What is a pro or an anti?

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

“ IF the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." – why state IF the profiles are equal ?
This principal should apply to all samples and therefore does not exclude Madeleine as a potential source of a particular sample / material, on the contrary, it is an inclusion.

Departing from the usual principal or procedure is generally only done in special circumstances to make a concession or exception and once again why say - “ IF the DNA with the scope of this result originated from more than one person “ ? IF is not definite.


Why were the results not given in terms of probabilities ? – when a person is not excluded as being the source of an evidentiary DNA profile , the strength of the evidence should be given in terms of probabilities. After all the chance of a random match between 2 unrelated people is on average 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 .
The FSS used 10 markers to match DNA samples. Using this system the chance of a random match (more than one profile matching a sample from a crime scene) is less than one in a billion.

Those are the probabilities ..... never mind 50 /50

Using the terminology 'IF..' is part of the passive voice and subjunctive mood preferred for academic papers.

Are you interested in trying to understand what the FSS actually meant or do you want to keep to what you currently believe.

If the police had a sample that with a several million to one chance indicated that Madeleine had been in the car rented weeks after her death, do you not think that the Portuguese Prosecutor would have been impressed! I can explain my reasoning for why the odds are even rather than millions to one; but are you open minded enough to listen?

One does not use the word ' IF ' in forensic reports unles one is uncertain.

let’s cut to the chase here ;

In forensic terminology the word ‘ Match ‘ means that elements contained within the reference sample ‘ match ‘ elements in the evidentiary sample and the components that should matter are not the common components that 99% of us share.

Approximately 1 person in every x number of million people chosen at random would possess the same DNA genotype as that found in a questioned sample. – now what a coincidence that 1 person who possess the exact same DNA as M. just by chance happened to have been in that particular newly hired vehicle … sorry, unbelievably it was it more than one person wasn’t it.

In order to state that there were enough components for someone to identify an individual, those components had to ‘match’ that particular individuals reference sample. In other words enough components or markers to distinguish who’s DNA it was. This was done regardless of the fact that there appeared to other components contained within that particular sample.

'IF' this was brought into a court setting those are the ' odds' as you call them or probabilities that a court would use.

Your description is correct for identifying a clean and complete DNA sample with an example of the target DNA.

If fifteen markers out of twenty were found in such a sample, that would be evidence at a high level that the person was the one who left the sample.

Unfortunately that is not what is being investigated here. What we have is a sample of at least three persons DNA that was available as only a trace amount and which had to be treated using Low Copy Number multiplication of the available strands of DNA. It is further confused by possible contributors being first degree relations- father, mother, Sean, Amelie.

Can you see the difference between say drawing blood from a man and comparing its DNA with a semen sample that he left at the scene of a rape- a clear and individual sample that definitely came from a single person and which is available in some qunatity.

The Scenic case was of a trace which showed a mix of several people's DNA, at least four people who certainly shared many markers with Madeleine.

It's been good - but have to go to bed............... Night All.............

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

Me too! It hasn't been this entertaining since whats'er name. Ah yes, Platinum! And lifeisforliving was quite entertaining too in her way! And this one is telling a moderator she's spamming!

Yes, I also seem to remember Platinum telling us how to run the forum, and what threads we were allowed or not, and they had only been here for five minutes as well. And IIRC, they didn't last for long after that, neither.

Yes, there does seem to be a run of people trying to tell us how to run the forum. Oh dear!

Iris wrote:So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

More abuse noted.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

More abuse noted.

I don't see any abuse there.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

More abuse noted.

Good for you.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

Me too! It hasn't been this entertaining since whats'er name. Ah yes, Platinum! And lifeisforliving was quite entertaining too in her way! And this one is telling a moderator she's spamming!

Yes, I also seem to remember Platinum telling us how to run the forum, and what threads we were allowed or not, and they had only been here for five minutes as well. And IIRC, they didn't last for long after that, neither.

Yes, there does seem to be a run of people trying to tell us how to run the forum. Oh dear!

I do not mind how you run a forum, but repeatedly asking the same question IS close to spamming.

I have made it clear what I believe- that evidence for any outcome is sadly lacking. I do not intend to say any more on that subject and will await the Met enquiry which I suspect will say much the same.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

Me too! It hasn't been this entertaining since whats'er name. Ah yes, Platinum! And lifeisforliving was quite entertaining too in her way! And this one is telling a moderator she's spamming!

Yes, I also seem to remember Platinum telling us how to run the forum, and what threads we were allowed or not, and they had only been here for five minutes as well. And IIRC, they didn't last for long after that, neither.

Yes, there does seem to be a run of people trying to tell us how to run the forum. Oh dear!

I do not mind how you run a forum, but repeatedly asking the same question IS close to spamming.

I have made it clear what I believe- that evidence for any outcome is sadly lacking. I do not intend to say any more on that subject and will await the Met enquiry which I suspect will say much the same.

If you keep not answering the question, I'll keep asking and no, it's not close to spamming. You are sailing close to the wind, but do carry on.

Eli- I will come back tomorrow and explain the DNA findings.

Can you also explain why Kate & Gerry asked their friends to say the shutters were damaged, and why they selectively deleted their mobile phone calls.

All odd to me.

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

“ IF the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." – why state IF the profiles are equal ?
This principal should apply to all samples and therefore does not exclude Madeleine as a potential source of a particular sample / material, on the contrary, it is an inclusion.

Departing from the usual principal or procedure is generally only done in special circumstances to make a concession or exception and once again why say - “ IF the DNA with the scope of this result originated from more than one person “ ? IF is not definite.


Why were the results not given in terms of probabilities ? – when a person is not excluded as being the source of an evidentiary DNA profile , the strength of the evidence should be given in terms of probabilities. After all the chance of a random match between 2 unrelated people is on average 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 .
The FSS used 10 markers to match DNA samples. Using this system the chance of a random match (more than one profile matching a sample from a crime scene) is less than one in a billion.

Those are the probabilities ..... never mind 50 /50

Using the terminology 'IF..' is part of the passive voice and subjunctive mood preferred for academic papers.

Are you interested in trying to understand what the FSS actually meant or do you want to keep to what you currently believe.

If the police had a sample that with a several million to one chance indicated that Madeleine had been in the car rented weeks after her death, do you not think that the Portuguese Prosecutor would have been impressed! I can explain my reasoning for why the odds are even rather than millions to one; but are you open minded enough to listen?

One does not use the word ' IF ' in forensic reports unles one is uncertain.

let’s cut to the chase here ;

In forensic terminology the word ‘ Match ‘ means that elements contained within the reference sample ‘ match ‘ elements in the evidentiary sample and the components that should matter are not the common components that 99% of us share.

Approximately 1 person in every x number of million people chosen at random would possess the same DNA genotype as that found in a questioned sample. – now what a coincidence that 1 person who possess the exact same DNA as M. just by chance happened to have been in that particular newly hired vehicle … sorry, unbelievably it was it more than one person wasn’t it.

In order to state that there were enough components for someone to identify an individual, those components had to ‘match’ that particular individuals reference sample. In other words enough components or markers to distinguish who’s DNA it was. This was done regardless of the fact that there appeared to other components contained within that particular sample.

'IF' this was brought into a court setting those are the ' odds' as you call them or probabilities that a court would use.

Your description is correct for identifying a clean and complete DNA sample with an example of the target DNA.

If fifteen markers out of twenty were found in such a sample, that would be evidence at a high level that the person was the one who left the sample.

Unfortunately that is not what is being investigated here. What we have is a sample of at least three persons DNA that was available as only a trace amount and which had to be treated using Low Copy Number multiplication of the available strands of DNA. It is further confused by possible contributors being first degree relations- father, mother, Sean, Amelie.

Can you see the difference between say drawing blood from a man and comparing its DNA with a semen sample that he left at the scene of a rape- a clear and individual sample that definitely came from a single person and which is available in some qunatity.

The Scenic case was of a trace which showed a mix of several people's DNA, at least four people who certainly shared many markers with Madeleine.

The probabilities may need to allow for the suspect being a close relative to the person who was the source of the evidence, and the calculations should also allow for the chance of people in the same subpopulation having the same DNA profiles because of a shared ancestry or evolutionary history. However in most cases LCN DNA analysis is likely to produce partial or mixture results and any DNA profile will contain components that are not unique to that individual, this is not unique and it is exactly why the FSS used a data base which contained genetic profiles of the scientists who worked there in order to eliminate them ....... of course the report indicates that they also could have contributed to that sample, this should have all been taken into consideration.

"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.”

Findings of DNA results should be interpreted in the context of other evidence in the case, this was not done. Were the results interpreted in the context of other evidence in the case and does the hypothesis of abduction rationalise the evidence? …………. Personally I don’t think so and I doubt any court would

jodel wrote:Eli- I will come back tomorrow and explain the DNA findings.

I will look forward to it jodel and please read my previous post ........... now I really must go again

jodel wrote:Eli- I will come back tomorrow and explain the DNA findings.

Oh, please do. Us ignorant judging antis will be eagerly waiting for your brilliant illuminating explanation. Thank you very much in advance.

tigger wrote:This is my last post to Jodel (which actually means Yodelling in my language), I understand you are a social worker.

The tone and content of your posts remind me awfully of 'Clare in the community' on radio four. You'd be a natural.

Spot on

Claudia79 wrote:

jodel wrote:Eli- I will come back tomorrow and explain the DNA findings.

Oh, please do. Us ignorant judging antis will be eagerly waiting for your brilliant illuminating explanation. Thank you very much in advance.

The odds are 50-50? As our esteemed lecturer told us. No wonder the sardine munching drunks in Portugal didn't have a leg to stand on! If only she would have come to us earlier! Years of pointless arguments could have been avoided....

But imo we've struck lucky! After she's explained DNA to us, we'll ask her to find the Higgs boson whilst she's at it. I'm sure Stephen Hawkins could do with a bit of help as well.
Yodelling is overlooking the fact that without us 'dogged posters' she wouldn't even be able to find any of this information to misinterpret. It's people like the moderators and Anna who are keeping this information in the public domain. It's the pro Maddie faction who is doing this, the pro-McCanns seem to concentrate on misinformation and insults.

In fact, this lady (I'm presuming from the schoolmistressy tone that this is the case) wouldn't find a causal link between an empty goldfish bowl and a satisfied cat in a locked room. IMO of course, because she finds that phrase the most interesting part of my posts.....

Perhaps he or she can explain how Kate McCann got cadaver scent on her clothes or how it got on a child's red t shirt.

......plus.....whose body does he or she think lay in apt 5a, the flowerbed and the car?

kitti wrote:Perhaps he or she can explain how Kate McCann got cadaver scent on her clothes or how it got on a child's red t shirt.

Well Kitti, as she pointed out to us, even if it WAS cadaver scent, (the dogs had been right 200 times out of 200, but that apparently doesn't count) there's only a 50-50 chance of it being Maddie's. Could have been any old cadaver lying around at the time.

Re the DNA: only the second report from the FSS mentions the possible contamination of results by staff. This is utter nonsense as anybody who has worked in such environments knows. All the staff DNA is recorded specifically to avoid this. I think it was the only way they could change the outcome of the first report, by admitting contamination, the wording is still ambiguous however. I'll look it up sometime.

Point is: even without the DNA, there is other evidence in the form of fibres associated with the body fluids. PJ haven't published all the evidence.
So fibres can be associated with the alerts of the dogs, with other locations indicated by phone pings and with the rental car.

I'm always amazed how many people seem to think they know all about DNA, I'm doing a study on the haplotypes in the archaeological record and it's a minefield of data. Had to brush up my stats to work on it, great fun.

tigger wrote:

kitti wrote:Perhaps he or she can explain how Kate McCann got cadaver scent on her clothes or how it got on a child's red t shirt.

