Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

Nessie said:
What did follow up forensic tests find?
Click to expand...

From the police report

>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence

Stuart

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

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.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

John Lowe
Forensic Scientist
Major Incidents Team
Priory House
Click to expand...


FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
Police reference: 07/06085 Qperation TASK
Laboratory reference:
Order reference: 300 555190
Scientist:400 913 609
Scientist: LESLEY DENTON
Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Kate HEALY 51162896) and Gerald McCANN (51162897).

A DNA profile has also been obtained from a pillowcase (SJM/1).

DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which ït ïnherits from their natural father
(paternal)

In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of theirs.

The results of the DNA profife 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.

In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN.

Please note: I understand that the McCANN's have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those described above.

If I can be of further assitance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01XXX XXXXXX.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Anne Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 28 June 2007
Click to expand...


FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
Police reference: 07/06085 Operation TASK
Laboratory reference: 300 655 190
Order reference: 400 922 755
Scientist: Lesley Denton
Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).

In this case, all of the bands present in the profiles of both Amelie McCANN and Sean McCANN are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.

Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile.

If I can be of further assistance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01937 548287.

Yours sincerely,

Lesley Ann Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 18 July 2007
Click to expand...

The uk media reported it as not maddies DNA.
 
gtm said:
I'm afraid it has.

http://exposingthemyths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/analogy-why-cadaver-dogs-are-not.html
Click to expand...

Haha, wait you are using a random internet blog? I'm using police reports and case evidence to support my view and you use a random internet blog?

Besides that piece is stupid, no one is saying that the dogs signaling means its maddies cadaver they are smelling. We are commenting on how its just suspicious that out of all the places they visited, the only time they ever alerted was when it was something directly related to the mccanns.

The car, the keys, maddies toy, kates clothes, the cuboard, behind the sofa.

I must say i find it hilarious that you claim it has been debunked then link to a blogspot post lol.


Besides if you look up to my above post and the correspondence between the police and FSS, you will see that the small amounts of dna they were able to pull from the sites where the dogs alerted was matching maddies but was too degraded or contaminated to test fully.
 
Last edited:
Strawberry said:
They're receiving media attention because their child is still missing. Media coverage is kind of important in such cases - I expect Ben Needham's mother, to quote one example, would kill for the coverage the McCanns are getting.
Click to expand...
The Needham case makes for an interesting comparison. It seems highly unlikely that it was an abduction.
 
lionking said:
Now, did you read the link to the Azaria Chamberlain case? You will see that a lot of people viewed Lindy with suspicion. They were completely, utterly and disgustingly wrong. For the record, I followed that case closely, and always thought her innocent. Some people still hold on to their irrational beliefs about Lindy. As do some about the McCanns.
Click to expand...
I didn't realise that Chamberlain being innocent miraculously confers innocence on all other suspected parentss by default. Presumably, by the same logic, any alleged miscarriage of jutice is negated by the case of James Hanratty?
 
Last edited:
IamFreeCanIGo said:
...Besides if you look up to my above post and the correspondence between the police and FSS, you will see that the small amounts of dna they were able to pull from the sites where the dogs alerted was matching maddies but was too degraded or contaminated to test fully.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the DNA could have belonged to mrs Mccann, her mother or any of her three children.
Of those 5 possible matches, 4 are demonstrably alive and kicking, AFAIK.
 
pakeha said:
IIRC, the DNA could have belonged to mrs Mccann, her mother or any of her three children.
Of those 5 possible matches, 4 are demonstrably alive and kicking, AFAIK.
Click to expand...


Did you not just read the emails i posted above? Its explained all quite clearly.
 
You know what, its clear to see why this place is dying. If you mention anything that goes slightly against public opinion you are considered a conspiracy theorist, people constantly ask you for evidence and when you provide evidence, they don't read it. Then they ask for something else, non related to what you were talking about.

Then they counter your arguments with random internet blogs from people with no experience, imagine if i used my sources as a blogspot blog. Whats clear is that skeptics on here display no critical thinking and refuse to look at evidence. Its easier to say, well the media didn't mention it, so they must be innocent of all wrong doing.

Its very frustrating to keep posting evidence and people to ignore it and come out with nonsense to refute it.
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
You know what, its clear to see why this place is dying. If you mention anything that goes slightly against public opinion you are considered a conspiracy theorist, people constantly ask you for evidence and when you provide evidence, they don't read it. Then they ask for something else, non related to what you were talking about.

Then they counter your arguments with random internet blogs from people with no experience, imagine if i used my sources as a blogspot blog. Whats clear is that skeptics on here display no critical thinking and refuse to look at evidence. Its easier to say, well the media didn't mention it, so they must be innocent of all wrong doing.

Its very frustrating to keep posting evidence and people to ignore it and come out with nonsense to refute it.
Click to expand...

What you are posting is discredited speculation, not evidence.

As I said earlier, this thread is in the right section of the forum.
 
lionking said:
As soon as the video is accepted as evidence in a court of law, come back and let me know.

Now, did you read the link to the Azaria Chamberlain case? You will see that a lot of people viewed Lindy with suspicion. They were completely, utterly and disgustingly wrong. For the record, I followed that case closely, and always thought her innocent. Some people still hold on to their irrational beliefs about Lindy. As do some about the McCanns.

Those who suspect the McCanns were involved in their daughter's death are flogging a dead horse. They will not be charged with anything. The McCanns are victims too.
Click to expand...


I don't understand your reply, why would the video be accepted in a court of law, its a documentary that looks at the events of the case, all of which and be cross referenced to the case files.

By that logic, we cannot watch any documentary about ted bundy for example because the documentary itself would not be accepted as evidence in a case about him. Its a very weird reply.

My reason for suggesting it, was that you are clearly unwilling to do any reading of the case files yourself, so this would make an easy way for you to get an idea of why people like me, who have read the files find them suspicious.
 
lionking said:
What you are posting is discredited speculation, not evidence.

As I said earlier, this thread is in the right section of the forum.
Click to expand...

No, its quite clearly evident, if you just look back a few posts you can see that. Also this thread is about the McCanns. My point was about the attitude of skeptics in general, why does my point on that have anything to do with a thread about the mccanns being in the right sub forum?
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
Did you not just read the emails i posted above? Its explained all quite clearly.
Click to expand...

I missed those e-mails you posted, so sorry.
I was relying on my own memory of the reports as they appeared back in the day.

What do you think is the importance of this change in direction of the Met's investigation?
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
My reason for suggesting it, was that you are clearly unwilling to do any reading of the case files yourself, so this would make an easy way for you to get an idea of why people like me, who have read the files find them suspicious.
Click to expand...

You keep on using the word "suspicious". Why, after a lengthy original investigation, and follow up investigations, were there no charges at all laid, let alone tested in court? You clearly think the McCanns were involved. You think there is clear evidence. Is there some sort of conspiracy involved?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom