Madeleline McCann: pillowcase dna.

pillowcase dna. part 1.

dna looks to be a favorite mystery in itself, and certainly in the case of madeleine mccann.
yes, it is quite heavy duty science behind dna, for most of us, it also came quite late in life on the table. so maybe we escaped the simple explanation during biology class. still it would not hurt when you do look up a nice article, enough to find about the meaning of the stuff itself, and on very different levels, pick at least two or more, to be safe from incorrect explanations.

for this case it is enough to know that dna is unique to an individual human, at least there are none true equals found, even in identical twins, there still are some differences.
science likes to bring in always some margins just to be sure, and as not all humans are tested and known by dna, you can not really state that it is 100% sure that there are no humans that have exactly the same dna. well we would read it in the news when they found the two who share that exactly the same dna. for day to day use, we can say we all have our own unique combination of dna.

you get half of the biological father, and half of the biological mother. only mutations can change one or both of a pair of genes you inherited. if that does not happen it means each gene will be on of the pair your one parent already had and another from the pair your other parent had. but we have quite a lot of genes, they still are counting. so all your siblings from the same parents will have also one of each, but because it is quite a gable which one per gene, that always has 2 parts so called alleles , and there are many genes the combination ends up pretty unique.

the problem starts with using dna as a tool in establishing identity, we do not need all the dna on all the genes for that. that would take much more time and investments and there is not always much need for it, dna is still an extra tool besides the still classic ways to establish identity. paperwork is still the norm, so birth registration, passports or identity cards, and other people telling you exist. the paperwork would be hard to change after it is made, usually that start from your birth registration on. pictures can be used too. but also tickets and reservations tell a bit that you had to be in a certain place.

dna is at least officially not registered at birth, and it is way off to use the language of dna to tell how you look, what your personal appearance must be. so it is more a nice extra tool.

the bit of dna that does not change much is mt-dna, that is on each cell in the mitochondria, you simply get a copy from your biological mother. it does not easily end up with mutations, so you can track an individual to a long row of a maternal lineage. there are not so many different forms around. so it would not tell who you are, but it can tell you are most likely offspring from a specific female, or another female that is from that same maternal lineage. or that you are not. it does not make you family in the social meaning, but only that you share somewhere down your ancestors the same female, and that can be thousands of years back. males do have mt-dna too from their biological mother, but they can give it to their offspring

a bit of dna that decides your biological gender is usually given as x and/or y, a biological female has usually only one kind, and as she had from each of her parents one, that results in having two x-es, males have to be biological male one x and an y. the x is always from the biological mother, she has only x-es, but to be biological male there must be an y and that can only come from the biological father. only biology is not as straightforward as it looks, so there are many different combinations, it can hardly be called mistakes or wrongs, and the outcome will still be humans. and like all mutations many of them have simple be the reason we are still walking around as a species. if it gives a better suited human , it usually even will take over in time, is it not it will reach a dead alleyway and stops. it can also give simply too much effects that are not nice at all, so many different combinations from mutations can result in health problems. the idea their only could be biological females and biological males is simply wrong. and no that is not always to see on the outside too.

another misunderstanding is that it is not the matter that makes the dna is unique, because it is not, it is the combination of many smaller combinations that makes it unique. you can use a lotto machine as an example, only for dna it would need a very large row of these machines, with each only 4 balls of a different colour  in it. and let the machine put them out in an order. with each extra machine, it would makes more different outcomes possible. so it does not matter much that the machines are identical, and the balls all of four colours.

most of our dna is only use for processing our bodies. and that results in having just the same way of writing that software when we are a human, cows, or a rat. nature likes to keep what works as long as it works.

so for identity we simply had to make a choice, and looking for a series of genes that makes humans humans, and still has enough diversity in possible combination we picked some of them. there is not really consensus in how many genes we have to use, that can be very different per country. and because testing is becoming easier because the technical tools get better and better, what was enough at the start can be changed by a larger number to look at.

in this case an uk lab was used, that uses 20 bits of the dna to check on. sometimes one of these bits has the same combination of ‘coloured  balls’ on the same location in both biological parents that donated them to their offspring.
they will simply end up in test results as identical, and by that as just one, so there is nothing missing, you can not see them, because they show simply as one and the same.
in this case that did happen. so instead of 20 bits, it was 19 bits.

from an earlier post we know the explanation why the question where the dna of madeleine was in unit 5a was just the wrong question, no one looked for it. and not looking means it could only accidentally be found. but that is not something that always happen.

also only much later on it became more urgent to know the dna of madeleine herself.
they already had the full samples of her registered parents, and her registered siblings.
but registers are not biology. registers are human hands that makes them, and they can be with and without intent simply be wrong and incorrect. biology is out of human hands.

children that are part of a family life have often not very much unique that most likely only will or can have their traces of their dna on or in it. in this case there have been 5 people around in unit 5a. all had the legal right to be there. so no outsiders there, and all 5 have a very large chance to have some identical rows of the balls to spread around. family makes it harder to find the full unique combination. all humans do leave bits of themselves around, but not all bits will keep the complete combination of their dna available. some people are very good spreaders, there even can be super spreaders, but some are just modest of minimal spreaders. and the dna is not spread itself, but is content of other things. most of that can become human waste, it left the body, and not all has even dna in it. hairs can have dna if the root is there and in the right growth phase to have it there present, but most hairs are simply not when they leave a heads. dna can as an oddity even become catched up in the hair shafts. blood can be present, but as only the white cells have dna and that numbers is not the same in all, it is being lucky to find some. saliva itself has no dna, but it can catch bits from all other structures that do have dna from the inside of the mouth. urine the same, and all other by products have that in the same way. and there are many things that have an influence on human waste, from micro-organism to chemical reactions.
so it can be hard to find a nice complete set of these genes that only can be of that one person.

so when the investigation changed lines, and a sample of the specific combination of madeleine was needed, it has to come from other sources. dna from within unit 5a could not give that as an acceptable to all standards answer.

it is unknown who asked for an sample or exactly when, but at a certain moment we can read that a pillowcase at least was gathered from a bed at home, from a room the child occupied before leaving for portugal. and the dna combination found by testing that pillowcase was a first start.

it was not possible to give a result that this was the unique combination of dna of madeleine mccann. what was given was, the dna was usable to check against that of the both parents, and both other siblings. so the sample could be of a female child from these biological parents, and this dna combination was still different from that of the siblings and that resulted in a high probability result to could have been the unique combination of dna from madeleine. this test did not test the origin of the material the dna was found in.
this lab did not test simply for origin of the sample, it only checked if it was human cellular material or not.

so when the lab could not bring it further than a female child, not the same as the younger sister. it was up to the paperwork again. the paperwork existed for a female child born to these parents and no others, so by exclusion this could very well be the dna combination of madeleine. there are also many witnesses that state from many moments other life that a child called madeleine indeed existed.

what many have missed is that a bit later there arrived another source that could be connected to madeleine. that source was a dated and historic sample of her blood, taken shortly after birth on a so called bloodcard. bloodcards are used to test early on after birth for many different health issues. they are not done to register the dna. they usually have multiple drops of blood taken on a carton card. and usually only around a quarter of each blood drop put in a circle on such a card is used to test for possible health risks.

these blood cards are usually stored out of reach of most third parties, and very hard to come by. the organisations that keep them are very possessive of them. also most are only kept for around 5 years. and madeleine had not reached that age.

the outcome of the dna results of the blood card was equal to that of the sample taken from the pillowcase. it is only noted in the last sentences in one of the letters from the lab in the uk.

pillowcase dna. part 2.

so from the old fashioned ways together with the two tested samples there is enough material to make it sure enough a female child of these parents called madeleine indeed existed.

it is often very hard to get a good sample of the dna of a missing person. even when it is put in one of the online services that are out there for looking into your ancestors and origins, that cannot always easy be used from the start. missing is not a crime in itself, and that means there is no law that can tread on personal rights. most data still has a need for giving permission by its owner, and when the owner is lacking that means, it can stall the access.
in children under certain ages, and that can be different per country, parents can often step in to get access on behalf of the child, but only if that is to get under their duty of care.
so the only solution can be to look for signs a person or child can have been part of a crime and came to harm as a result. that you need access to protected data and information to save the person. and you have to go to court to get that settled by a judge.

the problem with dna is that it reflects the biological origin, not the registered one. and this can give a lot of extra harm, when the socially known family is not the biological family.
and one one side it can be the reason why things happen and if they are criminal you simply have to know about that chance.
and you can not expect that all family members freely give their own samples too.
most countries can often at least check databases with dna results from missing peoples cases, and criminal cases, and unidentified found bodies, the rest is up to the law of a country.

there is simply no official kept register of dna, that can be used as a base line that tells, this dna combination is without doubt from that specific individual. the databases that are there have usually a very specific task field to operate on, and that means no other uses.
older data are often no longer usable because they uses less dna combination to identify a human.

so it can be a lot of work to get the dna that can be used to identify remains, or traces from a missing person.
and when you have to use things handled by the individual itself, and there can be a lot of other biological family around it would be hard to get an untainted sample.
this is still mostly because of the way the tests work, and they are pretty stupid, they simply have to make use of pcr in moist cases, and that simply copies all dna in the sample you feed it, it cannot see who was the donor, or differences between donors.

only when the specific sites can be recognized as a specific part of that dna sample you can see differences, because on that spot there are more of the same bits of dna, and counting them tells how much people can actually be in that same sample.

some testing procedures are more prone to errors. in this case the uk lab used mostly their own lcn-dna testing. lcn stands for low copy number dna. so to work from very small samples with very small amounts of dna. the problem is mostly that making copies by pcr is not a perfect process, and it works from copies made of copies and that multiple times over.
so that can gave a false read out because everything in that very small sample will be copied, and just like with the old generation copy machines in offices, it can make the bits less clear to read out from, but also all kinds of junk can be changed from just junk into something that resembles dna. so it become results that still need a lot of interpretation by the expert technician. and it ask from the start also a much more conscientious procedure to take samples.
also it asks for samples taken from places that have very little chance of interference.

the more standard ways to test dna, ask for a lot more, where lcn dna tests start from about 20 units, the more standard tests ask for 200 or more units in a sample.

because of the difficulties with lcn dna test, it was never accepted to use in most countries, and by now most countries do not accept its use in court any longer.
this was not the reason why the uk lab that worked the lcn samples of this case, but that was about not check if there was interference between evidence in the hands of a potential suspect and others after that was set aside to test. so the results produced could no longer reflect on a direct connection between crime and evidence and to a potential suspect.

small samples, and degraded samples is often just the standard in old cases, so there still is a need of a good way to test for those. dna only stores well with a lot of luck, it is in itself pretty fragile stuff. the luck is mostly in being incorporated in stuff that is more solid and can protect it from all kinds of environmental influences.

and in this case many things have a need to use exclusion or inclusion, with a mix of old methods and much newer ones. now the years are counting on, it is often hard to look back and realize the tools from now , had not arrived yet in 2007. there still is a lack of communication in all ways and meaning possible. it simply never been our best trait as humans.

during investigations it is often simply using the best possible source in the moment you need it. there is no gold standard for dna if there is no living or dead body available.
there is no register that grabs results in a traceable manner of quality and soundness.
so that pillowcase was the best possible source to get that unique sample, a short time later that blood card came available and was tested too. still this cannot be the same as taking a sample directly from a body.

and in younger children it is even harder, because they still have a need for assistance from others. and dna can also easily be transferred through hands. and even from one object to another. so clothing or shoes are not the best sources for looking for dna. underwear could be better, but you simply want a sample that has less chances of being contaminated by dna from all others and even more when using lcn dna testing.

it even is a big thing to mind in samples from adults. most of the studies in this area are from more recent years. and it usually ends up in having to rethink about how to change the use of dna as before, to be making use of it in future cases.

the time of dna as the gold standard in solving cases seems to be over. certainly for the small samples, the amount found and the place it was found will maybe become what still favour dna as traces and the use of it as a tool.
for all others it would be back to more old style police work to still being able to make use from it. it already was most promising when a potential suspect told never been somewhere, and you still found dna on the scene of a crime. and the sample was clear in results and also large enough that transfer of just traces is not likely.

and dna is not a substance that can solve a case in itself, the use always has to be telling what did happen. but as with all it always help if you first start looking for it, because you need to have it before it can be used at all. and it does help if you select the best area for doing that, and in this case that was not unit 5a. finding the dna of the supposed victim in an area the victim has a common presence does not tell much about the crime that walked in on it. so looking for the dna of a known victim has little urgency. it can in itself not tell about what happened. but that deserves even a post of its own.

the tools used in an investigation do change over time, that is a given, and that makes it also needed to relook at all things in unsolved cases over and over again.

what i still miss in missing persons cases and unsolved crimes with victims, is trying to get a full genome result. that is already much easier, and cheaper to test for, but it could work if we have to work from samples that has a high chance of to be called incomplete or damaged, because we keep on the habit of looking at a specific area of the dna, but a combination of small mutations could tell maybe a lot more if it truly belongs to the potential victim of crime when traces are left behind. it could also solve a lot of problems when mixed samples are from related donors.


some links that are certainly not easy to read, most will be able to follow the conclusions that are below in the papers to find. studies like these often make you have to rethink what you already know.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark-Barash/publication/321083588_Investigation_of_DNA_transfer_onto_clothing_during_regular_daily_activities/links/5c6b4128a6fdcc404ebad672/Investigation-of-DNA-transfer-onto-clothing-during-regular-daily-activities.pdf


a review style paper about transfer in a broader context, these are usually a bit easier to read without being already acquainted in the field;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8618004/

and another review style paper , but a bit more fixed on the effects of transfer dna in investigations;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10742555/

Another aspect of forensic sciences too often discussed but seldom understood, as regards the mechanics a trained mind is preferable to scant knowledge overplayed for effect.

Much has been written over the years about the case of missing Madeleine McCann, good hearted commentary and sometimes not so good by intention but one thing for sure, discussion has led to false impressions which could be avoided if only the unknowledged took a back seat.

It's good that people take an interest if only they would participate to learn rather than creating myth through lack of knowledge and inability to accept peer reviewed scientific research.

dna is not the most simple tool to deal with.

and it maybe even has taken a few too large steps before it was ready for it.
it often was used like is done with fingerprints, usually that works simple, if yours are there, you must have been around to have left them, at least on all things that you can not easily transport from other places.

but need stil that extra question, of why they are found there, and another if that was indeed part of a crime. fingerprints in itself can answer themselves often a bit more, like how they are places on a object or surface.

dna outside its donor is more complicated, and i think we never dived simply deed enough in that how could it be there to be found before. most studies and often already multiple studies are done much later.
most people who have worked cases as an officer of the law, learn quickly to keep margins in everything. maybe that becomes less noticeable even, and happens that mostly unseen and unheard in their minds.

what was known in 2007 was much less than there is already been now. understanding it, is very hard to reach, because there is quite an ongoing evolution of knowledge about it. so it is not once read, understood and ready.

dna is still a great tool, but how great must be seen in relation to each case itself. overall dna is not telling much by itself, it will just be all that is around on a scene it that must give it meaning.
so people working investigations have to keep up with study results, the defence when it later gets a case in court, will do the same.

because of the difficulty i can understand misunderstandings, but opinions formed on old procedures and principles, or not wanting to make use of research that is easy accessible i do not want to understand.
it is simply not a done deal, a matter set in stone, forensics will make progress why not make use of it?
just like that keeping some margins, and i do not see how to escape that, because there are simply massive holes in the information to the public in this case too, it is so much easier to your mind too.

the same with all the sentiment in this case, but that has hardly meaning when you look into this case, their names and persona become simply sources of information. words spoken, behaviour. and people have a choice in that. that it also are still real people would not change that. emotions about them has its own time and place, but usually not very much when you look into a case, that part is only about information to work from.

and when information points fingers on something is has no need for emotions at all. you do not have to like or hate the person behind the information, or the information itself. that is not a question that makes it better understood, or is part of a case.
the discussions about being pro or con are often quite bizar. it is not a question that reflects of a case.
the same information can certainly end up in many different viewpoints, even more when many of your own emotions and opinions take over from just looking into the information itself. again the information does not asks that as a question that needs an answer.

you can discuss about these differences in viewpoints, but if it ends up in different meaning that the same information simply can have, you cannot decide by a sort of democratic vote which one must be the one that reflects on the true meaning in this case.

