They LIE when they say they are not haters!

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:04 pm

Ben Thompson
Yesterday at 14:10
Due to the huge volume of posts we are receiving at the moment, we have decided to turn off posting for the time being. The Netfilx documentary that came out has caused all manner of confusion - something we feel was the plan all along.

:rofl-1: :rofl-1:

...and he forgot to mention the recent podcast fell below his expectations.

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:50 pm

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/18/11/ ... dor-claims

I guess Mark S has never heard of Levy. :s_rofl
Understandable that Murray was missing in action when MS tried to contact him


Blacksmith answer to Murray
John Blacksmith
April 22, 2016 at 17:10
I write not to argue with your views but to ask how you think adding yet more unsourced information can help people’s understanding of this case. As the comments I’ve read demonstrate they merely reinforce views, some of them false, that people already possessed. I have already commented on Christobell’s blog about your claim.

Sourcing means quoting the primary source, named and identified. The reader can then evaluate the relative validity of the source. In this harsh world even primary sources are not equal: Buck’s account of anything, for example, would always be weaker than a court report of him giving evidence on the matter. And, as I’ m sure you’re aware a newspaper article of any kind is not a source: it is a channel. Information given in confidence to one person remains confidential – i.e not available, and therefore useless to others, unless the confidence is waived or breached.

So, your claims and your evidence for them:

“British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case.” You have provided o evidence to support this claim.

“British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case.” Which staff, when and where?

“Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.” That is not something that British authorities had the right to instruct, nor the Portuguese to concede, and we know that “British authorities” were not permitted to be present in their statement giving etc. So who were these embassy staff?

“He and his staff were concerned by contradictions in the McCann’s story. The Embassy warned, in writing, that being perceived as too close to the McCanns might not prove wise. They demanded the instruction from London be reconfirmed. It was. I know of people’s misgivings because I was told directly.” So please tell us who they were and what they said.

“But material was also leaked to a Belgian newspaper confirming what I have said. It was published by the Express, but like so much other material which is not supportive of the McCanns, it got taken down. Fortunately that last link preserved it. It also shows that the FCO continues to refuse Freedom of Information requests for the material on the interesting grounds that it might damage relations with Portugal.” As I said a newspaper article is not a source. Mr Murray, if you are unaware of the connections between the Belgian press, a part Belgian “journalist” hustler with McCann fibs to sell and the owner and views and reliability of the very blog you quoted, you might we wise to check them. And note the date of the Express piece – when the owner of that paper still believed it was open season to print unreliable junk to heat up the story.

“I believe that New Labour’s No.10 saw, in typical Blair fashion, a highly photogenic tragedy which there might be popularity in appearing to work on.” Well that’s your belief. My own is pretty much the same except that I would put it more strongly – that Blair and co attached themselves like jellyfish to any pop sentimental incident they could. For show and nothing but show. I have posted that view of Christobell’ s blog today.

“And I **believe** there is a ** genuine danger** [so not a fact then] that the high profile support from the top of the British government **might** have put some psychological pressure on the Portuguese investigators and prosecuting officers in their determinations.” Again, fair enough as opinion and personal belief. It’s possible. But you haven’t, I repeat, provided any evidence to support it.

Best wishes.

User avatar
Alibongo
Posts: 18705
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:18 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by Alibongo » Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:47 pm

sal wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:04 pm
Ben Thompson
Yesterday at 14:10
Due to the huge volume of posts we are receiving at the moment, we have decided to turn off posting for the time being. The Netfilx documentary that came out has caused all manner of confusion - something we feel was the plan all along.

:rofl-1: :rofl-1:

...and he forgot to mention the recent podcast fell below his expectations.
:rofl-1: :rofl-1: :rofl-1:
Parent-blaming is all-too-common these days, and usually the point is to make other parents feel better about their own parenting skills

User avatar
catkins
Posts: 31502
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by catkins » Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:01 pm

Alibongo wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:47 pm
sal wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:04 pm
Ben Thompson
Yesterday at 14:10
Due to the huge volume of posts we are receiving at the moment, we have decided to turn off posting for the time being. The Netfilx documentary that came out has caused all manner of confusion - something we feel was the plan all along.

:rofl-1: :rofl-1:

...and he forgot to mention the recent podcast fell below his expectations.
:rofl-1: :rofl-1: :rofl-1:

:snig:
Madeleine McCann- Abducted May 2007 from Praia Da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.
DCI Redwood of Scotland Yard - stated that Madeleine could still be found - alive.
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find. ... ign?_rdr=p

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:34 pm

I hope carter Ruck are looking at todays post by Hobs on haverns, :s_crazy

Says it all re the ace researchers over there.

erngath
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:44 am

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by erngath » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:20 pm

sal wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:34 pm
I hope carter Ruck are looking at todays post by Hobs on haverns, :s_crazy

Says it all re the ace researchers over there.

I read that early this morning.
It's a libellous rant and she/he is a bampot!

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:54 pm

It appears to have now gone undercover.

User avatar
Alibongo
Posts: 18705
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:18 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by Alibongo » Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:51 pm

sal wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:54 pm
It appears to have now gone undercover.
:s_rofl because they're so confident in themselves :rolleyes:
Parent-blaming is all-too-common these days, and usually the point is to make other parents feel better about their own parenting skills

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:20 pm

The biscuit woman is a liability, even by their standards/

User avatar
Alibongo
Posts: 18705
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:18 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by Alibongo » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:12 pm

sal wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:20 pm
The biscuit woman is a liability, even by their standards/
Imagine being banned from the daily mail comments section :s_crazy
Parent-blaming is all-too-common these days, and usually the point is to make other parents feel better about their own parenting skills

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:27 pm

Alibongo wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:12 pm
sal wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:20 pm
The biscuit woman is a liability, even by their standards/
Imagine being banned from the daily mail comments section :s_crazy
Who, the corby wonder nob?

User avatar
catkins
Posts: 31502
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by catkins » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:45 pm

:snig:
Madeleine McCann- Abducted May 2007 from Praia Da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.
DCI Redwood of Scotland Yard - stated that Madeleine could still be found - alive.
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find. ... ign?_rdr=p

User avatar
Alibongo
Posts: 18705
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:18 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by Alibongo » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:59 pm

sal wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:27 pm
Alibongo wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:12 pm
sal wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:20 pm
The biscuit woman is a liability, even by their standards/
Imagine being banned from the daily mail comments section :s_crazy
Who, the corby wonder nob?
:s_yes
Parent-blaming is all-too-common these days, and usually the point is to make other parents feel better about their own parenting skills

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:07 am

+1 Re: PODCAST #3 Man with No Face- 9NEWS Australia LISTEN NOW! with Mark Saunokonoko
Post by HiDeHo Today at 4:29

IN MONDAYS PODCAST! #5 Could CAR evidence now be solved? EXCLUSIVE: Maddie's DNA could be present in crucial samples as world expert rips up 'failed' UK forensic tests By Mark Saunokonoko Mar 24, 2019

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/23/20/ ... ie-podcast



EXCLUSIVE: Maddie's DNA could be present in crucial samples as world expert rips up 'failed' UK forensic tests

By Mark Saunokonoko
12:52pm Mar 24, 2019



One of the world's leading DNA scientists – whose lab helped identify victims of the 9/11 terror attack - has told Nine.com.au he believes he can answer a major forensic question that baffled investigators and could finally help solve what happened to missing girl Madeleine McCann, more than 11 years after she mysteriously vanished.

Speaking in tomorrow's fifth episode of Maddie, an American DNA expert reveals potentially case-changing insights into the DNA samples that were taken from the McCann's holiday apartment and rental car in 2007. Those samples were later judged to be inconclusive.

The chief scientist at a US-based, world renowned lab has reviewed the now out-dated testing methods used by the UK's Forensic Science Service (FSS) in 2007 to analyse the McCann samples. He has also examined a crucial final DNA report that was sent to the Portuguese police.

Portuguese police sent DNA samples to the FSS for testing after two specialist sniffer dogs trained to detect the scent of death and human blood alerted in the McCann's holiday apartment and a rental car hired three weeks after Maddie vanished. The FSS analysed the samples but struggled to untangle and decipher the potentially explosive evidence.

"[The FSS testing] failed in this case 10 years ago," the DNA scientist said.

"If a lab can produce informative data, even if it is complex and mixed, but they can't interpret it then you can have tremendous injustice - of guilty people not being convicted, or innocent people staying in prison. What is needed is an objective and accurate interpretation that can scientifically resolve the DNA."

Enlarge this image


The inconclusive DNA results from the FSS appeared to cast serious doubt over the earlier work of the cadaver dogs that had searched the potential crime scenes.

The US forensic lab has forged a global reputation through solving previously indecipherable DNA samples. It has played a pivotal role in a number of high-profile US criminal trials involving wrongful convictions based on dodgy DNA evidence and controversial prosecutions

In 2007, the now-closed British lab, the FSS, was forced to undertake a massive review of up to 2000 cases of violent crime, including rape and murder. There were concerns that the DNA tests relating to these criminal cases had failed to detect minute traces of DNA that could potentially have identified guilty parties.


sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:06 pm

32.58 – Professor Corte-Real, who met with the FSS experts, and saw the British scientists’ reports and work notes, explains this issue.

Dr Francisco Corte-Real
Vice President, National Forensics Institute

33.09 – When those 15 alleles are included in a mix, where beyond those 15 we can have another 30 or 40 alleles, that means that it includes biological material from several persons. And there it can be much more difficult, much more inconclusive, because we may have a mixture from several persons, including hypothetically, if that happens, we may have several persons from the same family, and that may even give us the idea, in a way, that a certain missing person may be included, and that is not conclusive.

User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7652
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by honestbroker1 » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:15 pm

Hmmm:



ode.
The challenges posed by complex-mixture DNA samples mean that
the criminal justice system needs to move to more objective analysis of
this type of forensic evidence. Probabilistic genotyping algorithms may
eventually provide objective, valid, reliable results for a variety of types
of DNA evidence. But as of now, the lack of independently verified scientific validity evidence and the lack of transparency surrounding the
subjective decisions embedded within the interpretive programs’ codes
undermine the use of algorithms to analyze complex DNA samples.
To address these issues, courts should rigorously examine whether a
given algorithmic system has been validated for a particular type of evidence analysis and refuse to admit evidence that lacks demonstrated validity for a given mixture type. Courts should also consider adopting a
rule barring the results of algorithmic analysis of complex mixtures un-
184. See, e.g., LRMIX STUDIO, http://lrmixstudio.org/ [https://perma.cc/B7WQ-X22U].
No. 1] Black Box Algorithms 301
less the source code and built-in assumptions behind the algorithmic
process are disclosed to defense teams. Doing this will mitigate Confrontation Clause and Due Process concerns and preserve defendants’
constitutional rights. Companies’ trade secrets and property rights can
additionally be protected by the adoption of rules prohibiting secondary
disclosure or improper use of disclosed code. Adopting this rule will
remove the “black box” aspect of black box probabilistic genotyping
algorithms and encourage a more just criminal justice system.
That quote, taken from an article published 10 years after Madeleine's abduction, appears to suggest not much has changed since 2007.

The key part about the mix from the boot of the Renault Scenic is that it is entirely possible Madeleine's DNA, distinct from Madeleine. MIGHT have been in the mix, from innocent secondary transfer of her DNA contained on belongings of Madeleine transferred in the boot.

This sentence stands out:
But as of now, the lack of independently verified scientific validity evidence and the lack of transparency surrounding the
subjective decisions embedded within the interpretive programs’ codes
undermine the use of algorithms to analyze complex DNA samples.
As of now (2017)

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:35 pm

A little light reading HB

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4639950/

Conflict of Interest
The author is an officer, employee, and shareholder in Cybergenetics, the company that develops TrueAllele Casework technology. He holds related patents in the United States (5,541,067, 5,580,728, 5,876,933, 6,054,268, 6,750,011, 6,807,490, and 8,898,021) and Europe (1,229,135).

User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7652
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by honestbroker1 » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:04 pm

sal wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:35 pm
A little light reading HB

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4639950/

Conflict of Interest
The author is an officer, employee, and shareholder in Cybergenetics, the company that develops TrueAllele Casework technology. He holds related patents in the United States (5,541,067, 5,580,728, 5,876,933, 6,054,268, 6,750,011, 6,807,490, and 8,898,021) and Europe (1,229,135).
A quantitative CPI [combined probibility of inclusion] number adds little meaningful information beyond the analyst's initial qualitative assessment that a person's DNA is included in a mixture. Statistical methods for reporting on DNA mixture evidence should be scientifically validated before they are relied upon by criminal justice.
John Lowe's work in 2007 seems to have been sound, including by today's standards.

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:40 pm

New technologies calculating the presence of specific DNA are transforming criminal trials, but not all legal experts think they are sufficiently reliable. By Mark Saunokonoko.
DNA tests changing criminal trials

Robert Xie’s small wooden garage in Sydney’s north-west was unremarkable but for a tiny clue that hid a terrible secret.

There, on the concrete floor, underneath the bottom of an unused wooden tallboy, was a faded bloodstain, smaller in size than a cigarette lighter.

“Stain 91”, as the dried patch of blood would come to be known in court, would forensically connect Xie to the murders of five of his wife’s family. Good old-fashioned police work had led to the discovery of Stain 91, but only a futuristic forensic tool could unlock the critical DNA that would prove so damning for Xie. Had Xie’s murders happened several years earlier, Stain 91 would have been too difficult for forensic scientists to decipher.

Until recently, labs struggled to untangle and deliver reliable results on crime scene samples that were mixed up with DNA from two or more people.

Initial tests on Stain 91 revealed it was an incredibly complicated sample. In it was blood from at least four of Xie’s five victims.

Mark Tedeschi, QC, one of the lead crown prosecutors on the Xie case, pinned his hopes on a company in Pittsburgh, in the United States, called Cybergenetics.

Cybergenetics’ founder Dr Mark Perlin had developed very powerful software capable of unravelling tremendously complicated, mixed DNA samples. Perlin’s lab ran Stain 91 data through its TrueAllele software, churning it through untold complex mathematical algorithms, and emailed the report to Tedeschi.

“The results were astounding,” Tedeschi says.

“I THINK WHAT DEFENCE LAWYERS ARE GRUMBLING ABOUT IS THAT STRMIX EVIDENCE IS VERY POWERFUL AND VERY CONVINCING, AND IT INFLUENCES JURIES.”
Working outside the limits of traditional DNA test methods, TrueAllele calculated devastating match statistics in Stain 91 of at least four victims beaten to death by Xie. The software also managed to show in-depth and undeniable comparisons between Stain 91 and a blood spot found on a mattress at the murder scene.

Xie’s lawyer tried, and failed, to fight the admissibility of the TrueAllele evidence. In January, Xie was found guilty of five counts of murder.

Tedeschi tells The Saturday Paper that Stain 91 was probably the most complex DNA sample ever introduced to a criminal trial in Australia.

“They were very significant statistics, which we were able to use,” he says.

But not everybody is comfortable with the new forensic software, which has turned previously indecipherable DNA into often-profound courtroom evidence.

Since 2012, police forces across Australia have increasingly used a DNA computer program called STRmix, which was jointly developed by scientists in South Australia and New Zealand. STRmix evidence has been used to prosecute some of the country’s most vicious rapists, child molesters and murderers. Its emergence as a key forensic tool in Australia has gone largely unreported.

Probabilistic genotyping software, such as STRmix and TrueAllele, run DNA data through statistical computer algorithms to calculate a likelihood ratio that a particular person’s DNA is present in a mixture.

In December 2014, the forensic laboratory that analyses crime scene DNA for Queensland Police became aware of “a minor miscode” in the STRmix software.

Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services executive director Paul Csoban tells The Saturday Paper that the miscode was limited to just 60 cases. He says “an internal review” had confirmed that 4500 other samples analysed by STRmix had not been affected.

When contacted by The Saturday Paper, a spokesperson for STRmix said in a statement that the issue “was largely restricted to Queensland and reflected the way that they used the software”. Both STRmix and Queensland Health stated the miscode had resulted in a small distortion to some DNA match statistics. Csoban says 23 of the 60 cases required retesting to produce new data.

A right-to-information request submitted by The Saturday Paper to Queensland Health and Queensland Police revealed the 60 miscoded cases included alleged crimes of murder, rape, incest, sexual assaults against minors and armed robbery.

STRmix and Queensland Health were in conflict over which organisation had first noticed the bug in the software. There were reports Queensland Health had not purchased the most up-to-date instruction manual to properly operate STRmix.

“STRmix developers released information that a minor miscode was contained within the software that the [Queensland Health] laboratory was using,” Csoban says.

However, STRmix developer Dr John Buckleton says the bug only became apparent when Queensland Health approached their office in South Australia. He adds that Queensland Health had been unwilling to share potentially important and useful details about the miscode.

Michael Bosscher, a Brisbane-based defence lawyer, says he received an “arse-covering letter” from Queensland Health, generically advising of a forensic miscode. At the time, Bosscher was representing Andrew Burke, a teenager charged with the rape and murder of pregnant Queensland mother Joan Ryther.

Only when Bosscher followed up the issue did he discover how his client Burke had been affected, and that his DNA samples had required retesting.

Bosscher says he has “serious concerns” about the rise of STRmix and probabilistic genotyping software in Australia.

“Until disclosure that there was a miscode in the program, nobody, including Queensland Health, was aware of it. What concerns me is, what else has been miscoded?”

Mark Tedeschi rejects suggestions the software has tilted the playing field in favour of prosecutors. He says STRmix was extensively verified and robust.

“I think what defence lawyers are grumbling about is that STRmix evidence is very powerful and very convincing, and it influences juries,” he says.

STRmix’s Dr Buckleton points to multiple scientific validation studies as evidence of the software’s reliability in solving critical DNA riddles. However, he refuses to explicitly confirm that STRmix is 100 per cent reliable.

“We do everything we can to make it as good as possible, but we always hold open the need for checking,” Buckleton says.

“If we ever said it was 100 per cent reliable we might be inviting complacency and we don’t want to do that.”

In 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the US began using STRmix. It has also been rolled out across various jurisdictions in the US, Canada and Europe.

The biased view is DNA stands for Do Not Acquit, according to Clinton Hughes, a New York attorney who works for The Legal Aid Society. Most of Hughes’s casework involves helping clients implicated by DNA, or wrongly imprisoned men who could potentially be exonerated by compelling forensic evidence.

In 2016 Hughes was involved in a high-profile New York murder trial where STRmix and TrueAllele, the world’s two leading probabilistic genotyping products, generated dramatically different results on the same data.

Underneath the fingernail of a 12-year-old boy who had been strangled to death was a tiny unknown amount of DNA from someone else. Prosecutors believed the DNA had come from the child’s mother’s boyfriend, Oral Hillary.

TrueAllele ran the data and produced an inconclusive result. But STRmix, consulting for the prosecution, showed Hillary’s DNA was strongly connected to the boy’s fingernail.

The DNA sample was controversially microscopic, infinitely smaller than Stain 91. The judge ruled that the STRmix result was unreliable and therefore inadmissible. One month later, Hillary was acquitted of murder.

Hughes describes the STRmix and TrueAllele evidence as “Alien versus Predator”. Had STRmix evidence been allowed into evidence Hillary would have “definitely been in trouble”, Hughes says.

“Every lawyer who practises defence has huge concerns when we can’t really confront the evidence that implicates our clients – particularly DNA evidence.”

Both STRmix and TrueAllele say they work with defendants to help make sense of results and the technology. Yet there are only so many scientists who understand the software to go around.

Tedeschi, however, is unmoved. DNA has always been complex for juries to comprehend, he says.

“Part of a lawyer’s job is to reduce DNA to a basic element so the jury can understand it. It’s no different to any other type of forensic evidence that needs convincing.”

TrueAllele, which specialises in the most intricate of cases, such as Stain 91, has been used in more than 400 criminal trials across 32 American states.

But there is another face to the technology. Last year Cybergenetics helped exonerate two men wrongfully convicted of gang-raping a woman in 1989.

“We don’t just work for one side,” Mark Perlin said. “We work for the truth.”

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on Jun 17, 2017 as "Crime screen". Subscribe here.

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:45 pm

oldie...
The world's leading expert in DNA cast doubt on a key facet of the alleged forensic evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann last night as he offered to act as an expert witness for the couple.




Sir Alec Jeffreys, who invented DNA fingerprinting, said a match did not necessarily demonstrate a person's guilt or innocence.

It follows claims that DNA samples matched to Madeleine had been found in her parents' hire car and holiday apartment. Sources said the traces were being treated by Portuguese detectives as strong evidence that Madeleine's body was placed in the car.

However, Sir Alec told BBC's Newsnight programme: "There are no genetic characters in Madeleine that are not found in at least one other member of the family.

"So then you have an incomplete DNA profile that could raise a potential problem in assigning a profile to Madeleine given that all other members of that family would have been in that car."

Sir Alec, 57, added: "DNA testing seeks to establish whether DNA sample A from a crime scene came or did not come from individual B.

"So if you get a match there's very strong evidence that it did come from B. It is then up to investigators, the courts and all the rest of it to work out whether that connection is relevant or not.

"So DNA doesn't have the words innocence or guilt in it - that is a legal concept. What it seeks to establish is connections and identifications."

Off-camera, Sir Alec said he was prepared to act as a witness for the McCanns.


His caution came as a leading genetics expert also called into question the value of DNA evidence in its own right. Dr Paul Debenham, a member of the advisory body the Human Genetics Commission, said there could be legitimate reasons as to how DNA from Madeleine found its way into the hire car.

Prosecutors would need to establish that it got there as part of a criminal process and not through chance contact, he said.

Dr Debenham said: "With the current highly sensitive DNA methodologies we can deposit DNA as a trace amount just from contact with a fabric. And that fabric can touch another surface where the DNA is passed on.

"So there is a situation where there is a legitimate or a possible explanation as to how the DNA got on the back seat despite the individual not being there, but through some legitimate transfer of garments, clothes or soft toy.

"It questions the value of that particular evidence in interpreting what happened."

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:18 am

"So there is a situation where there is a legitimate or a possible explanation as to how the DNA got on the back seat despite the individual not being there, but through some legitimate transfer of garments, clothes or soft toy.
Even if the DNA had been attributed to Madeleine Amarals dead body in the car proves nothing.

J LOWE
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 -
Will Mark Perlins analysis answer any of the above.......

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4227
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by Whiterose » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:41 am

How on earth can a DNA of a particular person be found in amongst DNA of up to five people as the sample shown from the boot of the hire car? How can anyone say that a certain marker belongs to a certain person if they are all mixed up as people can have the same markers? It's mind boggling. I thought they found the DNA of the people caught up in the terror attack in America from parts of the body.
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7652
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by honestbroker1 » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:45 am

Whiterose wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:41 am
How on earth can a DNA of a particular person be found in amongst DNA of up to five people as the sample shown from the boot of the hire car? How can anyone say that a certain marker belongs to a certain person if they are all mixed up as people can have the same markers? It's mind boggling. I thought they found the DNA of the people caught up in the terror attack in America from parts of the body.
For me, the key point is that even if it could be proven that Madeleine's DNA was in the mix (I don't think it can!) that would prove diddlesquat all with all manner of innocent explanations of how Madeleine's DNA (distinct from Madeleine herself) might have got into the mix.

sal
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!

Post by sal » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 pm

Replying to @saunokonoko
Nice ep. One Q though: Is it not possible that, even IF the DNA in the car is found to be a match for MM, it could be there, not because her body was, but because her clothes or something else she came into contact with, was placed in the boot?



Mark Saunokonoko

Verified account

@saunokonoko
4h4 hours ago
More
That is a good question, which would need to be considered alongside the alerts by Eddie, a dog trained to detect a cadaver, and Keela, a dog trained to detect human blood. Work of the dogs requires corroborating evidence, such as DNA.

1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like 3

David Martinez


@DMARTINEZ_85
4h4 hours ago
More
Thanks Mark. Guess the question (assuming her DNA is a match) is whether it's likely that DNA of MM could still have been present through transference in that car even though it was hired so long after her disappearance. Could a DNA expert attest to this on your show?

2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply 2 Retweet 1 Like

Mark Saunokonoko

Verified account

@saunokonoko
3h3 hours ago
More
I guess that is an argument lawyers would debate, bringing in people like Dr Perlin to offer their opinion on those kind of likelihoods. First step, solve the sample and put mathematical statistics on person(s) present.



David Martinez


@DMARTINEZ_85
3h3 hours ago
More
Yeah, you're right, that should be the first step. Just seems quite likely to me that the McCanns could have placed items that Maddie had touched in the boot of that car which would explain the small traces (assuming it her DNA). Be interested to hear an expert on such matters.

0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like

Post Reply