Lowes Email to Amaral, regarding the DNA results

Mercedes and nicked have been working hard with the DVD files on 3A's. Mercedes could not cut and paste the files to 3A's so copied them out. I have cut and pasted her work here. She has taken a lot of stick for missing the word'last' out from the first line. Apparently it should read, Firstly here are the last 3 results you are expecting. Everybody there is wondering where the first report translation is. They have it ut they dont have a Portugues translator!!. But hey ho, what this one says is profound. It refers to swab 3A which was taken from a tile behind the sofa. The luggage compartment refered to I take as meaning the car.

Mr Lowes Email to Sr Amaral.

Firstly here are the 3 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 1 person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of M. M....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 MM contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least 3 people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL 10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of MM there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine MM has inherited the same DNA components 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 5 contributors.

In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.


Why?.....

Well let's look at the question that is being asked.

"Is there DNA from MM 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 M has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether M merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in M profile are not unique to her; it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of M profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included.

It's important to stress that 50% of M profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than 2 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 DNA deposited?
How was DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DNA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

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

So in other words, the whole DNA 'evidence' is not worth a wooden penny!

not even the flip of a wooden penny.

Regardless of how significant 15 out of 19, or whatever people were quoting as proof it was Madeleine. Those 'proof' components being so intermingled with so many people could be from just that. A mixture of several people including family members. Actually showed 37 components.

From what lowe says. They cant even determine what bodily fluids the DNA come from.

Again, credit due to Mercedes. How Amaral viewed it. I'll be back with more in a minute.

GA BOOK


72 - The first results start to arrive. The blood found in the car has a 50% match with Gerry coming, most likely, from an offspring. Then, one of the samples comes back as a weak match to Madeleine, in spite of all the markers in the sample being a match, many markers were missing. The second sample, however, had a 15 out of 19 marker match to Madeleine's DNA profile. Another preliminary report is sent that contradicts the first findings. For example, regarding the trunk sample there is, this time, no mention about the 15 components of Madeleine's DNA profile, like they never existed. Stuart Prior then calls FSS asking if they thought the Portuguese were idiots. He was heard saying that in the UK he had arrested people for less.

Damn I cant find something I found earlier. Regarding missing information that Amaral had mentioned as being lost!!

A quote from the FSS rules showed that by law they were required to dispose of information after testing. It wasn't lost but was lawfully disposed off.

Amaral's quote from his book (from a summary by Claudia, no less) shows how confused he was. It is confusing isn't it? he seems to have taken the 50% as indicative of the results being Madeleine and discarded the fact that there were 37 components.

I take that as being 15(of the 19 that make up Madeleine) out of 37 components found were Madeleines. I dont know. But I can rest assured on what the FSS said. too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

So Amarals quote of 15 out of 19 was incorrect. It's 15 out of 37!! If I am wrong please please tell me.

What's key about all that is that even if the forensically examined material could definitely be established as Madeleine's -- which Lowe makes plain it can not -- that would still not establish that a crime had been committed, because it would be impossible to know how the material was transferred to the car (quite possibly, innocently, via the agent of a third party).

Excactly HB. Or even what bodily fluids they were transfered by.

This is my trying to work out what Amaral was saying in his book.
GA BOOK


72 - The first results start to arrive. The blood found in the car has a 50% match with Gerry coming, most likely, from an offspring. Then, one of the samples comes back as a weak match to Madeleine, in spite of all the markers in the sample being a match, many markers were missing. (All being a match, but some were missing. Is that not a contradiction?) The second sample, however, had a 15 out of 19 marker match to Madeleine's DNA profile (15 out of 37 matched 15 of the 19 that made up Madeleine). Another preliminary report is sent that contradicts the first findings. For example, regarding the trunk sample there is, this time, no mention about the 15 components of Madeleine's DNA profile, like they never existed. Stuart Prior then calls FSS asking if they thought the Portuguese were idiots. He was heard saying that in the UK he had arrested people for less.Whats all this about Stuart Prior, I dont know.