotten where it was found by accidental transference, for example, from another object?

DNA analysis is just that - ANALYSIS. Either they were able to extract markers from the DNA found in the Renault Scenic that were not degraded and could be analysed, or they were not. Either those markers matched the markers in the known sample of Madeleine's DNA taken from her pillow in Rothley, or they did not. Was the gentleman quoted correctly? If so, why all this double-speak? If it's the case, why in heaven's name not just SAY, "There are limits to LCN DNA technology, and the sample from the automobile was too small for any analysis to be definitive." Or, "When we tried to analyse the questioned sample from the automobile, we discovered that the DNA of two or more people were mixed together, and given the minute amount of material we had to work with, we simply were unable to separate them. We cannot say for certain when this happened, but regrettably, it made it impossible for us to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty whether the DNA was Madeleine's."

My guess - and it is just a guess - is that no one leaned on the FSS. I don't think anyone had to. My personal opinion is that they were freaked out by what happened with the trial at Omagh and knew that if they came up with DNA results that didn't stand up in this case, they could kiss their cash cow of being one of the few labs in the world that can do LCN DNA analysis good-by. Trouble is where they are concerned, there is more than one thing that can cause police departments and other agencies the world over to doubt your results. One is to make mistakes and be wrong. Another is to be too afraid to call it when you see it.

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Do you know who provided the information relative to the case of MBM's disappearance to Enfants kidnappés?  They seem to be well informed but I'm not sure as to the accuracy of all the content, for example..

1)  For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.

I recall reading this particular point in the past which has been furiously disputed by a variety of people on the net, largely I suspect McCann supporters.  Does this doubt arise from the possibility of the DNA samples having been degraded or a a mix of different contributors?

2)  Where, then, there is a huge surprise. A second report by the FSS comes and totally contradicts the first. Distroying evidence that the police have thought. According to the report, the samples have been contaminated finally making them very unreliable. Several DNA have been mixed to create the DNA of anyone!

Another area I've read in the past which on the surface appears to be a trifle unrealistic, if someone was dictating the required results much simpler to produce a final report stating that the results are too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion - which is of course precisely what they did do!   Is this claim a poor interpretation of the FSS forensic report resulting in a forum myth or is there a link to confirm the claim?

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:  The FSS didn't decide to destroy the samples ...the destruction was in line with legislation. 

The laboratory has examined one or more of the samples listed below. They will not be returned to you but will be destroyed in due course unless we are requested by the Defence to preserve them. You should notify the Defence solicitors in accordance with Home Office circulars 40/73 and 74/82 which allow a period of 21 days in which notice in writing must be given, by the defendant or his legal representative to the laboratory to prevent the samples being destroyed.

mike7777 wrote:

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Do you know who provided the information relative to the case of MBM's disappearance to Enfants kidnappés?  They seem to be well informed but I'm not sure as to the accuracy of all the content, for example..

1)  For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.

I recall reading this particular point in the past which has been furiously disputed by a variety of people on the net, largely I suspect McCann supporters.  Does this doubt arise from the possibility of the DNA samples having been degraded or a a mix of different contributors?

2)  Where, then, there is a huge surprise. A second report by the FSS comes and totally contradicts the first. Distroying evidence that the police have thought. According to the report, the samples have been contaminated finally making them very unreliable. Several DNA have been mixed to create the DNA of anyone!

Another area I've read in the past which on the surface appears to be a trifle unrealistic, if someone was dictating the required results much simpler to produce a final report stating that the results are too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion - which is of course precisely what they did do!   Is this claim a poor interpretation of the FSS forensic report resulting in a forum myth or is there a link to confirm the claim?

You are mistaken...the sample was not contaminated and nowhere does it say that

sami wrote:

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:  The FSS didn't decide to destroy the samples ...the destruction was in line with legislation. 

The laboratory has examined one or more of the samples listed below. They will not be returned to you but will be destroyed in due course unless we are requested by the Defence to preserve them. You should notify the Defence solicitors in accordance with Home Office circulars 40/73 and 74/82 which allow a period of 21 days in which notice in writing must be given, by the defendant or his legal representative to the laboratory to prevent the samples being destroyed.

I don't understand this.  Who were the "defendants" at that point in time ?  The PJ had suspects but surely this is not the same until somebody was charged with the crime.  Then why ask them if potentially damning samples should be retained or not ?

Apologies in advance if I'm being totally stupid and missing something obvious.

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Verdi, thanks for your postings along with Hideho.
The points you highlighted in red, in the destruction of the DNA material,"If you fail to contact within 21 days".
So the UK police have destroyed the available DNA legally by following "Official guidelines,Home Office"by failing to inform the defendants that they should have informed the UK Police "Not to Destroy" the DNA profiles from the Renault Scenic, within the time frame, a bit like the "Gasper statements" UK Police did you send them within 21 Days, thought not?
As I have previously stated,The UK Police Officially Destroyed the DNA,held on behalf of FSS in an incomplete missing person case,Why did they do this,on Health Grounds to destruction of DNA, is this a first?

Nina wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Verdi, thanks for your postings along with Hideho.
The points you highlighted in red, in the destruction of the DNA material,"If you fail to contact within 21 days".
So the UK police have destroyed the available DNA legally by following "Official guidelines,Home Office"by failing to inform the defendants that they should have informed the UK Police "Not to Destroy" the DNA profiles from the Renault Scenic, within the time frame, a bit like the "Gasper statements" UK Police did you send them within 21 Days, thought not?
As I have previously stated,The UK Police Officially Destroyed the DNA,held on behalf of FSS in an incomplete missing person case,Why did they do this,on Health Grounds to destruction of DNA, is this a first?

What was such a risk to health from these samples that they had to  be destroyed?

Verdi wrote:

ETA:  *I will excuse your error, have to admit I couldn't make out who was saying what, when or why in HiDeHo's post.  Maybe I further confused by my posting style !?!

HiDeHo wrote:

Verdi wrote:

ETA:  *I will excuse your error, have to admit I couldn't make out who was saying what, when or why in HiDeHo's post.  Maybe I further confused by my posting style !?!

Thanks for pointing that out Verdi.

It's important to be correct so I managed to find the original version of the interview in French
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The translation by Anna Esse is here..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The commentary on the interview (anonymous) is here
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here is the page with all the added/corrected info.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have also adjusted the original post on previous page.

Nina wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Verdi, thanks for your postings along with Hideho.
The points you highlighted in red, in the destruction of the DNA material,"If you fail to contact within 21 days".
So the UK police have destroyed the available DNA legally by following "Official guidelines,Home Office"by failing to inform the defendants that they should have informed the UK Police "Not to Destroy" the DNA profiles from the Renault Scenic, within the time frame, a bit like the "Gasper statements" UK Police did you send them within 21 Days, thought not?
As I have previously stated,The UK Police Officially Destroyed the DNA,held on behalf of FSS in an incomplete missing person case,Why did they do this,on Health Grounds to destruction of DNA, is this a first?

What was such a risk to health from these samples that they had to  be destroyed?