The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 19:35

In Amaral's book (PREPARATION FOR THE INTERROGATIONS) he writes :

We confidently wait for the evaluation reports from FSS. A few days after the samples are sent, we are informed that the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns’ car shows a significant match - 50% - with Gerald’s, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. We telephone the public minister to pass on this initial result and wait for the follow-up to the analyses and definite conclusions But the laboratory takes its time.

Is this information on the DVD?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 19:51

Thought so. Someone should have explained the basics of DNA to him.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by DCB1 on 17.12.09 20:29

Molly wrote:Thought so. Someone should have explained the basics of DNA to him.

In Portuguese. Maybe Sofa did it?

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by sans_souci on 17.12.09 20:53

Molly wrote:Thought so. Someone should have explained the basics of DNA to him.

I am reliably informed that this, along with so much else, is in the files retained by the PJ in anticipation of a criminal trial.

sans_souci

Posts : 58
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 20:56

@sans_souci wrote:
Molly wrote:Thought so. Someone should have explained the basics of DNA to him.

I am reliably informed that this, along with so much else, is in the files retained by the PJ in anticipation of a criminal trial.


oooh they be sneaky.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 20:58

@DCB1 wrote:
Molly wrote:Thought so. Someone should have explained the basics of DNA to him.

In Portuguese. Maybe Sofa did it?

Now there's a woman with many talents. And modest also...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by DCB1 on 17.12.09 21:33

As an aside - why wasn't she on the arm of GA at court (supporting, loving)?

K & G were together.

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by preciousramotswe on 17.12.09 22:22

She is not a well woman DCB, and that's putting it mildly.

If she has been as ill as he has recently claimed, then it really is time he stopped parading her at court appearances and the like, and left her at home to sort herself out.

preciousramotswe

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-02

Back to top Go down

The 'first' and 'final' reports - evidence provided by Slartibartfast

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.12.09 0:55

@Slartibartfast wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
muratfan01 wrote:WHICH BIT OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...INCONCLUSIVE...IT COULD NOT BE PROVED IT WAS MADELEINES...OR ANYONES.
Yes, not proved to be Madeleine's. But quite posibly, or even probably, was.

Less probable, Tony, given the nature of the sample of UP TO 5 PEOPLE.

5 people who may include Kate and Gerry( where all Madeleine's DNA comes from) and her sibling's who share a very similar DNA profile.

Given the unliklihood that people would transport a dead body at least 25 days after the fact amid the glare of constant media attention you still maintain it was more likely to be Madeleine's DNA?
Slartibartfast, I acknowledge the FSS 'Final' report, but DCB1 seems to think that was the only report.

But you yourself have quoted from this admittedly rough translation the following:

QUOTE

Note that the choice of this laboratory has been and continues to be obvious in view of its prestige, independence and scientific reputation, in spite opinion appears in the first instance the possibility of alignment of the DNA profile of MADELEINE with some of the traces collected (of which the large car in the Renault Scenic rented by the couple McCann), taking into account the content of that fax, then it incorporates the precise terms in the file (fls. 2620 et seq) but whose consistency as noted by the above mentioned final report of the FSS, was not to confirm, after the completion of long and complex examinations.

UNQUOTE

Now I don't want to be unfair, and I believe DCB1 likes to get his facts right, but is not the reference in red clearly to a first report and the reference in black to a 'final' report'?

So I was right after all regarding the existence of two reports - first and final?
avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14663
Reputation : 2801
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Honoria on 18.12.09 1:03

You should of done a biomedical degree Mr Bennett because you quite clearly have no concept whatsoever when it comes to scientific facts!!

Honoria

Posts : 22
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Guest on 18.12.09 1:15

Tony, you want to get a colouring book for Christmas.

Sorry, having a laugh.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Guest on 18.12.09 10:57

@Tony Bennett wrote:
muratfan01 wrote:The forensics on the blood said different. It was not proved to be Madeleine's.

Absolutely untrue and nonsense as you well know.

The final FSS report, amended from the first because of a second set of DNA tests, merely changed a certainty or near-certainty that the blood was Madeleine's into a tangled and convoluted set of probabilities which made the FSS at the end of the day say that the DNA results were 'inconclusive' so far as it being Madeleine's blood.

You have totally twisted that to come up with a blatant lie: "It was not proved to be Madeleine's".
DCB1 for one will back me up on what I have said.

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Slartibartfast wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
muratfan01 wrote:WHICH BIT OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...INCONCLUSIVE...IT COULD NOT BE PROVED IT WAS MADELEINES...OR ANYONES.
Yes, not proved to be Madeleine's. But quite posibly, or even probably, was.

Less probable, Tony, given the nature of the sample of UP TO 5 PEOPLE.

5 people who may include Kate and Gerry( where all Madeleine's DNA comes from) and her sibling's who share a very similar DNA profile.

Given the unliklihood that people would transport a dead body at least 25 days after the fact amid the glare of constant media attention you still maintain it was more likely to be Madeleine's DNA?

Slartibartfast, I acknowledge the FSS 'Final' report, but DCB1 seems to think that was the only report.

But you yourself have quoted from this admittedly rough translation the following:

QUOTE

Note that the choice of this laboratory has been and continues to be obvious in view of its prestige, independence and scientific reputation, in spite opinion appears in the first instance the possibility of alignment of the DNA profile of MADELEINE with some of the traces collected (of which the large car in the Renault Scenic rented by the couple McCann), taking into account the content of that fax, then it incorporates the precise terms in the file (fls. 2620 et seq) but whose consistency as noted by the above mentioned final report of the FSS, was not to confirm, after the completion of long and complex examinations.

UNQUOTE

Now I don't want to be unfair, and I believe DCB1 likes to get his facts right, but is not the reference in red clearly to a first report and the reference in black to a 'final' report'?

So I was right after all regarding the existence of two reports - first and final?

I too like to get the facts right.
You should have read that first report, the fax (pages 2620..), before you mentioned it and tried to twist what's written in that report. It's the fax by Lowe to Prior, dated September 3rd.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
...These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

The same fax/report that was misunderstood by Amaral (and probably his team also).
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Slartibartfast on 18.12.09 15:45

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Slartibartfast wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
muratfan01 wrote:WHICH BIT OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...INCONCLUSIVE...IT COULD NOT BE PROVED IT WAS MADELEINES...OR ANYONES.
Yes, not proved to be Madeleine's. But quite posibly, or even probably, was.

Less probable, Tony, given the nature of the sample of UP TO 5 PEOPLE.

5 people who may include Kate and Gerry( where all Madeleine's DNA comes from) and her sibling's who share a very similar DNA profile.

Given the unliklihood that people would transport a dead body at least 25 days after the fact amid the glare of constant media attention you still maintain it was more likely to be Madeleine's DNA?
Slartibartfast, I acknowledge the FSS 'Final' report, but DCB1 seems to think that was the only report.

But you yourself have quoted from this admittedly rough translation the following:

QUOTE

Note that the choice of this laboratory has been and continues to be obvious in view of its prestige, independence and scientific reputation, in spite opinion appears in the first instance the possibility of alignment of the DNA profile of MADELEINE with some of the traces collected (of which the large car in the Renault Scenic rented by the couple McCann), taking into account the content of that fax, then it incorporates the precise terms in the file (fls. 2620 et seq) but whose consistency as noted by the above mentioned final report of the FSS, was not to confirm, after the completion of long and complex examinations.

UNQUOTE

Now I don't want to be unfair, and I believe DCB1 likes to get his facts right, but is not the reference in red clearly to a first report and the reference in black to a 'final' report'?

So I was right after all regarding the existence of two reports - first and final?


Tony, there were two reports.

The one that starts with "Hi Stuart, Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting" which has the 15 out of 37 markers and the caveat. Processo 10 - VOLUME Xa; PDF page 123-124; Case file pages 2617-2618

There was then a summary report which included ALL the samples submitted. Processo 10 - VOLUME Xa; pages 2653-2660

These are the two reports referred to by the prosecutor. There is no other one.
In Amaral's TV documentary Duarte Levy claimed to have seen a report with a 17 out of 19 match.
I need not explain that Duarte Levy has been exposed as a fantasist.

Slartibartfast

Posts : 135
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

Post by Slartibartfast on 18.12.09 17:44

I should add, for clarity, that the above quote by the prosecutor incorporates Lowe's first Email with the Caveat after "then it incorporates the precise terms in the file (fls. 2620 et seq)"
So the first report IS the report by Lowe stating the 15 out of 37 markers.

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.

The second report which is the summary of the ALL of the samples where Lowe states in reference to the SAME sample.

A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the fibre coated luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(1))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage.

And the final deposition:

A mixed, low-level DNA result, appearing to be from at least three people, was obtained from the cellular material collected (harvested) from the baggage compartment lined with fabric (286C/2007-CRL/10(1)) of the motor vehicle. That sample was submitted to tests to obtain DNA profiles through the LCN technique.

A DNA result through the LCN technique, which appeared to be from at least three persons, was obtained from the cellular material collected (harvested) from the baggage compartment lined with fabric (286C/2007-CRL/10(1)). In my opinion, this result is too complex to make a meaningful interpretation.

These are all the same sample.
There is no contradiction.
He is saying to disregard it because it cannot be interpreted.
I do not believe that you or Goncalo have the necessary biological and experimental background to actually contradict Dr. Lowe's findings.
There was no corroboration in Lowe's findings. He tells the investigation THREE times NOT to interpret it.
But what Goncalo and yourself have done is completely twist his words and interpreted it as being from Madeleine.
That is what you have done wrong.

Slartibartfast

Posts : 135
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-07

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum