User Name  Password
Make a donation click here. Your support will help us remove ads and upload local images, etc.
Title: Enfants Kidnappes - Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic Uni
Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY   WELCOME to HDH Controversy & Info
Hop to: 
Views:250     
New Topic New Poll
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
AuthorComment
HiDeHo
 Author    



Rank:Diamond Member

Score: 2777
Posts: 2777
From: USA
Registered: 26/01/2013
Time spent: 46092 hours

(Date Posted:31/10/2013 6:42 AM)
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo

"Enfants kidnappés"  (Belgian police site)
 
AEK: If on an analysis of DNA, 15 markers out of 19 belong to a person "x", can we conclude that this is this person?

Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic University of Louvain (GNEX - UCL)
SA: If the profile is complete and quality, and that the markers are analyzed information then no doubt! The result is discriminatory. This result is very reliable. The order of error is 1 for 1 billion! It is almost impossible it otherwise. For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.

15:19 Markers 1 in 1BILLION ACCORDING TO AN EXPERT

"Enfants kidnappés"  (Belgian police site) 

AEK: If on an analysis of DNA, 15 markers out of 19 belong
 to a person "x", can we conclude that this is this person?

Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit 
Expertise Genetics at the Catholic 
University of Louvain (GNEX - UCL)

SA: "If the profile is complete and quality, and that the markers
 are analyzed information then no doubt!

The result is discriminatory. This result is VERY RELIABLE

The ORDER OF ERROR is 1 for 1 BILLION

 In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 LEAVE NO DOUBT. 

This result is quite RELIABLE and USABLE IN COURT. 

The ERROR RATE for a one billion is SO UNLIKELY that the result is
 RECOGNIZED BY JUDGES without lawyers can not bring them into doubt."
 
































AEK: If on an analysis of DNA, 15 markers out of 19 belong to a person "x", can we conclude that this is this person?
SA: If the profile is complete and quality, and that the markers are analyzed information then no doubt! The result is discriminatory. This result is very reliable. The order of error is 1 for 1 billion! It is almost impossible it otherwise. For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.
 









(Message edited by HiDeHoOn23/11/2015 3:26 PM)
usertype:1
HiDeHo
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 1# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:2777
Posts:2777
From: USA
Registered:26/01/2013
Time spent: 46092 hours

RE:enfants kidnappes 15 19
(Date Posted:31/10/2013 7:01 AM)

ANONYMOUS COMMENTARY on Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic University of Louvain (GNEX - UCL) Interview with Enfants Kidnappes

"The FBI's CODIS database, which contains the DNA profiles of approximately 6 million convicted criminals, has been extensively studied. No 13:13 match of genetic markers has ever been found except between identical twins. "

"Given the experience with CODIS, I think it is highly, highly unlikely (as in, the odds in favour of it would be one in the tens of millions) that one would find a 15:15 match on genetic markers between two different members of the McCann family."

" If the forensic technicians were able to extract 15 markers from the material in the Scenic that were a match for the known sample of Madeleine's DNA and the other four markers could not be tested because they were degraded, there would be a high probability mathematically that the questioned sample of DNA came from Madeleine."

 "..if FSS got a 15:19 match between Madeleine's known DNA and the questioned sample from the hire car, and 4 other markers were too degraded to be tested, in my opinion, that would be a POWERFUL PIECE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE



"The FBI's CODIS database, which contains the DNA profiles
of approximately 6 million convicted criminals, has been
extensively studied. 

No 13:13 match of genetic markers has ever been found
 
except between identical twins. "

"Given the experience with CODIS, I think it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY 
UNLIKELY (as in, the odds in favour of it would be one in the tens 
of millions) that one would find a 15:15 match on genetic markers 
between two different members of the McCann family."

" If the forensic technicians were able to extract 15 markers from 
the material in the Scenic that were a match for the known sample 
of Madeleine's DNA and the other four markers could not be tested 
because they were degraded, there would be a high probability 
mathematically that the questioned sample of DNA came 
from Madeleine."

"...if FSS got a 15:19 match between Madeleine's known DNA
and the questioned sample from the hire car, and four other 
markers were too degraded to be tested, in my opinion,
that would be a POWERFUL PIECE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE."





(Message edited by HiDeHo On 24/11/2015 12:58 PM)
usertype:1 tt= 1
Support us

Create free forum and click the links below and your donations will make a difference here.

www.dinodirect.com

A Huge Online Store for Various Cool Gadgets, Accessories: Laser Pointer, Bluetooth Headset, Cell Phone Jammer, MP3 Players, Spy Cameras, Soccer Jersey, Window Curtains, MP4 Player, E Cigarette, Wedding Dresses, Hearing Aids, eBook Reader, Tattoo Machines, LED Light Bulbs, Bluetooth Stereo Headset, Holiday Gifts, Security Camera and Games Accessories and Hobby Gadgets.  
HiDeHo
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 2# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:2777
Posts:2777
From: USA
Registered:26/01/2013
Time spent: 46092 hours

RE:enfants kidnappes 15 19
(Date Posted:23/11/2015 3:18 PM)


http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/enfants-kidnapps-50808-parents-are-less.html

Thank you very much Primavera (http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/). Long and hard work to translate this very long and important foreign article of the Belgian'police site :"Enfants kidnappés".

Parents less and less credible?

Since the file is accessible to the press, each medium has its commentary. All Portuguese newspapers disclose disturbing elements put into question the assertions of parents. Indeed, many elements remain difficult to explain. Many details, facts and testimony contradicted the statements and declarations of parents and their friends. Of course the details revealed in the press will not be in favour of the McCann family. And for good reason, investigators have forged an opinion against them and this view appears over the pages. Attention, however, does not make me say what I did not say: I do not pretend that the PJ directed to the investigation based on his convictions on the contrary! The survey was conducted as they should. These are the contradictions, inconsistencies gross lack of cooperation, inappropriate reactions of parents who have naturally led investigators (who are professionals, let us not forget) to suspect the parents. You know all the disturbing elements that we are talking about:

* Kate who returns to his friends shouting: "They abducted Madeleine" but leaving his children in the apartment where kidnapping has been committed.

* Friends who engage in its research but who do not see in their own apartment if it is not there or if their children are still there.

* The room perfectly cleaned and Madeleine's bed not undone. (Thanks to the abductor to have redone the bed or wasn't Madeleine was not in her bed at the time of his disappearance)

* The fact that British diplomacy has been advised and exert pressure on a police investigation (Kate acknowledged in a British newspaper a few days ago, have telephoned British Prime Minister asking him to put pressure on the investigation to "advance it"

* The contradictory statements concerning forced the door (which was not), old and forced shutters (who were not either).

* Witnesses who do not see the same things that parents and their friends while at the same locations at the same hour (299 witnesses were interviewed).
* Inconsistencies in the statements of the friends group.
* The lack of cooperation by the group.
* The refusal to participate in a reconstruction (Yet crucial to know what happened to Madeleine - Is not the only objective?)
* The blood found in the room.
* The smell of corpses detected.
* Etc.


If these attitudes are proven, it is understandable that investigators have begun to have serious suspicions. There are many other and sometimes more striking that these small example I gave you. The press will submit others over the following days. The largest of discussing and articles will be published around the one hand dogs trackers which I make a summary:

The actions of British dogs specially trained to detect the smell of corpses and human blood has been decisive for suspectong Gerry and Kate . Facing coincidences in the action of two dogs, who reported the same places and the same objects, authorities were forced to admit the possible involvement of parents in the disappearance of their daughter and to designate them "arguidos" to confront the elements that could lead to an indictment. Inspectors explain that dogs have given signs of detection, smell corpse and human blood in places and on the following items:


In the apartment where Madeleine disappeared (In the room of the couple and in the living room)
In the garden
In the vehicle rented by parents 24 days after the disappearance of Maddie.
On two clothing Kate
On the toy of Maddie that Kate has not released the day following the disappearance.

