Title: 1. Why do you say 4 markers were degraded in DNA sample 15/37 I came to this with no knowledge wha

madeleinemccanncontroversy > HiDeGuida 48 QUESTIONS > New Sub-category Example

Go to subcategory： OJ SIMPSON - PARALLELS WITH MADELEINE McCANN—— OJ SimpsonHDH THREADS—— Bumped posts (Unexplained)HDH WORDPRESS BLOG—— WORDPRESS POSTSPOLICE FILES OF INTEREST—— Random Information from Portuguese Police FilesThe NEW HiDeHo CONTROVERSY Group—— WELCOME to HDH Controversy & Info—— HDH ARCHIVED Facebook posts—— OFF TOPIC Removed posts from HDH CONTROVERSY—— McCanns v Goncalo Amaral TRIAL Sept 2013—— Disruptions—— Archived Posts 2ONE-ON-ONE Debates and Discussions—— One-on-One Debates and DiscussionsPLEASE VISIT HERE IF FACEBOOK GROUP IS UNAVAILABLE—— PLEASE POST HERE IF YOU HAVE DIFFICULTIES WITH FACEBOOKVIDEOS—— HiDeHo4 VideosCONTROVERSY FACEBOOK GROUP—— Facebook Posts from the OLD CONTROVERSY group—— Facebook Group Welcome & Info About Posting—— Member's CommentsCOMMENTS—— Controversy Reference Forum Comments—— HiDeHo RESEARCH POSTSINTRODUCTION TO THE CASE—— Info for New Members About the InvestigationGENERAL—— Graphics—— InformationTOPICS—— Individual TopicsDISCREPANCIES—— Discrepancies by Topic—— Kate's Book 'madeleine'TIMELINE—— Various Timelines/TimetablesHiDeHo Controversy TEACHING GROUP—— LESSONSSTATEMENTS—— Various Witness Statements from the POLICE FILESFORENSICS—— Forensic Posts—— Forensic InformationCALENDARS—— Calendars 2007INVESTIGATION REFERENCE INFO—— New Sub-category Example—— Reference Links and Archived Threads—— Kate's Book Info—— Random Videos of InterestPEOPLE—— Family & Friends—— Tapas 9 Info—— Ocean Club Guests—— Lawyers—— Portugal—— Ocean Club Staff—— Suspects/PhotofitsFUND—— Fund InfoMEDIA—— New Sub-category ExampleBODY LANGUAGE—— Craig Baxter - All About Body LanguageLIBEL TRIALS—— GENERAL Libel Issues—— Goncalo Amaral v McCanns—— McCanns v Tony BennettLINKS—— Media & Government Contact Info—— Forums / Blogs / GroupsGONCALO AMARAL—— Goncalo Amaral Books & Videos—— Gonçalo Amaral Interviews & Comments—— Gonçalo Amaral General InfoTONY BENNETTGRAPHICS2ADMIN—— New Sub-category Example—— Buttons—— Banned—— OtherCOVER UP—— Random InfoEOD—— DocsOJ SIMPSON Paralells with Madeleine McCann Investigation—— New Sub-category ExampleHiDeHo 48 QUESTIONS—— HiDeHo 48 QuestionsHiDeGuida 48 QUESTIONS—— New Sub-category Example—— Codes and ScreenshotsWAYBACK MACHINE—— Codes and Screenshots—— Links & Websites—— Waybback Threads—— Communications with WBMSAVE MAX—— Max InfoARCHIVED WEB PAGES—— www.mccannfiles.com—— Cristobel—— Joana MoraisTFI—— New Sub-category ExampleDISCREPANCY LIST & ALL RESEARCH LINKS BY TOPIC—— TOPICS

Author

Content

HiDeHo

Rank：Diamond Member Score：2851 Posts：2851 From：USA Register：26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Date Posted：08/02/2015 5:36 AMCopy HTML 1. Why do you say 4 markers were degraded in DNA sample 15/37 I came to this with no knowledge whatsoever about forensics, so I turn to EXPERTS to get their opinion...Not those whos only agenda is to prove EVERYTHING is incorrect, regardless of their lack of expertise, and with the sole intention of defending parents that have not yet been declared innocent.. From Belgian'police site :"Enfants kidnappés": To help us in our words, our association uses an expert on the subject. It is Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic University of Louvain (GNEX - UCL). But in fact, I don't know exactly what they got. I don't understand what John Lowe is saying. This is the statement from him that I find so troubling: "Let's look at the question that is being asked: 'Is there DNA from Madeleine 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 - because Madeleine has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeleine merely appears to match the result by chance." What is he saying? Um, Mr. Lowe, when the "components" (also known as "markers") within the result (AKA questioned sample) are the same as those in her reference sample (AKA known sample of Madeleine's DNA), then you're SUPPOSED to say "YES," or actually you're supposed to say the final results are inconclusive because 4 of the markers were too degraded to be tested, but all the others matched. How the stuff got where it was found is not the subject of DNA analysis. That's the kind of thing that an expert witness should be prepared to be asked about on the stand at a trial; could the questioned sample of the DNA have gotten where it was found by accidental transference, for example, from another object? DNA analysis is just that - ANALYSIS. Either they were able to extract markers from the DNA found in the Renault Scenic that were not degraded and could be analysed, or they were not. Either those markers matched the markers in the known sample of Madeleine's DNA taken from her pillow in Rothley, or they did not. Was the gentleman quoted correctly? If so, why all this double-speak? If it's the case, why in heaven's name not just SAY, "There are limits to LCN DNA technology, and the sample from the automobile was too small for any analysis to be definitive." Or, "When we tried to analyse the questioned sample from the automobile, we discovered that the DNA of two or more people were mixed together, and given the minute amount of material we had to work with, we simply were unable to separate them. We cannot say for certain when this happened, but regrettably, it made it impossible for us to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty whether the DNA was Madeleine's." My guess - and it is just a guess - is that no one leaned on the FSS. I don't think anyone had to. My personal opinion is that they were freaked out by what happened with the trial at Omagh and knew that if they came up with DNA results that didn't stand up in this case, they could kiss their cash cow of being one of the few labs in the world that can do LCN DNA analysis good-by. Trouble is where they are concerned, there is more than one thing that can cause police departments and other agencies the world over to doubt your results. One is to make mistakes and be wrong. Another is to be too afraid to call it when you see it. Please explain why it is so important to question the possibility that they were degraded? How important is it that they are not proven to be degraded? What difference would it make?