Re: DNA connects Tanner and Murat with apartment in Burgau

by ultimaThule 03.03.15 13:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Gerry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nevertheless, he was careful not to commit himself when asked if he knew Murat before Madeleine disappeared.

WHY?

@mad world

I can't see how changing the remit of Operation Grange can make any difference to what has become a murder investigation and the only 'reconstruction' I wish to see is one that is enacted in a criminal court of law.

SIMPLES. The official remit 'to investigate the abduction' means that DCI Nicola Wall and her staff can't investigate any other hypothesis.

One possible answer to 'Why?' is that Gerry did not wish to commit himself to making a public statement which could subsequently be proved to be untrue, but that does not preclude there being an/other reason(s) for his reluctance to state whether or not he knew Murat before 4 May 2007.

With regard to OG's remit, it should be noted that the police investigation into 'the abduction' of April Jones resulted in a murder charge and a subsequent conviction.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.03.15 13:42

ultimaThule wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Gerry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nevertheless, he was careful not to commit himself when asked if he knew Murat before Madeleine disappeared.

WHY?

@mad world

I can't see how changing the remit of Operation Grange can make any difference to what has become a murder investigation and the only 'reconstruction' I wish to see is one that is enacted in a criminal court of law.

SIMPLES. The official remit 'to investigate the abduction' means that DCI Nicola Wall and her staff can't investigate any other hypothesis.

One possible answer to 'Why?' is that Gerry did not wish to commit himself to making a public statement which could subsequently be proved to be untrue, but that does not preclude there being an/other reason(s) for his reluctance to state whether or not he knew Murat before 4 May 2007.

It's blindingly obvious why he angrily refused to comment. But I do admire your ingenuity in trying to think up inventive reasons for Gerry's evasive answer.

With regard to OG's remit, it should be noted that the police investigation into 'the abduction' of April Jones resulted in a murder charge and a subsequent conviction.

Totally irrelevant, uT, and you know it. The investigations into the disappearances of e.g. Tia Sharp, April Jones and now, Rebecca Watts, were never limited in any way, although at first they were looking at a missing child.

Wholly contrary to that, the most senior police officers in the country placed an unprecedented limitation on police enquries under Operation Grange. The order went out from on high: "ONLY INVESTIGATE CAN ABUCTION".

It's not often that you make a bad point, but - sorry - that was one of them

by FH 03.03.15 13:43

I am not sure how much you can read into the mitochondrial DNA results.

If you look at this thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It says

"mtDNA changes (mutates) very slowly and can be passed down virtually unchanged for thousands of years, your mtDNA may be identical to that of your very distant direct maternal ancestors. For this reason, it is often impossible to find the genealogical link to your matches."

The writer of the article says she has "an exact mtDNA match with whom I have compared direct maternal pedigrees back to the 1500’s without finding our common ancestor"

So all we really know is that it matches someone from that maternal lineage. To make any use of this mtDNA data, we would need to know how likely that was statistically. It may be 1 in a million people would match, or 1 in 20. Without knowing the statistics I'm not sure you can tell anything.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.03.15 13:55

FH wrote:I am not sure how much you can read into the mitochondrial DNA results.

If you look at this thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It says

"mtDNA changes (mutates) very slowly and can be passed down virtually unchanged for thousands of years, your mtDNA may be identical to that of your very distant direct maternal ancestors. For this reason, it is often impossible to find the genealogical link to your matches."

The writer of the article says she has "an exact mtDNA match with whom I have compared direct maternal pedigrees back to the 1500’s without finding our common ancestor"

So all we really know is that it matches someone from that maternal lineage. To make any use of this mtDNA data, we would need to know how likely that was statistically. It may be 1 in a million people would match, or 1 in 20. Without knowing the statistics I'm not sure you can tell anything.

I'm not sure I would accept that post on a comment thread on geni.com as of any scientific accuracy whatsoever.

The PJ said this:

The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

That means that the hairs belong to Robert Murat (or his mother, grandmother etc.) and to Jane Tanner (or her mother, grandmother).

By the way, I have actually studied the literature on mtDNA and I think you would be bound to agree that the current scientific consensus is that the rate of mtDNA mutations (as indeed with all other mutations) is much quicker that was formerly thought to be the case

by LombardySkeptik 03.03.15 14:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
LombardySkeptik wrote:Tony - I think you are misreading this information

Does it state they found Tanners hair in this apartment??
At best - What it states is the 'samples' mtDNA profile matched...... that of the mtDNA profile ....obtained from Tanners hair ...and the same can be said for Robert Murat

No more and no less...and almost meaningless
Er, do you agree, or do you disagree, with this statement by the PJ, as reported by NickE in the OP:

From the PJ files...

The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.
The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

My comments are almost an exact summary of what you have posted from the PJ files
so.........er I do agree

by FH 03.03.15 14:57

Tony Bennett wrote:
FH wrote:I am not sure how much you can read into the mitochondrial DNA results.

If you look at this thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It says

"mtDNA changes (mutates) very slowly and can be passed down virtually unchanged for thousands of years, your mtDNA may be identical to that of your very distant direct maternal ancestors. For this reason, it is often impossible to find the genealogical link to your matches."

The writer of the article says she has "an exact mtDNA match with whom I have compared direct maternal pedigrees back to the 1500’s without finding our common ancestor"

So all we really know is that it matches someone from that maternal lineage. To make any use of this mtDNA data, we would need to know how likely that was statistically. It may be 1 in a million people would match, or 1 in 20. Without knowing the statistics I'm not sure you can tell anything.
I'm not sure I would accept that post on a comment thread on geni.com as of any scientific accuracy whatsoever.

The PJ said this:

The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

That means that the hairs belong to Robert Murat (or his mother, grandmother etc.) and to Jane Tanner (or her mother, grandmother).

By the way, I have actually studied the literature on mtDNA and I think you would be bound to agree that the current scientific consensus is that the rate of mtDNA mutations (as indeed with all other mutations) is much quicker that was formerly thought to be the case

Tony,

I am not an expert on mt DNA mutation and I suspect even experts will have their differences of opinion.

The PJ statement is not very specific about what regions of the mt DNA they tested, or what the result means. Was it a full sequence analysis, or was it just particular loci? If they only tested particular regions, then which ones and what are the chance of any individual matching those regions. The statement "individuals of the same maternal bloodline" tells me nothing. How many of us have the same maternal bloodline when our mtDNA is analysed? Is it 1 in 10, 1 in a hundred? 1 in a thousand.

What I would really like to see in the statement is what is the statistical likelihood of a person having the haplotype M e M*, or the haplotype S . M seems to be an African/European haplotype. S seems to be aboriginal in origin. So what percentage of the population would have type M , or S in Portugal. Is M a really common haplotype in europe? I would have thought that S might be rarer, but I really have no idea.

Did you come across any statistical data during your research?

by FH 03.03.15 15:14

I would argue it does not mean

"that the hairs belong to Robert Murat (or his mother, grandmother etc.) and to Jane Tanner (or her mother, grandmother)."

It simply means they belong to someone descended from a common maternal ancestor. Which could be a very distant relative on the maternal line.

The hairs could of course belong to Robert and Jane, but I don't think it is in anyway conclusive proof.

by HelenMeg 03.03.15 15:36

The PJ said this:

The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

That means that the hairs belong to Robert Murat (or his mother, grandmother etc.) and to Jane Tanner (or her mother, grandmother). snipped from Tony's post

What on earth was JT doing in that apartment whilst on a family holiday - was she questioned on it? I dont recall seeing this in her interviews but i will check. I would agree with Tony that she is likely to have been discussing something with Robert, although why did the discussion need to be in Burgau rather than Chez Jenny Murat..

by LombardySkeptik 03.03.15 18:28

HelenMeg wrote:The PJ said this:

The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

That means that the hairs belong to Robert Murat (or his mother, grandmother etc.) and to Jane Tanner (or her mother, grandmother). snipped from Tony's post

What on earth was JT doing in that apartment whilst on a family holiday - was she questioned on it? I dont recall seeing this in her interviews but i will check. I would agree with Tony that she is likely to have been discussing something with Robert, although why did the discussion need to be in Burgau rather than Chez Jenny Murat..

I doubt she was questioned on being in the apartment...because there is no evidence that she was in the apartment!

This MtDNA 'story' is way wide of the mark (and reflects a misunderstanding of MtDNA profiling and its implications compared with conventional DNA profiling which is far more sensitive)

by joyce1938 03.03.15 22:07

I too have seen this item discussed on another site ,someone really good with dna stuff felt that it could have been from other than jane andfriend ,did not mean that it has to be these 2. joyce1938

by mad world 03.03.15 22:57

tony that's what i was driving at..the whole thing has been set up to fail within the remit...and unless it goes back to the beginning with an open remit we are dancing in circles. After all...is genghis khan not the common ancestor of around 15 percent of the worlds population? I've just hit a wall...we can point out all these inconsistencies but it won't change a thing till the police are free to do their jobs. Sorry if this seems disruptive but the police are aware of all these things but they are handcuffed. Imo

by ultimaThule 03.03.15 23:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Gerry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nevertheless, he was careful not to commit himself when asked if he knew Murat before Madeleine disappeared.

WHY?

@mad world

I can't see how changing the remit of Operation Grange can make any difference to what has become a murder investigation and the only 'reconstruction' I wish to see is one that is enacted in a criminal court of law.

SIMPLES. The official remit 'to investigate the abduction' means that DCI Nicola Wall and her staff can't investigate any other hypothesis.

One possible answer to 'Why?' is that Gerry did not wish to commit himself to making a public statement which could subsequently be proved to be untrue, but that does not preclude there being an/other reason(s) for his reluctance to state whether or not he knew Murat before 4 May 2007.

It's blindingly obvious why he angrily refused to comment. But I do admire your ingenuity in trying to think up inventive reasons for Gerry's evasive answer.

With regard to OG's remit, it should be noted that the police investigation into 'the abduction' of April Jones resulted in a murder charge and a subsequent conviction.

Totally irrelevant, uT, and you know it. The investigations into the disappearances of e.g. Tia Sharp, April Jones and now, Rebecca Watts, were never limited in any way, although at first they were looking at a missing child.

Wholly contrary to that, the most senior police officers in the country placed an unprecedented limitation on police enquries under Operation Grange. The order went out from on high: "ONLY INVESTIGATE CAN ABUCTION".

It's not often that you make a bad point, but - sorry - that was one of them

As I see it, it's not a matter of my 'ingenuity'; a question rarely has one answer and, as evidenced by the recent white/gold blue/black dress debate, what appears 'blindingly obvious' may subsequently take on a different hue when an explanation is given for any variation between what some see and others don't.

When the Crimewatch deconstruction was aired in 2013 it was blindingly obvious to me that OG had become a murder investigation and my view would appear to be supported by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis who, remarkably, failed to mention 'abduction' during his Radio London interview last October: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nevertheless, I fully accept that I may have misinterpreted what I have seen and heard and, should this prove to be the case, I will reappraise my current beliefs.

Tia Sharp and, more recently, Rebecca Watts were both reported as 'missing' by their respective families. However, having been seen by her playmate talking to a man and climbing into what the child intially said was his 'grey van', April Jones was reported as having been abducted and I believe I am correct in saying that the Dyfed Powys police initial STORM report triggered the UK's first nationwide child rescue alert (CRA).

Given the above, together with Op Grange's remit to 'investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK, I see no reason to assume the investigation into what was reported in Portugal as the crime of abduction has been constrained in any way and I stand ready to consume a slice of humble pie should time prove me wrong.

by XTC 03.03.15 23:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
FH wrote:I am not sure how much you can read into the mitochondrial DNA results.

If you look at this thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It says

"mtDNA changes (mutates) very slowly and can be passed down virtually unchanged for thousands of years, your mtDNA may be identical to that of your very distant direct maternal ancestors. For this reason, it is often impossible to find the genealogical link to your matches."

The writer of the article says she has "an exact mtDNA match with whom I have compared direct maternal pedigrees back to the 1500’s without finding our common ancestor"

So all we really know is that it matches someone from that maternal lineage. To make any use of this mtDNA data, we would need to know how likely that was statistically. It may be 1 in a million people would match, or 1 in 20. Without knowing the statistics I'm not sure you can tell anything.
I'm not sure I would accept that post on a comment thread on geni.com as of any scientific accuracy whatsoever.