In the apartment of friends of McCann in the village of Praia and in vehicles used by Robert Murat - the first accused to be suspected - nothing has been detected by dogs.

And on the other sections will turn around DNA analysis ...

The DNA results.

The media war began. 

The British newspapers do not take the same language as newspapers Portuguese. Thus, Clarence Mitchell, spokesman of the parents, said in the British press: "The DNA results have never been 100% compatible with the DNA of Madeleine.

 A note of caution was expressed at the outset. The police was wrong to pursue this line of inquiry. The Portuguese legal system has acknowledged having no proof, I can confirm that the PJ told Gerry that the DNA of Madeleine had been found in two apartments and in the vehicle then it is clear now that this is not what the first report of the FSS. You have to ask what the police is trying to do by inventing evidence that they did not and they can not not have. One might wonder in these circumstances what is their motivation? ".

We'll make a little "flat" the statements by Mr. Mitchell. From a police point of view, it happens that police say the suspects hold evidence, they did not actually, in order to crack a suspect, it should not be done any how. Indeed, it is difficult to tell a suspect, for example, that his fingerprints were found at the crime scene while the suspect knows wearing gloves throughout its wrongdoing and that consequently the police told n 'What is important! You must be a little seriously. Forward evidence that has not, must remain plausible knowing that if the suspect is indeed the culprit, the police will lose face if they invented evidence that the suspect knew to be false!

On the other hand, the interpretation of Clarence Mitchell DNA results are criticable.. 

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).

Children Association Kidnappés: Do you know the technique of LCN and it is commonly used?

S. Adamis: LCN (Low Copy Number) is a technique developed by the laboratories of Forensic Science Service English to analyze samples containing a very small number of DNA molecule. The basic principle is to increase the number of cycles of PCR to increase sensitivity [Gill, 2000; Whitaker, 2001]. This technique has two major drawbacks:

1) it produces unbalanced profiles for one or the other marker, with possible disappearance of an allele due to stochastic effect.

2) it leads to the detection of either allele in the negative controls of unknown origin.

The first drawback led to obtaining profile incomplete, partially wrong and not reproducible. This little reliability goes against the spirit as advocated notably by the ISO 17025 standards in force in our country.
The second requires necessarily work in special conditions to avoid contamination inherent in the environmental conditions and in particular from human DNA present in the dust of the atmosphere or on the surfaces of objects. Seen the limitations of this technique, the conclusions could be easily attacked and cancelled during a trial. This technique is not used routinely in DNA laboratories in Belgium.

AEK: If on an analysis of DNA, 15 markers out of 19 belong to a person "x", can we conclude that this is this person?

SA: If the profile is complete and quality, and that the markers are analyzed information then no doubt! The result is discriminatory. This result is very reliable. The order of error is 1 for 1 billion! It is almost impossible it otherwise. 

For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.

We open a parenthesis. We understand even better the attitude of the PJ. In the face of inconsistencies we are talking about earlier, the police have doubts. Can dogs detect traces of blood and the smell of a corpse. The doubts turn into belief. But it lacks something. All these elements are not sufficient to face charges in a court. It lacks a confirmation. A scientific confirmation. This confirmation comes with the first analysis report which said that 15 DNA markers on 19 belong to Madeleine. It does not need more police. The proof is there. Self-explanatory. The first report analyses prove the guilt of parents in the eyes of investigators. 

This report should be considered as a proof by, I believe, all police forces. Once parents have been placed, logically, in the particular status "arguidos." Of course, an error rate of 1 to 1 billion is not a profile of 100%, it Clarence Mitchell rightly so. 

Where, then, there is a huge surprise. A second report by the FSS comes and totally contradicts the first. Distroying evidence that the police have thought. According to the report, the samples have been contaminated finally making them very unreliable. Several DNA have been mixed to create the DNA of anyone!

EAK: If you get DNA from three different people, can we recreate the DNA of anyone?

SA: If the DNA is collected DNA mixed with that of 3 individuals in an equivalent manner, then we could actually find the DNA profile of anyone. The mine just like yours. But it is important that the mixture is perfectly equivalent. In which case the reliability rate is very low, from 1 to a billion 1 per 1,000 or 1 in 100. It is therefore more question to consider this result as discriminatory.

So what happened? NRL unreliable? The contaminated samples at the second analysis, but not the first? The first botched analysis by the FSS? There would be a good way of knowing. As two expert reports contradict each other, we practise a third analysis in an independent lab. But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis



http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/enfants-kidnapps-50808-parents-are-less.html




COMMENTARY BY ANONYMOUS

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t12417-more-about-dna-from-an-expert

For the purposes of this discussion, let us call the sample of Madeleine's DNA that was obtained from her pillow in Rothley or wherever they got it the "known sample." The DNA found in the Scenic and the apartment would have been "questioned samples."

Regardless of the number of markers you are testing, if the DNA in ANY of the markers in a questioned sample does not match the DNA in the known sample, then the questioned sample does not come from the same person who was the donor of the known sample of DNA.

I have not seen anything in writing to date, but I have been assuming that the FSS was able to extract 15 markers from the sample of DNA found in the back of the Renault Scenic, and that the other four markers were so degraded (by heat, sunlight, efforts to clean them up, whatever) that they could not be analysed. If they had 4 out of 19 markers that clearly were NOT a match for Madeleine's DNA, that would have been the end of it, in my opinion; the DNA from the Scenic could not have been hers.

I have read that the Portuguese require 19 markers for a conclusive result on a DNA analysis because under their laws that is how many markers are required for a positive match on a paternity test. This is more markers than I have ever heard of being required anywhere for forensic purposes in a criminal case. 

In the UK, 10 markers are tested, plus the sex of the donor is determined, and a 10:10 match is considered conclusive.

 In America, the FBI CODIS database contains 13 markers. Individual states in America are allowed to pass their own laws about how many markers must be tested before evidence can be introduced in court, but most of the 50 states use 13 because there is so much interface with the FBI database. Therefore, in America, a 13:13 match is considered conclusive that the questioned DNA and the known DNA came from the same person. 

Neverthess, if Portuguese law requires analysis of 19 markers, then that's what must be done. Period.

Regarding your specific questions:

(1) Only identical twins are born with identical DNA, and even in that case, every individual on earth begins to accumulate mutations to his/her DNA that may make it possible to distinguish even between the DNA of identical twins. There is a laboratory in Texas called Orchid Cellmark that claims it already can do this, but so far as I know, this technique has never been used in court.

The DNA of everyone on earth is at least a 99% match. Yep, that's right. The DNA of the most profoundly mentally disabled person who ever lived was a 99% match for Albert Einstein's. The DNA of the poorest beggar on the streets of the poorest city in the world, whoever that unfortunate soul happens to be, is a 99% match for the Queen's. Rather humbling, isn't it? (Note: Studies published in 2001 indicated that the DNA of all human beings was about 99.9% alike. More recent information, obtained from the human genome project, indicates that the accurate figure is probably somewhere in the range of 99 - 99.5%.)

The DNA of siblings is even more alike than that of individuals selected at random, which makes sense, considering that they inherit their DNA from the same two people. Within that 1% or less variation, however, there are literally tens of thousands of different combinations that make the DNA of any one individual unique from that of everyone else, including his/her siblings.

The FBI's CODIS database, which contains the DNA profiles of approximately 6 million convicted criminals, has been extensively studied. No 13:13 match of genetic markers has ever been found except between identical twins. There was a widely reported case several years ago in which a forensics examiner for the state of Arizona in America found a 9:13 match between two unrelated individuals, and there has also been a report of a 10:13 match between two related individuals who were products of an incestuous relationship.

Given the experience with CODIS, I think it is highly, highly unlikely (as in, the odds in favour of it would be one in the tens of millions) that one would find a 15:15 match on genetic markers between two different members of the McCann family.

(2) As I have posted before, DNA cannot be used to determine whether a person was living or dead at the time the sample was taken. A DNA sample taken by swabbing the inside of the cheek of a living person one hour before death and another sample taken from the same person one hour after death would look identical under a microscope.

What MIGHT be possible, and it would depend on several different things, including the degree of experience and skill of the forensic examiner and the quantity of DNA available, would be that a forensic examiner asked to attempt to extract DNA from some object that appeared to contain a substance that might be a bodily fluid - a piece of clothing, say, or a piece of carpet from an automobile - MIGHT be able to recognise the type of fluid and therefore tell whether the donor had been alive or dead. There are certain types of fluids - one is an exudate from the lungs that is only seen after death - that might be recognisable as such. In Madeleine's case, however, with so little material available, I am virtually certain that this would not have been possible, i.e., it would not be possible to tell whether the donor of the questioned sample of DNA found in the back of the Scenic was alive or dead at the time the DNA was deposited there.

(3) If the forensic technicians were able to extract 15 markers from the material in the Scenic that were a match for the known sample of Madeleine's DNA and the other four markers could not be tested because they were degraded, there would be a high probability mathematically that the questioned sample of DNA came from Madeleine.

Just to give you an example, at the time the forensic examiner in Arizona found the 9:13 match on DNA markers, the FBI said that the chances of that happening would be 1 in 113 billion. Well, that obviously isn't right, because there WAS, in fact, a 9:13 match, and there are nowhere near 113 billion people in the world. There is something called the "prosecutor's fallacy," which is an example of mathematical analysis called "binary classification" which shows that even 10:10 or 13:13 DNA matches are subject to error rates much higher than prosecutors sometimes attribute to them. However, whilst saying that the chance of an incorrect finding is 1 in 113 billion is clearly ridiculous, my opinion would be that the chance of two DNA samples belonging to different people if the results of the forensic analysis shows a 15:19 match would be miniscule - at least 1 out of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It would not, however, be a smoking gun. Any DNA scientist will tell you that DNA is only one piece of the puzzle in any case and should be viewed in the context of all the other evidence. However, if FSS got a 15:19 match between Madeleine's known DNA and the questioned sample from the hire car, and 4 other markers were too degraded to be tested, in my opinion, that would be a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence.

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.




Madame Stavroula. Adamis - Expert Judiciaire à l'Unité d'Expertise Génétique de l'Université Catholique de Louvain

Laboratoires des Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc - Université Catolique de Louvain, Belgique 

Direction: Professeur Michel DELMEE

Experts:
Docteur Grégory SCHMIT
Stavroula ADAMIS, Lc en Biologie
Fernand Roekens, Lc en Biologie



https://www.linkedin.com/pub/stavroula-adamis/91/157/85




http://www.saintluc.be/laboratoires/activites/medecine-legale/genetique/index.php

http://l.facebook.com/lsr.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnephrologie.org%2FPDF%2Fenephro%2Fpublications%2Factualites%2F2000%2F2000_22.pdf&ext=1423772032&hash=AckXJBhpWDPmyDqutcZn57BDOjsdiZnW2NIyLF-htNkpkLf6



(Message edited by HiDeHo On 24/11/2015 1:15 PM)
usertype:1 tt= 1
HiDeHo
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 3# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:2777
Posts:2777
From: USA
Registered:26/01/2013
Time spent: 46092 hours

RE:Enfants Kidnappes - Madame S. Adamis, Expert on Judicial Unit Expertise Genetics at the Catholic Uni
(Date Posted:24/11/2015 8:39 AM)

Les parents de moins en moins crédibles ?


Depuis que le dossier est accessible à la presse, chaque média y va de son commentaire. L'ensemble des journaux portugais divulguent des éléments troublants mettant en doute les affirmations des parents. De fait, de nombreux éléments restent difficiles à expliquer. De nombreux détails, faits et témoignage contredisent les affirmations et déclarations des parents te de leurs amis. Bien sûr les détails révélés dans la presse ne vont pas être en faveur de la famille McCann. Et pour cause, les enquêteurs se sont forgé une opinion à leur égard et cette opinion ressort au fil des pages. Attention toutefois de ne pas me faire dire ce que je n'ai pas dit: Je ne prétends pas que la PJ à orienter l'enquête en fonction de ses convictions que du contraire! L'enquête a été menée comme il se doit. Ce sont les contradictions, les incohérences flagrantes, le manque de coopération, les réactions inappropriées des parents qui ont naturellement conduit les enquêteurs (qui sont des professionnelles, ne l'oublions pas) à soupçonner les parents. Vous connaissez tous les éléments troublants dont nous parlons:

  • Kate qui revient vers ses amis en criant: "Ils ont enlevé Madeleine" mais en laissant ses enfants dans l'appartement d'où un enlèvement vient d'être commis.
  • Les amis qui se lancent à sa recherche mais qui ne vont pas voir dans leur propre appartement si elle ne s'y trouve pas ou si leurs enfants y sont encore.
  • La chambre parfaitement rangée et le lit de Madeleine non défait. (Merci au ravisseur d'avoir refait le lit ou alors Madeleine n'était pas dons son lit au moment de sa disparition)
  • Le fait que la diplomatie britannique ait été avisée et qu'elle fasse pression sur une enquête de police (Kate a reconnue dans un journal britannique, il y a quelques jours, avoir téléphoné au Premier Ministre britannique pour lui demander de faire pression sur l'enquête afin "qu'elle avance"
  • Les déclarations contradictoires concernant la porte forcée (qui ne l'était pas), les volets vétustes et forcés (qui ne l'était pas non plus).
  • Des témoins qui ne voient pas les mêmes choses que les parents et leurs amis tout en étant aux mêmes endroits à la même heure (299 témoins ont été interrogés).
  • Les incohérences dans les déclarations des amis du groupe.
  • Le manque de coopération du groupe.
  • Le refus de participer à une reconstitution (Pourtant primordiale pour savoir ce qui est arrivé à Madeleine - N'est-ce pas le seul objectif ?)
  • Le sang retrouvé dans la chambre.
  • L'odeur de cadavre détecté.
  • Etc

Si ces attitudes sont avérées, on peu comprendre que les enquêteurs aient commencé à avoir de sérieux soupçons. Il y en bien d'autres et parfois plus frappant que les quelques petits exemple que j'énumère. La presse va vous en présenter d'autres au fil des jours qui suivent. Le plus gros des discutions et des articles publiés le seront autour, d'une part des chiens pisteurs dont je vous fais un rappel sommaire:

L'action des chiens britanniques spécialement entraînés pour détecter l'odeur de cadavre et de sang humain a été décisive pour que Gerry et Kate soient suspectés. Devant les coïncidences face à l'action des deux chiens, qui ont signalés les mêmes endroits ainsi que les mêmes objets, les autorités ont été obligées d'admettre une éventuelle implication des parents dans la disparition de leur fille et de les désigner "arguidos" afin de les confronter aux éléments qui pourraient les conduire à une inculpation. Les inspecteurs expliquent que les chiens ont donné des signes de détection d'odeur de cadavre et de sang humain dans les endroits et sur les objets suivant:


Dans l'appartement d'où Madeleine a disparu (Dans la chambre du couple et dans la salle de séjour)
Dans le potager
Dans le véhicule loué par les parents 24 jours après la disparition de Maddie.
Sur deux vêtements de Kate
Sur la peluche de Maddie que Kate n'a pas lâché les jours suivants la disparition.

Dans l'appartement des amis des McCann, dans le village de Praia et dans les véhicules utilisés par Robert Murat - premier accusé à être suspecté - rien n'a été détecté par les chiens.


Et d'autre part les articles vont tourner autour des analyses ADN...

Les résultats ADN.


La guerre des médias a commencée. Les journaux britanniques ne tiennent pas le même langage que les journaux portugais. Ainsi, Clarence Mitchell, porte-parole des parents, déclare dans la presse britanniques: "Les résultats ADN n'ont jamais été à 100% compatible avec l'ADN de Madeleine. Une mise en garde avait été exprimée dès le début. La police a eu tort de poursuivre cette ligne d'enquête. Le système judiciaire portugais a reconnu n'avoir aucune preuve! Je peux confirmer que la PJ a déclaré à Gerry que l'ADN de Madeleine avait été retrouvé dans les deux appartements et dans le véhicule alors qu'il est clair maintenant que ce n'est pas ce que dit le premier rapport du FSS. Vous devez vous demander ce que la police essaye de faire en inventant des preuves qu'ils n'ont pas et qu'ils ne peuvent pas avoir. On peu se demander dans ces circonstances qu'elle est leur motivation ?".

Nous allons apporter un petit "bémol" aux déclarations de monsieur Mitchell. D'un point de vue policier, s'il arrive que les policiers déclarent aux suspects détenir des preuves, qu'ils n'ont en réalité pas, dans le but de faire craquer un suspect; ce ne doit pas être fait n'importe comment. En effet, il est difficile de dire à un suspect, par exemple, que ses empruntes ont été relevée sur les lieux du crime alors que le suspect sait pertinemment avoir porté des gants tout au long de son méfait et que par conséquence la police raconte n'importe quoi! Il faut être un peu sérieux. Avancer des preuves qu'on n'a pas doit rester plausible en sachant que si le suspect est bien le coupable, la police va perdre la face si elle invente des preuves que le suspect sait être fausses!!

D'autre part, l'interprétation de Clarence Mitchell des résultats ADN prête à caution. Pour nous aider dans nos propos notre association à fait appel à une experte en la matière. Il s'agit de Madame S.Adamis, Expert Judiciaire à l'Unité d'Expertise Génétique de l'Université Catholique de Louvain (GNEX - UCL).

Association Enfants Kidnappés: Connaissez vous la technique du LCN et est-elle couramment  utilisée ?

S. Adamis: Le LCN (Low Copy Number) est une technique développée par les laboratoires du Forensic Science Service anglais pour analyser des échantillons contenant un très petit nombre de molécule d'ADN. Le principe de base est d'augmenter le nombre de cycles de la PCR pour augmenter la sensibilité [Gill, 2000 ; Whitaker, 2001]. Cette technique présente deux inconvénients majeurs :

1) elle produit des profils déséquilibrés pour l'un ou l'autre marqueur, avec disparition possible d'un allèle dû à l'effet stochastique.

2) elle conduit à la détection de l'un ou l'autre allèle dans les contrôles négatifs d'origine non déterminée. 

Le premier inconvénient conduit à l'obtention de profil incomplet, partiellement erroné et non reproductible. Ce peu de fiabilité va à l'encontre de l'esprit qualité préconisée notamment par les normes ISO 17025 en vigueur dans notre pays.
Le deuxième nécessite obligatoirement de travailler dans des conditions particulières pour éviter les contaminations inhérentes aux conditions ambiantes et provenant notamment de l'ADN humain présent dans les poussières de l'atmosphère ou sur les surfaces des objets. Vus les limitations de cette technique, les conclusions émises pourraient être facilement attaquées et annulées lors d'un jugement. Cette technique n'est pas utilisée en routine dans les laboratoires d'identification génétique en Belgique.

