Page 2 of 2 • Share •
I am quite surprised that there were no baby teeth or 'first baby curl snippings' of Madeleine's suitable to offer up for DNA comparison and analysis..
- Posts : 1606
Reputation : 235
Join date : 2012-01-17
Hi DNAman@DNAman wrote:I'm sorry XTC, you seem to be very confused about what Lowe says & what the DNA markers actually are. I'll try to give you a detailed answer over the weekend. Don't have time right now.
Yes you're correct I am confused about the DNA from Lowe's report and if you can clarify my thoughts that would be great.
Remember though you are talking to a non scientist with a basic grip of maths. Neither discipline was my finest hour at school.
Hope to read your posts over the weekend.
- Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23
Although you’ve said that Madeleine was considered to be a contributor to this particular sample, I think the question that has to be asked is why wasn’t she considered to be the major contributor? It certainly looks on the one hand as though Lowe definitely does consider her as such and uses the term ‘genuine match’ in relation to Madeleine, but then appears to try and eliminate her? It almost appears as though he was either confused, not prepared to commit and /or intentionally left it wide open to interpretation.@DNAman wrote:Madeleine is considered to be a potential source. The problem arises because more than one persons (probably 3 people) DNA was present in the sample. So it is possible that these 3 (or less likely 4 or 5 ) people provided all the markers present in the sample including the 15 shared with Maddie.
Now the question becomes how likely is that? I am in the process of trying to make a rough calculation. With the full lab results I could make a more accurate calculation. However it is safe to say that it is highly unlikely (in the order of several thousands to one) that 3 people unrelated to Maddie could have produced such a DNA profile. However if one, two or three of the contributors was related to Maddie it becomes far more likely.
Now here is the crux of the matter. The 22 markers (37total minus 15Maddie) can help to establish whether K,G,A&S McCann were contributors to the 37 total markers. It should be quite easy to say YES they were potential contributors & most importantly it should be possible to say NO they probably DID NOT (odds of at least hundreds to one) contribute to the sample. Which of these is true is a matter of FACT based on which alleles make up the 37 total.
All that is needed to make the correct one of these statements is the profile obtained from the car boot sample and the DNA profiles of K,G,A&S McCann. These are things that the FSS had so it comes as quite a surprise that no such comment was made.
Profiles of McCann wider family & friends would allow further comment on the source of the DNA in the sample. Profiles of other users of the hire car might also be obtained and provide useful information.
It will be interesting to read and assess your calculations.
- Posts : 61
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-12-24
Page 2 of 2
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum