Clarence Mitchell DID say they were awaiting DNA results (not DMA, however). I will take it slowly and make it nice and simple for you, whoever you are...
Mr Mitchell's comments... "We are liaising with the Indian authorities over the incident and await the results of the DNA test." ... were first reported in the Daily Mail article -
The whole article was updated later that day at 9.32pm and had its title and report changed to...
'It's not our Maddie' : McCanns hopes dashed after sighting in India
...which included the later comments about the McCanns seeing photographic evidence with references to the wait for DNA results removed.
However, the claim still remains online if you take the time to look for it. It doesn't take long to find as not everyone 'amends' things like the Mail.
I have given two examples above, both reporting Mr Mitchell stating that they are liaising with the Indian authorities over the 'incident' and that they are awaiting the results of the DNA tests. Interestingly the First Post updated the article in the proper manner by making an additional update instead of changing the whole article...
EDITOR'S UPDATE: Since this item was posted, a spokesman for the McCann family played down the report, saying there was "nothing to suggest that this is a breakthrough." And in India a regional police chief said he was not aware of the sighting.
The update was in reference to this statement from the Deputy Inspector General of Police -
We have not recovered any missing foreign girl from Leh. There is no question of carrying out a DNA test since we do not have the girl. Our field staff in Leh have confirmed that no such girl has been recovered by them. British media reports said that a girl missing for the last four years from Portugal had been sighted in the Leh district of the state. We have no such confirmation from either the police or the district administration."
Abdul Gani Mir
Deputy Inspector General of Police
A very adamant, contradictory statement from the Deputy Inspector General. Surely wires have been crossed somewhere along the line, otherwise it appears that someone is blatantly lying through their teeth. Just who was initially responsible for this 'sighting' to the press and what photographic evidence of the 'child' have the McCanns laid claim to? Which leads us right back to Anonymous and his/her spiffing idea that we should all contact individuals to uncover the origin of the whole charade. Not a good idea... best left to official channels and the other supposed sleuths - the PJ or Scotland Yard.
I would like to make it clear that I don't make things up, as Anonymous suggests and that I certainly wouldn't deliberately lie. Not like some in this sad case.