Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[IamFreeCanIGo]

You're mistaken. Fifteen of nineteen alleles present is not a match, with her profile (having the double and that number of loci) nineteen of nineteen is. Fifteen of nineteen might still indicate that person contributed to the sample, but you'd have to allow for four dropouts which happens with low template DNA analysis but it isn't a very encouraging sign being as there's a minimum of three contributors to the sample and they'd have to fail to pick up those alleles from there as well. All factors considered (number of contributors, the fact the parents accessed that trunk, the nature of LT/LCN DNA and that something of the victim might have been placed in the trunk) it by no means could be considered 'strong' and the best the results could be described is 'irrelevant.'

You do realize that with a mixed sample with three to five contributors you could match 19 of 19 and that person still didn't contribute to the sample? With the parents (and a sibling?) also being likely contributors (meaning roughly half the alleles would be a gimme) that would not be as unlikely as you might think.

These results are meaningless. Strangers can share a number of alleles and the more contributors the more possibilities you can piece together a profile from strangers for a person who didn't even contribute to the sample. In another case the victim, whose parentage was British/Indian and the killer, who was from sub-Saharan Africa between them share ~eight alleles with a third man who is from Italy. A sample with the victim and the killer and 1-3 others could very well put together ~75% of the profile of the Italian who didn't contribute.

When you're working with low template mixed samples two of the normal ways of excluding someone are nerfed or eliminated. Normally with a high template single-contributor sample an allele that does not belong to the subject would exclude him, you can't do that with a mixed sample as that allele could have been one of the other contributors. Usually drop out (with non-degraded DNA) is fairly rare, with low template it's more common meaning even if the alleles aren't there you have to take into account the possibility of all the missing ones having dropped, which is a damned sloppy way of getting a match!

What this means is you, I and everyone on this thread couldn't actually be excluded from having contributed to the sample. Some would have a higher statistical weight of evidence than others, but there's no actual way of excluding someone completely. Also due to the nature of low template mixed samples there's the fact that you're dealing with trace DNA of numerous people and you know they weren't all stuffed in that trunk! Trace DNA transfers far easier and if anything that toddler had touched, or someone who touched that toddler put something in that trunk it may well have transferred that way, so even if they'd found a full low template profile there's no way of determining how it got there and many plausible ways it might have.



I've not followed this story so I am uncertain as to the relevance or probative value of the former, but including the latter is not suggestive of anything, and the little I have learned about this event actually more indicative of having nothing to do with the disappearance of the toddler. Those DNA results are worthless and including that in your summary doesn't help your case.



The dog barked and...huh? Just whose police force thought a coconut was a skull? Are they...the same ones who you're relying on for any evidence or theorizing?

Thanks for the info mate. You seem to know your stuff regarding DNA, what are your qualifications (not saying that to suggest you are wrong, just interested, if you are qualified in the field id like to ask you some questions and you seem to be pretty qualified from how you write.)

What you are saying would clear up a lot of questions regarding the dna evidence, why do you think the PJ used this evidence to make the mccanns suspects if the evidence was so worthless?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Thanks for the info mate. You seem to know your stuff regarding DNA, what are your qualifications (not saying that to suggest you are wrong, just interested, if you are qualified in the field id like to ask you some questions and you seem to be pretty qualified from how you write.)

What you are saying would clear up a lot of questions regarding the dna evidence, why do you think the PJ used this evidence to make the mccanns suspects if the evidence was so worthless?

The evidence was used to support an assumption. Exactly as you have done. However it seems they were honest enough to drop the matter as the limitations of the evidence became clear. The parents were statistically the most likely suspect. Evidence did not support the assumption.
If you did not know how limited the evidence was why did you feel justified in building speculation and accusation upon it?

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for the info mate. You seem to know your stuff regarding DNA, what are your qualifications (not saying that to suggest you are wrong, just interested, if you are qualified in the field id like to ask you some questions and you seem to be pretty qualified from how you write.)

I got a 'B' in college biology once, does that count?

It just so happens I spent a decent portion of the past three years on this subject, reading ~40 or so papers and parts of textbooks for an issue that specifically involved mixed LT/LCN DNA samples and associated with and learned from a number of credentialed professionals, some of whom post on this board. That was just a basic overview anyway, in hopes of helping you understand why 'matching' fifteen of 19 alleles with a mixed DNA sample with 3-5 contributors, one of whom may well be a parent or sibling isn't meaningful even to establish if that person contributed to the sample, and even if they did it would still be irrelevant in the circumstances described.

What you are saying would clear up a lot of questions regarding the dna evidence, why do you think the PJ used this evidence to make the mccanns suspects if the evidence was so worthless?

If you're really all that interested I put it in a spoiler box to hide another wall of text.

I am not really familiar with this issue, I just happened to pop into the thread and saw your comment about 15 of 19 being 'very strong' and hoped perhaps I could clarify it for you. However if by PJ you mean Portuguese authorities, it could simply be they don't understand the limitations of this field; it is a common belief of many that DNA found means it's inherently damning and don't realize with modern technology we've the ability to distinguish trace elements that couldn't be identified before and they don't mean what many have come to think of as DNA evidence which identifies, it doesn't timestamp or even work as a GPS device because these trace elements can be transferred very easily.

However even that identification isn't perfect with mixed samples, especially if they're low template and/or damaged DNA. Take a look at what a DNA scientist or technician would actually be looking at when trying to determine who contributed to a sample by following this link. That's sixteen (as opposed to 10 in this case) loci (locations) and those are identified by the bands across the top, for example the top left one is D851179. There you can see two 'peaks' which are alleles (or components) which are much larger in this sample, they belong to one person whose contribution was significantly greater (though this is not an absolute indicator).

Those little bumps (peaks) at the bottom are more what we're talking about here with the low template DNA. If you look at the boxes below the peaks, the top number is what you're looking to compare, the number of repeats. The bottom number is the relative size of the peak. If you have five people all with the same number of repeats you'll only get one peak to represent that, not five, only different numbers of repeats are delineated. On this electropherogram it's fairly easy to tell (but again not an absolute) the dominant alleles all belong to the same person (and they did) but if you have all little peaks like those at the bottom, you have no way of differentiating between them. Compounding this problem is some of those little ones won't actually be alleles (which is why they just call them peaks generically) they'll be artifacts of the measurement process and you don't want to count them. However others will in fact be real alleles, and if you look closely at that electropherogram you'll see little bumps that didn't get boxes and numbers assigned to them, as it was...inconvenient...to her contention that they existed. She didn't show this pretty color electropherogram either, she produced a crappy one that was tough to read at that level!

Anyway what you do is scientifically (not like the lady above!) determine (as best as can be done) which peaks are alleles and figure out which ones you have at each loci (location--those bands across the top of each level) and compare that to the reference samples in a case like this. If I recall correctly they had something like 37 for the 10 loci used in that test, and again any duplicate ones between any of the contributors will only show as one peak on the electropherogram. So to try to determine how many contributed you have to look at the locus with the most alleles and get a minimum (each person will generally have 2 at each locus though the little girl in this case had a duplicate at one locus which means only one shows up) number of contributors, knowing full well each allele might be 'masking' any number more.

Once you have determined as best you can which alleles are represented at each locus, you can then look at someone's profile and see if they may have contributed to the sample. In a good sample you should be able to find a peak for each and every allele in their profile. With damaged or Low template DNA however, sometimes they'll 'drop out' and not be represented. With a bunch of different contributors odds are you'll get a bunch of 'chances' at each locus, so it's entirely possible to put together a 'profile' of someone who didn't contribute if you have the alleles at each locus. The ones you don't have, you can theorize they 'dropped out' as that does happen, particularly with damaged or low template (not much DNA) samples.

Odds are the police or prosecutor doesn't know all this and if the scientist or technician tries to explain he may just say: 'enough of this boring ass crap, tell me if the person might have contributed and I can say in court it's possible their DNA was there.' And with samples like this there's no way to absolutely falsify that, so basically anyone is a possible contributor, some more so than others of course. 15 of 19 sounds strong, but if you know that someone's parents or siblings might have contributed to the sample you've got a gimme on about half and picking up the extra alleles from other contributors is not as unlikely as you might think, people with wildly different genetic backgrounds will still share some alleles.

So 15 of 19 is not that impressive, and knowing that 3-5 people are there suggests that even if the little girl's DNA contributed to the sample it would be meaningless as you know that the other 2-4 people weren't stuffed in the trunk and their DNA got there by innocent transfer or contamination anyway.

 

[Information Analyst]

The dog barked and...huh? Just whose police force thought a coconut was a skull? Are they...the same ones who you're relying on for any evidence or theorizing?

No, there's no connection between the police forces; they aren't even in the same country.