there are little facts, meaning things that can not be changed, that simply stand on its own merit, most circumstances are up most pretty vague. so that means there are still holes, but filling them by preferences does not make that in a fact itself.
as long as you cannot prove what belongs truly in a hole, it cannot be used as fact. it just stays a theoretical option.
that is not wrong in itself, but using or defending it as fact is pretty stupid. solid stone walls are hard when your ego hits them.
so it keeps you more sound to keep telling it is a theoretical possibility. people can always surprise you, by picking the least likely jump through a hoop.

and i like reading theories of others, even if you disagree with it, there still can be little bits that show other venues to explore.
and there are so much more possibilities between a yes and a no. the case is still unsolved, so we can never know for sure what happened. and i can understand some have reached a set conclusion, but that does not make it the right one, or one i have to submit too.

and we all have our very own bias when looking at the same information, we all have minds that are filled with different walks of life, different levels of knowledge of bits and pieces.
my own biggest on is that i do not think things are usually complicated, and that is just the result from working cases from start to finish and being able to look back to everything with hindsight, and it is always remarkable how simple things can be.

so when you need 20 others who did exactly that one thing, you have thought is possible, and from all possibilities they could chose to do, to build a case into an conclusion, that would not make me easily content to agree with it.

The circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance are most probably very straightforward, reportage of the official investigation was hampered by badly interpreted information and subsequent window dressing.

Mostly the result of interfering amateur detectives across social media and the unreliable information propagated by press and mainstream media - and conspiracy theorists.

Public interference with criminal investigations has become a way of life and it's not helpful.  

'A policeman's lot is not a happy one - Pirates of Penzance'

i would put the media first. until the middle of 2008 the media was the only source the public had.

and even longer because when the pj files been handed out, the media hardly used them, and as they are in portuguese mostly, we had been lucky some people took it up them to translate a massive part of it. so it was already 2009 before the first original statement came out to look into.

they still are available here; https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/home.htm

and they are connected to a massive amount of other documentations from all kind of sources on the mother website;

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/

it gives you an unique back to basics view into this case. even taking a look into the original portuguese documents is possible and worth the time and effort.
it is hard to get in just one reading, and rereading many times still can surprise you. and it is nice that such a massive amount of text still is available.

it is not complete, not in the translations, but also some parts are left out for good reasons, and it is just all the paperwork,
usually many of the questions we still have, are mostly finding an answer in the informal material, and it is called informal , because it never made it into the official standard protocols as paperwork.

i am not against sleuthing by the public at all. but it is nice to keep in mind you are on the other side of the line, you simply have no foot in an investigation, or a hand in solving a case, no rank and do not expect applause for it, if you find something, it is quite simple send it to the authorities who have a role in a case, and it will simply up to them if they make use from it.

and it are never single persons who do solve cases, not even single officers that too, all material you make use of, will be from the work of others done before or for you, so it can never be anything else than team work. what you read is already written by others, what you hear is said by others. there are no solo's in investigations, if they are done by officers of the law, private investigators or armchair sleuths you can not own a case or investigation. so if it is the only way you know to get attention by going berserk, walk a bit further and look for a different hobby.
there is in this case only one victim, and she is not that to be your own cash cow, or attention cow, or your excuse cow to do what you like.

and this is an case that got so much attention, and still has many following it, just because it is a case that needs and deserves an answer, but other cases that are happening have that too.

and yes, when you leave out all the extra attention this case got, and what is also a reason why it is a costly one, it still does not make it a big case, or more complicated one, than others that never reached the spotlights.
and when attention goes so far over the top it indeed can harm a case. over 8500 sightings all over the world, some at the same time.

but everything is out there as if it was a tv series like 'dallas' was, with spin offs, sidelines, remakes and copying or nicking parts. but get the costumes off, the lights out, the curtains open and let the real sun in, and what is left will be maybe a handful of adults who do not want to owe up what happened. the rest is just script written because others had seen a need for that.

that can hardly be a sound reason to suppress others, to tell what they have to think and promote, or what they cannot say, feel, do or dare to think.

and their is nothing wrong about having an opinion, but it is nice to understand it is only yours, others have their own ones.
and even not having an opinion is okay. or have one , and not want to tell what it is, that is okay too. and it can never be a sound reason to get the sticker book out and put one you like on them to punish them. they are usual the cheap variety too, that hardly can stick long.

sometimes it makes you think, how nature ever found it a good idea to let us end up as humans, but as it already happened, always better to take them the funny side up.

There is good in the world, there is the genuine individual with good motive towards justice in the criminal world but that good rides roughshod alongside the bad.

It's within human nature to be curious, if it wasn't for that inborn curiosity society would never move forward, thus it could be said there is the element of a latent armchair detective in mankind generally, that is simply not the problem.  Many a crime or gap in history has been solved by the simplest piece of information like a message in a bottle washed-up on the shoreline found by a beachcomber or the innocent fisherman lazing on the bank of the River Nile who nets an ancient artifact from ancient Egyptian civilisation or a titfer dug-up by a landscape gardener, said to belong to a great 19th Century composer who mysteriously disappeared.

Sometimes that's all it takes!

It's when the super sleuth gets personal, basing their theory on false information, misinterpretation and imaginings plucked from hearsay and the work of the devil.  The more recent case of missing Nicola Bulley being a good example of case in point.  Before a body was found and identified, the amateur sleuths had the lady's family and friends condemned to eternal perdition with no perception of the damage caused to flesh and blood.  Even after the case was solved the vicious attacks continued.  It could be reasonably argued that the case was eventually solved with the help of the public but that alone doesn't exonerate the vicious unfounded nastiness circulated across social media platforms.

Social media has no conception of common decency or respect for fellow human beings - it's a breeding ground for a new societal sick cult that allows personal attack and ruination with little or no restraint.  Over the years the case of Madeleine McCann alone has attracted the most appalling unacceptable public commentary across social media networks.  They don't seem to realise or even care that there is a human being behind everything they say.

It must make the work of the police very difficult, taking precious time away from what they should be doing .... investigating crime!

So no, the amateur sleuth is not acceptable when there is mischief a forethought.

Some people seem to think they've earned a badge of honour for going that extra mile to unofficially solve a case in crime, baseless theory written in such a style the reader will take notice and start believing rather than taking the time to research every angle for themselves to see if theory matches reality - it rarely does.  You can fill the gaps with theory but that method doesn't solve crime without supporting evidence.

In the case of Madeleine McCann those missing pieces of the proverbial jigsaw are still missing, just like the victim!  Until such times as the case is solved, if ever, it is open to public debate and more importantly - official police investigation.

You can't - shouldn't, shut-up shop because you think you personally have all the answers.

i have certainly not found all the answers. most would not even go beyond thoughts about possibilities. i can have a view on what is there, but it simply is not enough to fill any story as it happened. i could and already have done many write-ups most just for myself, just to see how far a theory would go before it cracks, they all have been broken, because you have simply need to much speculation to fill holes in it.

and i like the debate about the possibilities, as only it is for bits others have found, or ca give another meaning too, than i can find in my own thinking.

and armchair is of course a good word, for us curious minds, a luxury one too, because you do not have to go into the world looking at the uncovered true scenes that are hard to watch and smell, and from there hard to forget. and keeping it to your armchair you miss out a lot of experiences you can miss. looking around around a place something happened can be still okay, but not when there still is an ongoing investigation.
playing a detective is no good idea in an ongoing case.

just keep your arse in that armchair, your hands on the mouse. debate what you want, but how hard can it be to wait until they ask you to take part. what at most can be joining in a search, if you are able to do that at least, or to maybe cough up some money for a special expert.

but as you leave your armchair during a live investigation the boundary is pretty clear, if their is no police or other law enforcement to guide you, you are walked over the line.

if you want the real deal up and close, you simply have to put the hours in and become one. otherwise that armchair is so much beter and safer.
the problem with the real deal is, is that you usually can be just a puppet without a name or character, because it will be no longer about you, only your body and mind is needed, law books do not walk on their own, so people have to do that, but still all you are able to do is carry the law of the books. and the salary is not that good either.
you will get wet, muddy, stinky, hot and sweaty, have to see the dirt of mankind raw. and hardly anyone will ever really like you much. not to forget the long boring months of paperwork.

been there done that, sometimes i still roll in for a bit, but armchairs are so much better.

and that making it personal, well we have that magical brain , that is allowed to think everything, without any restrictions, and it has that nice feature to simply keep it just there. it makes information not easier to find, and it has the same nasty feel as wet sand in your speedo on a nice day at the beach.