Well Kitti, as she pointed out to us, even if it WAS cadaver scent, (the dogs had been right 200 times out of 200, but that apparently doesn't count) there's only a 50-50 chance of it being Maddie's. Could have been any old cadaver lying around at the time.

Re the DNA: only the second report from the FSS mentions the possible contamination of results by staff. This is utter nonsense as anybody who has worked in such environments knows. All the staff DNA is recorded specifically to avoid this. I think it was the only way they could change the outcome of the first report, by admitting contamination, the wording is still ambiguous however. I'll look it up sometime.

Point is: even without the DNA, there is other evidence in the form of fibres associated with the body fluids. PJ haven't published all the evidence.
So fibres can be associated with the alerts of the dogs, with other locations indicated by phone pings and with the rental car.

I'm always amazed how many people seem to think they know all about DNA, I'm doing a study on the haplotypes in the archaeological record and it's a minefield of data. Had to brush up my stats to work on it, great fun.

That study sounds fascinating, tigger. The mtDNA haplotypes are my particular area of interest, how those have helped trace the movements of people across the continents and how ancestral heritage can be traced through just 7 lines.

I was just expressing my awe and admiration at all these wonderful talents, and I got told it was "more abuse" and "noted". Sorry, Sir, please don't make me go to the Head master, Sir!

I do not understand this discussion concerning body fluids found in the hire car and the relevant DNA analysis reports by the FSS? According to Kate McCann's recent testimony to the Leveson inquiry, no body fluids were found in the hire car. Is it possible that Kate McCann was not telling the truth?

Anna Esse wrote: quoteThat study sounds fascinating, tigger. The mtDNA haplotypes are my particular area of interest, how those have helped trace the movements of people across the continents and how ancestral heritage can be traced through just 7 lines.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
unquote.

Yes, the seven daughters of Eve. The estimated human population 70.000 yrs ago is only about 10.000 after the explosion of the super volcano Toba.
Incidentally, the genome project is very much downplayed because it didn't supply enough genes to explain all life. Now we have epi genetics. Google Bruce Lipton on this, v. interesting. Also v. good BBC horizon documentary - it's on youtube.

To get back on topic: of course we also have the haplotypes mtDNA of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat in one location in Burgau, I believe. Now that is never enough to convict but is a pointer that they were acquainted.

Iris wrote:I was just expressing my awe and admiration at all these wonderful talents, and I got told it was "more abuse" and "noted". Sorry, Sir, please don't make me go to the Head master, Sir!

Good morning Iris, but you just got to admire the rugged
tenacity of Jodel, a legend in his own mind, but, alas,
such tenacity does not come cheap!
I would suspect.... a paid chimp possibly?
Over to you Jodel.

Well, being one of those who sleeps during the night-time hours, it took a heck of a long time to read the flood of Posts since about 22.30 yesterday.

Couldn't find any answers at all to any of my On Topic posts, but at least the debate about the dogs (Conclusion? Same old) appears to have been augmented by re-visiting the lack of anything (Evidential, circumstantial or even purely hypothetical) to support Abduction.

One thing I don't understand is why those who claim to be fence-sitters confine their contribution to repeating over and over and over again their view that (essentially) there is no Evidence of anything. I far prefer people to be open-minded (as most are here) and to actually chew things over.

Also, Forums don't make decisions (as I noted one person seems to think that is the aim) but do a democratically and morally necessary job of keeping the unexplained disappearance of Madeleine McCann in the public eye. I do get the impression that some would rather have the affair swept under the carpet and forgotten. Why, I cannot imagine.

kitti wrote:......plus.....whose body does he or she think lay in apt 5a, the flowerbed and the car?

Morning kitty!

I have been thinking about the flower bed lately and thought since you brought it up I'd ask you. What is your opinion of why Madeleine would have been placed on the flower bed for x amount of time, enough for the dogs to pick to the scent? I genuinely can't think of a reason to be left out in the open for so long and thought it would be interesting to hear someone's point of view on it.