AEK:Si sur une analyse d'ADN, 15 marqueurs sur 19 appartiennent à une personne "x", peut-on en conclure qu'il s'agit bien de cette personne ?
S.A.: Si le profil est complet et de qualité, et que les marqueurs analysés sont informatifs alors sans aucun doute! Le résultat est discriminant. Ce résultat est très très fiable. L'ordre d'erreur est de 1 pour 1 milliard! Il est quasi impossible qu'il en soit autrement. Pour un profil ADN probant, il faut au minimum 7 marqueurs de base. Dans le cas que vous présentez, 15 marqueurs sur 19 ne laissent planer aucun doute. Ce résultat est tout à fait fiable et utilisable devant les tribunaux. Le taux d'erreur d'un pour un milliard est tellement peu probable que le résultat est reconnu par les magistrats sans que les avocats ne puissent les mettre en doute.

Nous ouvrons ici une parenthèse. On comprend encore mieux l'attitude de la PJ. En effet face aux incohérences dont nous parlons plus haut, les policiers ont des doutes. Puis les chiens détectent des vestiges de sang et l'odeur de cadavre. Les doutes se transforment en conviction. Mais il manque quelque chose. Tous ces éléments ne suffisent pas à faire face à une accusation dans un tribunal. Il manque une confirmation. Une confirmation scientifique. Cette confirmation arrive avec le premier rapport d'analyse qui précise que 15 marqueurs d'ADN sur 19 appartiennent à Madeleine. Il n'en faut pas plus à la police. La preuve est là. Évidente. Le premier rapport d'analyses prouve la culpabilité des parents aux yeux des enquêteurs. Ce rapport serait considéré comme une preuve irréfutable par, je crois, toutes les polices. Dès lors les parents ont été placé, en toute logique, sous le statut particulier "d'arguidos". Bien sûr, un taux d'erreur de 1 pour 1 milliard n'est pas un profil à 100%, en ça Clarence Mitchell à raison. Lorsque, ensuite, survient un coup d'éclat. Un deuxième rapport du FSS arrive et contredit totalement le premier. Ruinant ainsi les preuves que pensaient avoir la police. Selon ce rapport, ,les échantillons prélevés auraient été contaminés finalement les rendant très peu fiable. Plusieurs ADN auraient été mélangé permettant de créer l'ADN de n'importe qui!

EAK:Si on récolte l'ADN de trois personnes différentes, peut-on recréer l'ADN de n'importe qui ? 

S.A.: Si l'ADN récolté est mélangé avec l'ADN celui de 3 individus de façon équivalente, alors effectivement on pourrait retrouver le profil ADN de n'importe qui. Le mien tout comme le vôtre. Mais il faut que le mélange soit parfaitement équivalent. Auquel cas le taux de fiabilité devient très très faible, passant de 1 pour un milliard à 1 pour 1.000 ou 1 pour 100. Il n'est, dès lors, plus question de considérer ce résultat comme discriminant.

Alors que c'est-il passé? Le LCN peu fiable ? Les échantillons contaminés lors de la deuxième analyse mais pas à la première ? La première analyse bâclée par le FSS ? Il y aurait bien un moyen de le savoir. Quant deux expertises se contredisent, on fait pratiquer une troisième analyse dans un labo indépendant. Mais, hélas, suite à un incident qui reste inexpliqué, les seuls échantillons d'ADN existant ont été, malencontreusement, perdu ou détruit par le laboratoire. Ce qui rend impossible une troisième analyse!


http://web.archive.org/web/20080805112830/http://www.kidnapping.be/maddie/maddie.html
usertype:1 tt= 1
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
New Topic New Poll
web analytics
Sign Up | Create | About Us | SiteMap | Features | Forums | Show Off | Faq | Help
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.

Get cheapest China Wholesale,  China Wholesale Supplier,  SilkChain 丝链to be a retailer is easy now.
LUFFY