'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A

by **Jill Havern** 27.04.19 10:51

This research paper on DNA issues and Madeleine McCann was originally given by a local government worker from the north of England, who wishes to be known only as 'Q', at a meeting of the Madeleine Foundation in November 2011, and was brought to the CMOMM forum on 18 November 2011. It is reproduced here now by MMRG

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Every so often we come across a word or a phrase that stands out - and sticks in our minds.

What I’m going to show you now is something that did exactly that when I read it .

Take a moment to think about it - and keep it in mind as I attempt to simplify and talk you through some of the most complex and fascinating of subjects.

A match between a crime scene sample and an individual would be a very rare event if the individual was not the true source of the crime scene sample.

This is a bit of a metaphor - for lack of a better term , or a puzzle which we can relate to in terms of both the forensic and DNA evidence in this case

I’m going to touch on a few topics related to Genetics - DNA , the Forensic Science Service ( FSS ) and General Biological Forensic Service (GBFS) reports - and even one area relating to Artificial Reproduction ( AR)- something called Twinning and attempt to simplify all this and put it into some kind of context that fits in with the MM case & investigation.

I'm sure you'll all agree - This investigation should have been trying to determine what happened to a missing child , that includes , not excludes , all trace evidence found - and that includes biological material that indicates where the child or the body of the child may have been after she went missing.

At the scene of a crime samples are collected from the surrounding area and this can be for the purposes of eliminating individuals from police enquiries as well as to help narrow down the list of suspects or victims.

Trace Evidence Analysis is the discipline of forensic science that deals with minute transfers of materials ( DNA ) that cannot be seen with the unaided eye.

The results of a DNA analysis can provide an important link between victim, suspect, and /or crime scene and can also conclusively exclude or include an individual as being the source .

The key to DNA evidence lies in comparing the DNA retrieved from the scene of a crime .To do this, investigators have to do three things

1.Collect DNA at the crime scene

2. Analyse the DNA to create a DNA profile

3. Compare profiles to each other

The effective use of DNA as evidence may also require the collection and analysis of elimination samples to determine the exact source of the DNA.

Elimination samples may be taken from anyone who had access to the crime scene and may have left biological material.

These points are extremely important in this case and something else to keep in mind .

Authorities can extract DNA from almost any tissue, including hair, fingernails, bones, skin , teeth and bodily fluids.

DNA samples can be generated by tiny amounts of tissue.

DNA is the genetic material found within the cell nuclei of all living things.

DNA is a long molecule and DNA fingerprinting relies on the fact that specific bits of this molecule are replicated in little clusters along its length.

It is this sequence and number of repeats which is a useful way of distinguishing one individual from another.

A DNA 'fingerprint' relies on the fact that hardly anyone will share the same pattern of repeats along the DNA molecule. If this happens, then the chances that they are from two different individuals is very slim.

There are only ever 3 types of results obtained from DNA analysis - Conclusive/ inclusive - Exclusive - Inconclusive .

Inclusion ; When the DNA profile of a victim or suspect is consistent with the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence.

Exclusion ;When the DNA profile from a victim or suspect is inconsistent with the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence.

Inconclusive;Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing could neither include nor exclude an individual as the source of biological evidence.

In mammals the strands of DNA are grouped into structures called chromosomes.

With the exception of identical twins, certain sequences of DNA of each individual are unique.

A DNA fingerprint is constructed by first extracting a DNA sample from body tissue or fluid.

The sample is then segmented using enzymes, and the segments are arranged by size using a process called electrophoresis.

The segments are marked with probes and exposed on X-ray film, where they form a characteristic pattern of black bars – called a DNA fingerprint.

To identify individuals, forensic scientists scan 10 DNA regions, or loci that vary from person to person and use the data to create a DNA profile of that individual (the DNA fingerprint). There is an extremely small chance that another person has the same DNA profile for a particular set of 10 regions.

A nuclear DNA match of loci permits little doubt that a questioned sample has come from a known individual, except in the case of identical twins.

On average, two people would probably have six or seven DNA markers in common out of 20, simply by chance, but with over 12/13 bands in common, you very, very rarely see unrelated people with that degree of similarity.

If the DNA fingerprints produced from two different samples match, the probably of two samples being from the same person is extremely high .

Generally, courts have accepted the reliability of DNA testing and admitted DNA results into evidence.

An example of conclusions provided to the Courts when a DNA match is observed would be as follows:

Approximately 1 person in every 5 trillion chosen at random from the population would be expected to possess the same DNA genotype as that found in a questioned sample . Since 5 trillion is much less than the population of the World (and so one couldn’t have 5 trillion people to compare) an alternative conclusion (based upon the same data) may be adduced. The DNA results are 5 trillion times more likely if the questioned sample originated from the suspect than if it had originated from a randomly chosen unrelated individual from the population.

Tiny amounts of Madeleine's DNA which can last for many years without substantially degrading are probably present on just about everything the family has, toys, Madeleine’s clothes, their clothes, furniture and in their car etc. Believe it or not we loose / shed aprox. 4000 to 5000 skin cells every minute and each one is unique to our very own personal identity .

As you are probably all aware, a familial profile* would show, when compared to one of their children’s DNA profiles [amended from the original - T.B.], enough components to prove whether or not a child was theirs ... but that’s all it would do , it would not prove which child it was, as everyone, bar identical twins, all have DNA components that are unique to us and make us all different .

It wasn't possible to use the same method to create an actual genetic profile for Madeleine so instead of attempting to create one from genetic evidence found on items of clothing she wore , toys she played with or anything else personal to her that she used in PDL, the authorities went back to the UK to Rothley to try and find a sample from her home & found the stain on a pillow case ( believed to be saliva ) Ref. (SJM/1) in the FSS report .

So we know they created two genetic profiles, one created from the DNA taken from her parents (a Familial profile sample) and one created from the stain found on the pillowcase in Rothley which matched a blood sample which we assume was from a heel stick sample.

Just to clarify, these two genetic profiles would not have been identical because only one would show the unique DNA components which only MM had in her genetic make up.

The need for the blood or heel stick sample if that’s what it was is understandable for definite comparison purposes but, call me an old cynic, I am naturally suspicious that this was not or could not be compared to DNA found both in the apartment and on anything belonging to Madeleine from PDL.

They were successful in locating a stain on a pillow case which is believed to be saliva , ( ref SJM/1 ) , this was compared to reference samples of Madeleine’s immediate family and proved to be different .

On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.

The DNA profile was the same as that obtained from possible spots of saliva existing on the pillowcase and thus was born a true genetic profile of MM .

The FSS confirmed this by stating ' The results of the DNA profile obtaïned from the pïllowcase is approximately 29 million times more likely if the profïle originates form a natural child of theirs rather than someone unrelated to them. ' .... can't really argue with that .

I’ve no doubt the heel stick sample was necessary in order to provide them with a definite genetic profile to compare to the Rothley sample and that a true profile was assembled as a result.

I’ve heard various suggestions as to why this might have occurred, everything from the police & forensics not initially looking for a specific sample of her DNA in PDL to attempts to wipe out any evidence of her existence.

Whatever the case, one thing is certain, her DNA should have been present on many things and in many places, they even had a sticker book belonging to her I believe, perfect I would think for collecting a DNA sample from.

So if the heel prick sample was compared to a sample found in Rothley ( the pillowcase sample ) and proved conclusively to be from Madeleine but nothing was found in PDL , in real terms this means we still do not know for certain if the child who was in PDL has the same DNA profile or was in fact even the same child.

There is no genetic evidence to prove the profile compiled from both the heel prick & pillowcase is compatible to any DNA from the child in PDL. We simply don't know if any DNA from clothing, toys, toothbrush, or anything else she used in PDL matched that profile.

I would have thought most intelligent people who’s child goes missing would try to preserve some sort of evidence (worn clothes) belonging to the child, if not more for emotional rather than for forensic purposes?

Worn clothing is the most obvious choice when no other biological sample is available. As I’ve mentioned humans shed aprox. 4000 – 5000 skin cells a minute, each one unique to that person, - not to mention other biological stains/traces that would have been present on items of clothing. In an early report publicized in the press it was said that a white soiled sock supposedly belonging to Madeleine was sent to the FSS in order to extract a sample of her DNA - though we have never seen any report about this in the files.

Realistically there should have been an ample supply of worn clothing - and we’ve seen two photographs supposedly taken on May 3^rd of her dressed in two different outfits – the tennis ball pic and the famous last photo showing her by the pool . This is not to mention other items where her DNA should have been present and should have been as easily collectable as any sample from Rothley.

I have to admit at this stage, like so many people, I’m baffled by the results and conclusions of the FSS report - in so much as results should have provided an important link between victim, suspect, and /or crime scene. They can also conclusively exclude an individual as being the source of the evidence – this is another point I believe is particularly relevant to this case, because that is what appears to have happened.

I’d like to just refer to a Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA profile [/b]

This serves to add [to the case file] a laboratory examination report prepared in England, written in English and translated into Portuguese, delivered to this police force on 4 September 2007 by English police officer Stuart Prior.

This laboratory report tells about the examinations made of two trace evidence recoveries, one behind the living room sofa in apartment 5A and the other in the boot area of the vehicle used by the McCann family, hired [by them] from the end of May this year.

In some of these recoveries (samples) DNA was found whose components are also found in the profile of Madeleine McCann.

With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann.

In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components.

Portimao, 11 September 2007

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* ‘ Familial' searching

Matches parents to children. Standard DNA profiles examine 10 markers in the DNA. Each marker has two sequences - one inherited from the mother, and one from the father.

Familial searching is based on the way in which DNA is inherited within a particular family group, DNA profiles of individuals who are related to each other being more likely to contain similarities in their DNA profiles than two unrelated individuals.

'Q' then added this further commentary:

Clearly something changed as the interpretation of the results by John Lowe attempted to exclude MM as being someone who contributed to the samples found. – I say attempted because he failed and ended up contradicting himself.

“An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. Nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area"."

"DNA analysis uses a technique in which specific regions [areas] are seen and copied (or amplified) many times. A DNA profile obtained from biological material, such as blood, semen, saliva or hair may be compared with a DNA profile obtained from a reference sample of any person. In the case that the DNA profile of the particular person is different from the DNA profile of the biological material, then that person is not the source of that material. If the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material."

This investigation should have been trying to determine what happened to a missing child, that includes not excludes all trace evidence found, that includes biological material that indicates where the child or the body of the child may have been after she went missing. The cellular material found contained enough DNA components to fit the profile of the missing child and the report clearly states she should have been considered as a potential source of the material / sample , so why was she not ?

Coincidently, it appears the GBFS – seem to have done the same thing with hair samples. 12 hairs were recovered from tops belonging to Madeleine, nothing from the hairbrush, nothing from the pillowcase or anywhere else we know of. These were used as substitute reference samples of her hair because others found were not considered to be authentic samples …. but

they were considered not representative of a sample of her hair because they didn't match photographs of her hair or were too short in length to do mtDNA tests .

‘a total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting at the least, that this was a hair from someone else. ‘

Conclusion

In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests, it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these
could have been from Madeleine McCann .’

‘Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitochondrial DNA tests ‘

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her.’

There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair collected . The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hairs consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann were found.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

So no hairs found that belonged to M, not even the 12 hairs found on the 3 tops she wore and apparently no other DNA samples that we know of obtained from PDL either.

How strange is that? - not only has M’s body vanished - but all genetic traces of M. seems to have just vanished from PDL?

Or have they? -

At this juncture lets not forget mans best friends Eddie & Keela , because I don't think they were wrong , but what did they find if there was no evidence of M?

Whose body and DNA was behind the sofa in the apartment and whose body & DNA was in the hire vehicle?

What a conundrum !!

Forensic evidence dogs don’t look for live scent , so whoever commissioned these dogs to search did do so to try and find any evidence of human remains.

The EVRD is trained to located the scent of a dead body . The CSI dog is trained to find human blood and blood is in fact human remains.

So were the dogs correct & did the FSS and the GBSF deliberately mislead the general public ?

Were there actually samples of hair belonging to M , and if so why hide that fact?

Was there DNA evidence in the apartment and on her clothes etc. and if so why disguise the fact.

Was the evidence the Forensic / biological evidence found as a result of the specialist dogs really M's and if so why claim it was inconclusive?

What we're left with is 5 considerations;

1.) either the Forensic results and conclusions were tampered with to get the Mc's off the hook

2.) the FSS & GBFS are useless and botched the whole thing up

3.) the results are factual and there was no DNA or hair samples belonging to MM in PDL

4.) there is something about M's DNA that caused the results to vary .

5.) the DNA & hair samples belonged to someone other than M who was obviously related to the Mc's.

If the results were tampered with, what hook did they need to get the Mc's off .

If the results are correct and there was no DNA or hair evidence belonging to M in PDL then we have to consider the last two possibilities .

It's possible a genetic defect could have caused a variation in the DNA sample , blood chimeraism might account for this or some other genetic problem , but would it account for the mystery of the hair samples .

So that comes down to no.5 which could tie in to no 1 ... I love numbers.

Let's stop a moment and go back to have a little read of our erm ... metaphor:

A match between a crime scene sample and an individual would be a very rare event if the individual was not the true source of the crime scene sample.

A rare event, what constitutes a rare event? Could it be something to do with something or someone special ?

Could there be something that made someone very special?

Someone & something so special it would be like opening Pandora's Box if the truth ever came out ?

One thing is certain , there was according to the GBFS no hairs found in PDL belonging to M.

They do not appear to have recovered any genetic DNA evidence in PDL belonging to M.

The DNA evidence found as result of the EVRD & CSI dogs proved to be inconclusive according to the FSS .

This I believe narrows things down to 2 other considerations ;

1 There is no evidence other than the word of the MC's & family , their friends and tampered with photographs to prove it was definitely MM in PDL - realistically when we piece all this together there is actually more evidence to indicate that it was a different child to the one who's heel stick & saliva samples were retrieved from the UK.

2 It was the same child whose heal stick & saliva samples came from the UK, but there was a need to hide her true DNA .

These 2 considerations IMO boil down to one thing , there is an issue with this child’s genetic make up and that could be something as simple as blood chimeraism or something as complex as artificial embryo twinning or a combination of both .

We know or have been told , that M. had a genetic defect , though we haven’t really considered it as such , but her coloboma , if she had one was a genetic defect.

Were there any other things the Mc's haven’t told us about M's genetics ? Have these Doctors been playing God ?

I'm just going to touch on something called - Artificial Embryo Twinning: Once an egg has been fertilised by sperm it soon starts dividing. When it divides into separate embryos and the cells are separated , those cells can be implanted into separate mothers and almost identical twins will then be born .- Dizygotic twins.

This isn't Sci Fi, it's another type of IVF, and many studies are being done on this subject and on the children born as a result of this process . the children are called Dizygotic twins - DZ twins like any other siblings, don't necessarily have the exact same chromosome profile. Like any other siblings, DZ twins may look similar , but that’s as far as it goes

- DZ twins do not necessarily have exact same chromosome profile .

Back again to our little metaphor ;

A match between a crime scene sample and an individual would be a very rare event if the individual was not the true source of the crime scene sample

I'd like to read something to you now -it may be related to this case or it may not, but it certainly makes you wonder .

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

The Vatican on - Human cloning

Human cloning refers to “the asexual or agametic reproduction of the entire human organism in order to produce one or more ‘copies’ which, from a genetic perspective, are substantially identical to the single original” (n. 28). The techniques which have been proposed for accomplishing human cloning are artificial embryo twinning, which “consists in the artificial separation of individual cells or groups of cells from the embryo in the earliest stage of development… which are then transferred into the uterus in order to obtain identical embryos in an artificial manner” and cell nuclear transfer, which “consists in introducing a nucleus taken from an embryonic or somatic cell into an denucleated oocyte. This is followed by stimulation of the oocyte so that it begins to develop as an embryo”. Cloning is proposed for two basic purposes: reproduction, that is, in order to obtain the birth of a baby, and medical therapy or research.

Human cloning is “intrinsically illicit in that…it seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses gravely injurious to human dignity” (n. 28).

With regard to reproductive cloning, “this would impose on the resulting individual a predetermined genetic identity, subjecting him – as has been stated – to a form of biological slavery, from which it would be difficult to free himself. The fact that someone would arrogate to himself the right to determine arbitrarily the genetic characteristics of another person represents a grave offence to the dignity of that person as well as to the fundamental equality of all people… In the encounter with another person, we meet a human being who owes his existence and his proper characteristics to the love of God, and only the love of husband and wife constitutes a mediation of that love in conformity with the plan of the Creator and heavenly Father” (n. 29).

Okay , let me bring this back on track ....

It’s evident someone has attempted to distort all the facts and evidence surrounding this investigation, and I believe that includes the DNA & genetics of MM .

I think every attempt was made to confuse M's DNA , hence the reports of Amelie wearing M’s clothes and it wouldn't surprise me to learn JT's child wore some of her clothes .

It would be relatively easy for someone to mix up two or three peoples DNA , simply by getting other children to wear the missing child’s clothing for a day or so.

It would be easy to get rid of any hairs from a hairbrush, mix DNA on a toothbrush, change & wash bedding , confuse people about which toys or books belonged to which child etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if the famous Cudle Cat didn't have any traces of MM's DNA on it, hence the need to wash it - not to get rid of any genetic traces of her, but to cover themselves should the police have seized it and discovered that there was nothing on it, or nothing that matched the assembled profile sample - prior to it being washed.

All this is possible - but it still leaves us with the big question - Why? Why the need to go to such lengths to hide this child’s DNA?

What difference would it have made if they found an abundance of her DNA in PDL which provided the authorities with a genetic profile ....

I've no doubts about Eddie and Keela's abilities, and I believe a body was present in that apartment & possibly the hire vehicle . Common sense tells us that there is only one person that we know of that’s missing and the investigation has shown that no one else died in the apartment.

I believe that person was MM , but I'm puzzled as to why anyone or why everyone and when I say everyone I’m not only referring to the MC’s & friends, needed to cover up her genetic make up.

The McCanns and their friends appear to have been afforded the highest protection , from government to wealthy sources who have invested millions in genetics. Sadly Madeleine wasn’t afforded any protection!

We know for certain that there was a long delay with the FSS‘s results , there had to be a reason for this happening and I suspect it was due to the ‘ mix up ‘ in establishing M’s genetic profile. This delay , if intentional did nothing but hinder and stall the investigation of a missing child.

On 5 April 2007, a month before Madeleine went missing , the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report on Government proposals in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill following a short inquiry...coincidence, maybe...
-------

For discussion, please visit this thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long

'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A

'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A

Latest topics