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

HiDeHo wrote:John Lowe tells us the blood in the back of the car MATCHED Maddie... Either MADELEINE WAS IN THE CAR or it was a CHANCE MATCH. If it was a 'chance' match, how can it be explained? Two or more relatives leave 15 markers of the DNA they share with Maddie, in the same sequence, in EXACTLY the same tiny BLOOD spot?  

"in the same sequence" ? Sequence has no relevance at all in STR DNA fingerprinting.  According to Lowe there were 37 markers in the sample from the car of which 15 matched Madeleine's DNA. What Lowe fails to state is whether any of the other 22 (37 minus 15) matched Kate or Gerry McCann. This is the crucial point in determining whether the sample included Madeleine's DNA or not.


Forensic results in the case have been discussed and scrutinised since the day they were revealed. Efforts to discredit the dogs and the findings run rampant.

True

Fact is, for the record, that if a BLOOD dog alerts, then they have found BLOOD (Keela alerts to nothing else) Forensics being retrieved from that area CONFIRMS the dog was successful.

True


We are told that 15 of Madeleine's 19 markers were found in the trunk of the car (among 37 markers altogether) and with 4 more of her markers would have been conclusive. Had any of the other markers in her sequence NOT been hers then it could NOT have been Maddie's DNA, but the results reveal, according to John Lowe, that it is a MATCH to Maddie.

NOT TRUE!  Even if the other 4 markers had been present the sample could still have been the result of a mixture of Kate & Gerry McCann's DNA. What matters is what the other 22 markers were.


The question he asks, was the match GENUINE or a CHANCE match.

True & the shocking thing is that in spite of having the data about other McCann family members DNA profiles he makes absolutely no attempt to answer the question.


Was Madeleine in the car or was the match deposited by family members?

The data obtained from the sample by FSS would have allowed them to state whether other McCann family members DNA could have been present in the sample or not.


We now KNOW that DNA that Matches Madeleine WAS IN THE CAR, we just need to find out HOW 15 of Madeleine's DNA markers could be deposited in a tiny blood spot in the back of the car? Her relatives share some of the same markers. 

This is true except that Kate & Gerry share ALL of the same markers with Madeleine


How many combinations of DNA from her relatives would need to have produced 15 of Madeleine's markers in the EXACT spot that Keela alerted to and in the same sequence?

Once again, sequence is completely irrelevant in STR DNA fingerprinting.  The question of combinations of relatives is an interesting one. If Kate & Gerry's DNA was present that answers the question. However Lowe had the evidence of the 22 other markers & no where does he state that these were consistent with Kate & Gerry's DNA. If those 22 markers were not consistent with Kate & Gerry's DNA then the liklihood of a chance match to 15 of Madeleine's markers plummets. Without knowing which 15 markers were present it is not possible to put an actual figure on the probability of a chance match.



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

Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic University of Louvain wrote:Regardless of the number of markers you are testing, if the DNA in ANY of the markers in a questioned sample does not match the DNA in the known sample, then the questioned sample does not come from the same person who was the donor of the known sample of DNA.

I have not seen anything in writing to date, but I have been assuming that the FSS was able to extract 15 markers from the sample of DNA found in the back of the Renault Scenic, and that the other four markers were so degraded (by heat, sunlight, efforts to clean them up, whatever) that they could not be analysed. If they had 4 out of 19 markers that clearly were NOT a match for Madeleine's DNA, that would have been the end of it, in my opinion; the DNA from the Scenic could not have been hers.

I have read that the Portuguese require 19 markers for a conclusive result on a DNA analysis because under their laws that is how many markers are required for a positive match on a paternity test. This is more markers than I have ever heard of being required anywhere for forensic purposes in a criminal case. In the UK, 10 markers are tested, plus the sex of the donor is determined, and a 10:10 match is considered conclusive. In America, the FBI CODIS database contains 13 markers. Individual states in America are allowed to pass their own laws about how many markers must be tested before evidence can be introduced in court, but most of the 50 states use 13 because there is so much interface with the FBI database. Therefore, in America, a 13:13 match is considered conclusive that the questioned DNA and the known DNA came from the same person. Neverthess, if Portuguese law requires analysis of 19 markers, then that's what must be done. Period.

Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic University of Louvain wrote:(1) Only identical twins are born with identical DNA, and even in that case, every individual on earth begins to accumulate mutations to his/her DNA that may make it possible to distinguish even between the DNA of identical twins. There is a laboratory in Texas called Orchid Cellmark that claims it already can do this, but so far as I know, this technique has never been used in court.

The DNA of everyone on earth is at least a 99% match. Yep, that's right. The DNA of the most profoundly mentally disabled person who ever lived was a 99% match for Albert Einstein's. The DNA of the poorest beggar on the streets of the poorest city in the world, whoever that unfortunate soul happens to be, is a 99% match for the Queen's. Rather humbling, isn't it? (Note: Studies published in 2001 indicated that the DNA of all human beings was about 99.9% alike. More recent information, obtained from the human genome project, indicates that the accurate figure is probably somewhere in the range of 99 - 99.5%.)

The DNA of siblings is even more alike than that of individuals selected at random, which makes sense, considering that they inherit their DNA from the same two people. Within that 1% or less variation, however, there are literally tens of thousands of different combinations that make the DNA of any one individual unique from that of everyone else, including his/her siblings.

The FBI's CODIS database, which contains the DNA profiles of approximately 6 million convicted criminals, has been extensively studied. No 13:13 match of genetic markers has ever been found except between identical twins. There was a widely reported case several years ago in which a forensics examiner for the state of Arizona in America found a 9:13 match between two unrelated individuals, and there has also been a report of a 10:13 match between two related individuals who were products of an incestuous relationship.

Given the experience with CODIS, I think it is highly, highly unlikely (as in, the odds in favour of it would be one in the tens of millions) that one would find a 15:15 match on genetic markers between two different members of the McCann family.

DaTroof wrote:Yes, I know about SNP's. Most decent molecular genetics labs could have worked out with high degree of confidence whether sample contained MBM DNA  or not.

HiDeHo wrote:

DaTroof wrote:Yes, I know about SNP's. Most decent molecular genetics labs could have worked out with high degree of confidence whether sample contained MBM DNA  or not.

Thank you Da Troof

Is there any known reason why this was not done?

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

DaTroof wrote:Yes, I know about SNP's. Most decent molecular genetics labs could have worked out with high degree of confidence whether sample contained MBM DNA  or not.

Thank you Da Troof

Is there any known reason why this was not done?

What would it mean if a minute trace of maddie's DNA was found in the car...it would not prove she had been in that car

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

DaTroof wrote:Yes, I know about SNP's. Most decent molecular genetics labs could have worked out with high degree of confidence whether sample contained MBM DNA  or not.

Thank you Da Troof

Is there any known reason why this was not done?

What would it mean if a minute trace of maddie's DNA was found in the car...it would not prove she had been in that car

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

DaTroof wrote:Yes, I know about SNP's. Most decent molecular genetics labs could have worked out with high degree of confidence whether sample contained MBM DNA  or not.

Thank you Da Troof

Is there any known reason why this was not done?

What would it mean if a minute trace of maddie's DNA was found in the car...it would not prove she had been in that car

There is no question that her DNA could be found in the car.  Urine, sweat fingernails etc but they brought in a BLOOD dog to find BLOOD.

We don't know if Maddie WAS in the car but noone can claim she was NOT in the car.

HiDeHo wrote:

DaTroof wrote:Yes, I know about SNP's. Most decent molecular genetics labs could have worked out with high degree of confidence whether sample contained MBM DNA  or not.

Thank you Da Troof

Is there any known reason why this was not done?

DaTroof wrote:The significance of Madeleine's DNA being found (or not found) in the car is that it was tied to the dog alerts. Unfortunately it is not certain that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour from the car. Even so if it could be established that the Madeleine's DNA was in the car at the very spot Keela alerted a defence lawyer would have to establish that it was likely that DNA was transferred to that spot in some way. DNA transfer is possible, but not very likely.
Unfortunately he whole subject is now academic because FSS only did the bare minimum that they were asked to do & the PJ mistakenly thought they have enough evidence to "force" a confession.

BlueBag wrote:Let's stop the minimization of calling it low copy DNA.

It was blood in the car which had DNA that matched that of Madeleine McCann.

I'd like to know how BLOOD that matched Madeleine's DNA was in the car.

Context is important.

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Let's stop the minimization of calling it low copy DNA.

It was blood in the car which had DNA that matched that of Madeleine McCann.

I'd like to know how BLOOD that matched Madeleine's DNA was in the car.

Context is important.

who said it was blood and who said it was  a match for Maddie

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Let's stop the minimization of calling it low copy DNA.

It was blood in the car which had DNA that matched that of Madeleine McCann.

I'd like to know how BLOOD that matched Madeleine's DNA was in the car.

Context is important.

who said it was blood and who said it was  a match for Maddie

The dog and the report.

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Let's stop the minimization of calling it low copy DNA.

It was blood in the car which had DNA that matched that of Madeleine McCann.

I'd like to know how BLOOD that matched Madeleine's DNA was in the car.

Context is important.

who said it was blood and who said it was  a match for Maddie

The dog and the report.

the dog's alert need forensic confirmation to be confirmed....there was none...the sample was not confirmed as blood....the report did not state a match to Maddie

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Let's stop the minimization of calling it low copy DNA.

It was blood in the car which had DNA that matched that of Madeleine McCann.

I'd like to know how BLOOD that matched Madeleine's DNA was in the car.

Context is important.

who said it was blood and who said it was  a match for Maddie

The dog and the report.

the dog's alert need forensic confirmation to be confirmed....there was none...the sample was not confirmed as blood....the report did not state a match to Maddie

The DNA was confirmation of the dog's alert.

The report said did say it was a match to Madeleine... did it exclude Madeleine?

You're working hard on this.

Richard IV wrote:It was a BLOOD dog that alerted, so it was BLOOD.

mike7777 wrote:

Richard IV wrote:It was a BLOOD dog that alerted, so it was BLOOD.

the alerts have to have forensic confirmation to be of value according to Grime  so in the real world the alert has no value