The picture below shows the 6 x 4 cm fragment when it was found. I daresay if those on the spot was asked, "is this a fragment of a child's skull that's been in the ground for years, or a piece of coconut shell," some may be able to correctly deduce the latter. However, the people involved believed they were looking for buried children's bodies, in a location in which coconuts are not even remotely indigenous, so it's hardly surprising if their first thought was the former, rather than the latter. I don't think anyone knows quite how long it took for someone actually handling and examining the fragment to work out what it actually was.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/imag...8487_31b05753-87e5-408d-b177-ce96b8a9ab8c.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

The evidence was used to support an assumption. Exactly as you have done. However it seems they were honest enough to drop the matter as the limitations of the evidence became clear. The parents were statistically the most likely suspect. Evidence did not support the assumption.
If you did not know how limited the evidence was why did you feel justified in building speculation and accusation upon it?

What are you talking about? Here is the issue, unlike you i don't have a personal interest in this case, i just want answers to the questions. If someone can clear up a bit of information with sound facts, i will accept it as above.

From now on, i wont view the DNA as any sort of relevent evidence until something else comes to light. However questions remain unanswered and ill try and find answers for them.

 

[truethat]

The idea that both parents were involved in covering up her death doesn't make too much sense to me.

As I've stated before, either they were caught off guard by it, or they had to have planned it prior to going on vacation.


It is possible that she could have overdosed while on vacation, but then when did this happen?

Wasn't she seen with them the day she went missing? If so the timeline is reduced to what they were able to do with the body.


And I'm still not understanding how her DNA in the boot or trunk of the car is indicative of her body being placed there. Didn't they rent it three weeks after she went missing? If so, then the body being put there would have been so decomposed the smell would have been noticeable to people. Not just dogs.


BTW look at this article about a found child

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mp-blonde-girl-abducted-gypsies.html#comments

 

[Kaosium]

No, there's no connection between the police forces; they aren't even in the same country.

Which one saw a corpse component instead of a coconut? Have they been treated for acute confirmation bias disorder? ))

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Great post kaosium, thanks for the info.

 

[Information Analyst]

Which one saw a corpse component instead of a coconut? Have they been treated for acute confirmation bias disorder? ))

There was so much of that in that particular case that it's a bit mean to try to pin the coconut shell solely on the dog.

 

[Kaosium]

There was so much of that in that particular case that it's a bit mean to try to pin the coconut shell solely on the dog.

Ah, I saw your update, I didn't realize it was just a fragment like that.

I wasn't trying to pin anything on the dog, I like doggies. Maybe he was trying to tell his human it was time for a scooby snack!

 

[catsmate]

- Where do you get the idea that sniffer dogs trained to detect a cadaver (which signaled the car) get excited at the odour of a runny nose or nappy? This is pure shameless lies.

Sigh. Do some research of your own about how such dogs are trained and how sensitive they are to false positives.

- Right but how does that explain a cadaver in the boot?

This is not true. A dog trained for sensitivity to certain odours reacted. This is all.

The fact that where they found the cadaver odor is also some DNA which shows DNA from 3 or more sources. One of which could be maddie, but due to the contamination of the sample it cannot be proven to be hers.

Therefore no evidentiary value.

- They found dna, which was a possible match for maddies, but due to the contamination it cannot be said for sure.

Therefore no evidentiary value.

What i find hilarious is that you seem to think we should have found a pool of blood.

Strawman, As multiple posters have told you LCN is highly sensitive, far too sensitive to be considered completely reliable.

I cannot grasp such a lack of understanding.

Perhaps this is because people here know more about the subject than you do? Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Just so we are clear, the report said, they could not determine which bodily fluid the dna came from.

Correct. It could be from a skin flake, hair follicle or invisible blood drop.

But your nitpicking is designed to neatly ignore the fact that a cadaver odor was found in the car,

This is simply not true.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What are you talking about? Here is the issue, unlike you i don't have a personal interest in this case, i just want answers to the questions.

Okay, already there are two points worth noting here.

1) The only person who seems to think I have an emotional involvement is you.
2) You have argued that the reaction of the dogs was a primary source of evidence, that the DNA implied that the girls body was the source, against the idea of false readings and so forth. Which suggests strongly you want answers to questions that suit your pet theory.

By the way, you didn't answer my question.

If someone can clear up a bit of information with sound facts, i will accept it as above.

I haven't suggested otherwise. I would still like to know why your posts have seemed very much to advocate the theory that such evidence was relevent if you needed it to be cleared up.

From now on, i wont view the DNA as any sort of relevent evidence until something else comes to light. However questions remain unanswered and ill try and find answers for them.

And yet, this apparent "asking of questions" did not stop you from making speculation and statements that clearly advocated a set opinion:

I'm saying the dog evidence is good evidence, id agree the evidence about the open car boot, isnt good evidence but its suspicious when viewed along side the dog results.

See, that is you calling something good evidence, and stating it is grounds for suspicion.

Go back and read the rest of that post. You are quite mocking of the suggestion the DNA evidence could be otherwise explained, simply because of a barking dog. You go to great pains to suggest that the evidence should be scrutinised on it's own because it makes a "bigger picture".

How exactly is one to read that if it were not as confirmation bias?

Then there is this:

it just so happened the hire car they rented had a human cadaver odor in the boot and it just so happened that a kid had also left a bodily fluid there that was as far as testable a match for maddie.

So you are now saying that you had no agenda, no emotional attachment and no confirmation bias and you were asking questions about the DNA, but you still felt the need to inflate it from the truth (inconclusive beyond Maddaline being one of many people whose DNA could have caused the same result) to a "as far as testable a match"?

Please answer my original question. If you were unaware of the limitations of the evidence, why were you so willing to build your speculation and accusastions of guilt upon it?

 

[catsmate]

Isn't it rather pathetic the best the Met has is an ambiguous sighting which had been shunted aside back in the day to give preference (and $$$ and manpower)to Jane Tanner's 'bundleman'?

I suspect someone had a theory.

Journalists in Portugal were told that the DNA evidence was a "100 percent match."[75] A British tabloid published the front-page headline, "Brit Lab Bombshell: Car DNA is 100% Maddie's," while another reported that "a clump of Maddie's hair" had been found in the car.[76] Jerry Lawton, a reporter with the Daily Star, a British tabloid, told the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 that the leaks came directly from the Portuguese police, and caused a "sea change" in the way the case was viewed by the media.[77] Matt Baggott told the inquiry that it was this misinterpretation of the DNA evidence by the Portuguese police that led them to conclude that the McCanns had faked an abduction to cover up Madeleine's death. Baggott knew that the DNA evidence was being wrongly interpreted, but because the Portuguese were in charge of the inquiry, he did not correct reporters who were being briefed by Portuguese police that the McCanns were involved.

Trial by tabloid.

 

[pakeha]

I see your point, Catsmate1, of course I do.
But the fact remains the investigation is precisely where it was in May 2007.
It's my most sincere desire that the 6 year run around instigated by the Mccann spokesman


hasn't completely scuppered any chance of this child being recovered.
Yes, I'm very, very angry at the antics which have perverted and obstructed any meaningful investigation of the disappearance of this missing child.

 

[Agatha]

What did Clarence Mitchell do to deserve your ire, pakeha?

 

[pakeha]

What did Clarence Mitchell do to deserve your ire, pakeha?

Where to start?
I think at this distance in time, it's clear that press conference where he presented bundleman has been tremendously damaging to the possibility of finding the missing child.
I could be wrong, of course.
Not for the first time.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Moving along anyway. What evidence is their for an abduction? Instead of trying to dismiss evidence that may incriminate the McCanns, lets look at evidence for the other.

- What evidence or what is the best evidence that Maddie was abducted? (leaving aside the whole shes missing aspect)

- Why was no dna, or finger/glove print of an intruder found in the apartment? To jimmie open a shutter would suggest a bit of force was used.

 

[Strawberry]

You wouldn't necessarily find any evidence of an intruder even if there was one, because they could have simply walked in through the patio doors, or used a pass key to enter the apartment.

There was no evidence of Richard Truit's presence inside Stephanie Crowe's house, there was no evidence of Riley Fox's murderer inside the Fox house, to quote two examples. And yet in both cases, we now know that an intruder was present.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

I'm not familiar with those cases, but i guess they know an intruder was present due to some other evidence pointing to that? Is their any evidence that supports the intruder scenario?

I have not verified this but just mentioning it because its interesting and its sort of related. There was a list of suggested questions sent to the McCanns book publisher, before it was released, for the McCanns to address in the book.

One of the questions was regarding the timelines and Jane Tanners witness statement. Basically, the mccanns wrote down their timeline, and the the rest of the tapas 9 wrote down their timeline, both included the 9:15 sighting of jane tanner in the timeline.

However later Jane Tanner said she did not inform the mccanns about the abduction until 24 hours later because she was embarrassed. So it brings up the question of how did the mccanns know to write it in their timeline.

I'll check later, to make sure the jane tanner statement is legit, i think i remember she did say that, but not sure.

 

[Strawberry]

I'm not familiar with those cases, but i guess they know an intruder was present due to some other evidence pointing to that? Is their any evidence that supports the intruder scenario?

They know intruders were present in both those cases because evidence was found on the perpetrator and the victim respectively. There was no evidence of an intruder found inside the home in either case.

In this case neither the victim, nor the perpetrator, (assuming it was an abduction), were ever found, so there should be no expectation of evidence.