The PJ said this:

The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

That means that the hairs belong to Robert Murat (or his mother, grandmother etc.) and to Jane Tanner (or her mother, grandmother).

By the way, I have actually studied the literature on mtDNA and I think you would be bound to agree that the current scientific consensus is that the rate of mtDNA mutations (as indeed with all other mutations) is much quicker that was formerly thought to be the case

No expert all I'm afraid but " identical " suggests just that - as in RM and Jt existing hairs can be tested because they are alive and kicking.

As far as I know Mitochondrial DNA has been used to trace relatives in police work.

If anyone ever remembers beachy who was red hot on the 3 Arguido's site re: DNA and hair samples she talked of corpse banding. I hope i'm not mis- quoting beachy here but the general thrust of her argument was that if you could match Madeleine's known hair ( say from a pillow
or other item ) against a hair found in the Scenic or from other items and the Scenic hair showed signs of corpse banding then it's basically a
match on both counts therefore Madeleine's known hair and Corpse Banding on the Scenic hair(s) is firm evidence. As I say I hope I'm quoting beachy right or am at least near to what she was saying?

The INML seemed to me to have a fascination with hair and some was handed over to the FSSI recall. This is not dangerous stuff and should still be avaiable and preserved to date. It doesn't degenerate quickly if wrapped up.

Also if you look at the compilation of Madeleine's ( unknown at the time ) DNA Reference sample via the FSS 19 markers I often wondered whether the INML could test found hairs against this sample re: DNA matches. I don't think you would have got 13 matched markers but 10 might put you on the right Matriarchal lines. There were afterall 10 from each parent ( minus 1 marker which represents both parents in the mix so to speak ) and of course later on the FSS received a delivery of Madleine's Nuclear DNA from the blood spot in a cardboard frame which has been assumed to be the Heel Stick Test all newborns have taken at birth and is kept at the Hospital.

Incidentally that's one for the new DCI Nicola Wall. If you're testing DNA test against that for traces of Madeleine. The 19 markers are good but not as good as Nuclear DNA.

I must add that despite the advertising I've not heard a peep from SY re: The Review of the Forensic evidence.

From the bit that I know about Mitachondrial DNA this is the energy source of all cells and without it cells whither and die so it is a very important component of all cells. Whether it is accurate as a current ( as in people still living ) test I'm not sure but Nuclear DNA will beat all of these guides hands down.

It depends on what SY and the Portuguese labs want to do with the forensic material and reports they have in their posession?

Only opinion though.

by mad world 03.03.15 23:59

They have enough circumstantial evidence to have an open remit..evidence that at least suggests the abduction never happened. Yet they look for burglars, local loonies and those crazy lawless gypsies and not the parents,tapas group
of course its an abduction thesis or at best murder after stranger abduction

by **Tony Bennett** 04.03.15 0:11

@ ultimaThule    Thank you for your reply.

I'll make this brief.

Tia Sharp, April Jones, Rebecca Watts, the Soham girls etc. etc. start out as missing persons reports, with no other remit but to find out the truth. As in many of these cases, the child is missing because she is dead, and it morphs into a murder enquiry.

Operation Grange has a very specific remit, determined at the highest level of government and police, to investigate the abduction.

The only sense in which this has become a 'murder enquiry' is that it has become an investigation into murder by the abductor. That much is clear from Redwood's enthusaism about widening the time for the abduction from 9.10pm to 9.15pm to 9.10pm to 10.00pm. He was overjoyed about that - how grateful he must have been for the 'Smithman' sighting!

And now he has been making noises about Madeleine being 'dead when she left the apartment'.

It's clear what his game was - and now pretty Nicola Wall has come along for the 'endgame'.

So it's only in that very limited sense that (IMO) you're right to say this is a murder enquiry.

You say the Operation Grange invesigation is 'not constrained in any way'.

I say it is constrained and we therefore disagree on that most fundamental issue.

@ mad world    You say the police are 'handcuffed'. I prefer to put it another way. The senior police officers in Operation Grange have willingly had those handcuffs placed on them, contrary to their police oath to investigate crimes 'without fear or favour', almost certainly IMO in exchange for later preferment - promotion and extra pension.