Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[pakeha]

if they can cope with Amanda Knox discussions, they can cope with anything!

Well yes. I think DS being a British site gets all twitchy about being sued by the McCanns.They have form for it

Dunno.
Remember the ruckus Carter-Ruck caused in Parliament over the Trafigura Affair not so long back?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/15/carter-ruck-trafigura-parliament-injunction
I've always thought it was brilliant of the Mccanns to have contracted their services.

 

[Nessie]

Sorry, initially you stated that no blood, faeces or urine was found, when i pointed out there wouldn't be, you have completely abandoned that and are now moving to putrefaction. Don't think your moving of the goal posts wasn't noticed.

I moved from initial death in the apartment to putrefaction 23 days later with the boot of the car. There would be no putrefaction at the apartment assuming Maddie died there. There would be 23 days later. So no moving of the goal posts.

Even if we take your amateur website as an authority, how does this fit in with your theory. You said no fluid was found thats proof she was innocent,....

Really? I said that? Where?

.... even tho you have moved the goal posts, this source mentions nothing about putefraction being anything more than a release of gas, Which ironically would fit in perfectly with what was found.

It is the decay of human remains and not just the release of gas. Your source starts by saying " Decomposition of organic matter..". So some more definitions

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/putrefaction

"Putrefaction is one of seven stages in the decomposition of the body of a dead animal. It can be viewed, in broad terms, as the decomposition of proteins, in a process that results in the eventual breakdown of cohesion between tissues and the liquefaction of most organs."

"decay usually accompanied by an offensive odor"

So it is not just smell, it is the breaking down of the tissue and organs, more details here (WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT)

http://australianmuseum.net.au/image/Black-putrefaction-10-to-20-days/

"A large volume of body fluids drain from the body at this stage"

This explains nicely why the dog would trigger in the boot, well done you debunked yourself, ill wait while you ignore this and move the goal posts again,.

It explains why I am sceptical of the cadaver dogs evidence as no forensic signs of death were found.

So again, is there any evidence that the McCanns purchased a container or anything that could transport a putrefied body in the boot of the car leaving no forensic traces? I ask because that is what they would have had to do to leave no forensic traces of her remains.

 

[Nessie]

I agree, surely if they are so certain he saw maddie, why are they saying he couldnt have saw gerry because he wasn't wearing glasses.

Show me where they say they are certain it was him. Show me where they say he did not see Gerry McCann because he was not wearing glasses.

Why did he give a statement to the Portuguese Police saying he could not identify the male he saw by picture or in person?

Is there a possibility his memory is contaminated by the publicity of the case and confirmation bias?

I say that just like the cadaver dogs it is poor evidence that would need a lot more before it would be reasonable to suspect the McCanns were involved in anyway in the death of their own child.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

In post #488 you posted this

So no blood or fluid that may be sepage from a cadiver.

I asked you to link to a source for this claim. on #489, #491 and #494
on post #544 on page 14 you relied with the below (bold is yours)

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

Its quite evident you are linking the dna from the hire car to the fluid.

In post #547, i quoted the above and addressed the points about the fluid in relation to the sample from the luggage compartment.
You replied in post #554 in relation to the DNA sample from the luggage compartment of the car with

So I am correct to conclude "There is DNA on a cellular level, no sign of pools or splatter of blood urine or faeces, indeed no identifiable liquid at all."

In post #561 you quoted me as saying

" Where do you get the idea that sniffer dogs trained to detect a cadaver (which signaled the car) get excited at the odour of a runny nose or nappy? This is pure shameless lies."

You replied with

We have a dispute as to how reliable cadaver dogs are. Have you considered the odour of decay of a whole body and that of old nappies etc and whether one can produce a false positive? Or is the best you can do is the childish "shameless lies"?

Its clear here we are talking about the car evidence due to the fact you quoted me mentioning the car, and referred to the nappies that were in the car.

In that same post you quoted me as saying

"- Lol why do you think there would be pools of blood or faeces or urine. The hire car was rented weeks after she went missing, dead bodies dont usually piss, **** or bleed."

You replied with

That depends on how they were killed and the decay of human remains. I still contend where a dog sniffs where a cadaver has lain it would also yield forensic results

Again, its clear we are obviously talking about the fluid in the car.

I posted this in response to Erwinl in post #567

The care was rented more than 3 weeks after she disappeared. Do you believe that people dead for more than 3 weeks still piss and **** and bleed?

You replied quoting Erwinl in post #571 again clearly talking about the hire car because you mentioned 23 days later

Indeed. Remains 23 days after death would be well through putrefaction.

http://www.memorialpages.co.uk/artic...omposition.php

So unless there is evidence of the McCanns purchasing something big enough to carry remains that is air tight and would not leak it is hard to see how they could have carried remains in the boot without it leaving forensic remains.

in post #575 i posted this quoting the above

Sorry, initially you stated that no blood, faeces or urine was found, when i pointed out there wouldn't be, you have completely abandoned that and are now moving to putrefaction. Don't think your moving of the goal posts wasn't noticed

You then back tracked saying

I moved from initial death in the apartment to putrefaction 23 days later with the boot of the car. There would be no putrefaction at the apartment assuming Maddie died there. There would be 23 days later. So no moving of the goal posts.

So its quite clear all along you were talking about the fluid in the car, you can see that easily from the quotes and links to posts above the fact you are so obviously lying now, is the reason im done talking to you. Now everyone can see clearly that you lie to try and save face when proved wrong. You are not interested in facts, just timewasting.

 

[Garrison]

Seconded.
I'm impressed the JREF would allow such a discussion here.




I wonder why the Met takes this sighting so seriously.

Well from the interview with the officer in charge on Crimewatch I think it's more a case of wanting to pin down who this was, and they also had several other sightings of people around the complex that they want to identify. He certainly seemed to be very cautious but of course the newspapers went to town on it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It being maddies DNA is a possability

One of several.

you seem to think that because they cant prove it was hers, that means that it was not.

That is a strawman version of my argument. The DNA has not been proven to be Madalines, or anybody elses. You are emphasising the one possibiliy that suits your preconcieved idea.

Lets be clear here we arnt talking about a random bit of dna here, we are talking about a very strong match for maddies, 15-19 markers, this does not happen if its just some strangers dna.

So it is more likely to come from somebody related to her. You mean like her parents or the twins? I am sorry, but again, you are trying to suggest the possibility that best suits your preconception.

Where the dog barked they found blood belonging to maddie in the apartment.

And how much use is that evidence?

Where the dog barked in the car they found dna that is a 15-19 marker match for maddie.

And thus proved that one of the Mccans was in their car. Not of use.

The coconut skull fragment was explained, the dog barked at the ground there, it was the police who dug up and assumed the coconut was a skull, the dog could have barked there for another reason, i.e the body being placed there for a time.

Or the dog could have barked for other reasons. Just like it barked for the blood, and the DNA. But that does not force the implications you are trying to attach to the "evidence" of the dog barking. Barkings can be "explained" that is not the same as being useful as evidence.

The DNA can be explained with out being Madalines. The coconut shell can be explained with out the body having been lain there. None of this is useful evidence.

So, you have confirmation bias and strawman representations of my post. We have a dog that discovered inconclusive DNA that may or may not have been Madalines, which you keep want to believe was Madelines, a blood stain that may or may not have been from the night she went missing and a coconut shell where she may or may not have been lain at all.

And your speculation that only holds any water on the unproven, unsupported assumption all three are correct and relevant?

 

[Nessie]

In post #488 you posted this




I asked you to link to a source for this claim. on #489, #491 and #494
on post #544 on page 14 you relied with the below (bold is yours)



Its quite evident you are linking the dna from the hire car to the fluid.

In post #547, i quoted the above and addressed the points about the fluid in relation to the sample from the luggage compartment.
You replied in post #554 in relation to the DNA sample from the luggage compartment of the car with



In post #561 you quoted me as saying

" Where do you get the idea that sniffer dogs trained to detect a cadaver (which signaled the car) get excited at the odour of a runny nose or nappy? This is pure shameless lies."

You replied with


Its clear here we are talking about the car evidence due to the fact you quoted me mentioning the car, and referred to the nappies that were in the car.

In that same post you quoted me as saying

"- Lol why do you think there would be pools of blood or faeces or urine. The hire car was rented weeks after she went missing, dead bodies dont usually piss, **** or bleed."

You replied with



Again, its clear we are obviously talking about the fluid in the car.

I posted this in response to Erwinl in post #567



You replied quoting Erwinl in post #571 again clearly talking about the hire car because you mentioned 23 days later


in post #575 i posted this quoting the above



You then back tracked saying


So its quite clear all along you were talking about the fluid in the car, you can see that easily from the quotes and links to posts above the fact you are so obviously lying now, is the reason im done talking to you. Now everyone can see clearly that you lie to try and save face when proved wrong. You are not interested in facts, just timewasting.

My earlierl quotes, showing I was talking about the apartment

The report refers to DNA from cellular material and not being sure what fluid was present.

So was there a test done to see if there was any actual blood or other bodily fluid? Or from my reading of the report all we have is DNA from Maddie on a celular level in a place we knew her to have been. Along with two siblings and all are at an age where noses run, hands are not always properly washed and fluids are going into nappies, hopefully, as kids are changed on sofas and tye floor.

That some sniffer dogs get excited at such odours is not the smoking gun you are making it out to be. It is of interest but it is not good evidence of foul play.

No as I am using my phone to post so I cannot directly quote it. I have explained why I think the way I do. There is DNA on a cellular level, no sign of pools or splatter of blood urine or faeces, indeed no identifiable liquid at all. So all we have is forensic proof the McCanns were where we knew them to have been any way. There is nothing out of the ordinary.

The actions of the sniffer dogs are of interest, but they are not proof of anything. That they got excited about a room where kids had had nappies changed is not that surprising to me. Kids nappies can stink of death warmed up!

You see how I spoke of sofas, floors, rooms, washing hands and changing nappies. No mention of boots or cars.

That also makes sense when you read my posts and the time line of decomposition of a body and how it would become 23 days after a death compared to time of death.

So no lying, moving of goal posts, just crossed wires as you have been talking about the car when I have been referring to the apartment and then the car.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

My earlierl quotes, showing I was talking about the apartment






You see how I spoke of sofas, floors, rooms, washing hands and changing nappies. No mention of boots or cars.

That also makes sense when you read my posts and the time line of decomposition of a body and how it would become 23 days after a death compared to time of death.

So no lying, moving of goal posts, just crossed wires as you have been talking about the car when I have been referring to the apartment and then the car.

Nope sorry, you linked to the file and bolded the parts to do with car sample, you quoted me talking about fluid in the car, which you then debated me on. Only now are you changing to say you were talking about the apartment, its clear from the posts and the evidence of our interaction above you were talking about the car, the fact you deny it now only makes you seem more suspect.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

One of several.



That is a strawman version of my argument. The DNA has not been proven to be Madalines, or anybody elses. You are emphasising the one possibiliy that suits your preconcieved idea.




So it is more likely to come from somebody related to her. You mean like her parents or the twins? I am sorry, but again, you are trying to suggest the possibility that best suits your preconception.


And how much use is that evidence?


And thus proved that one of the Mccans was in their car. Not of use.



Or the dog could have barked for other reasons. Just like it barked for the blood, and the DNA. But that does not force the implications you are trying to attach to the "evidence" of the dog barking. Barkings can be "explained" that is not the same as being useful as evidence.

The DNA can be explained with out being Madalines. The coconut shell can be explained with out the body having been lain there. None of this is useful evidence.

So, you have confirmation bias and strawman representations of my post. We have a dog that discovered inconclusive DNA that may or may not have been Madalines, which you keep want to believe was Madelines, a blood stain that may or may not have been from the night she went missing and a coconut shell where she may or may not have been lain at all.

And your speculation that only holds any water on the unproven, unsupported assumption all three are correct and relevant?

I don't know if you just wrote this badly, but you do understand right that there was two dogs? One would signal on blood and one would signal on a cadaver. It was the dog that signals on a cadaver that alerted to the boot of the hire car.

So your logic about the dog alerting to blood etc, is completely wrong, you are talking about the wrong dog, and even that dog does not alert for DNA.
After the dog alerted for a cadaver, they police checked the boot and found some DNA.

Now through testing they know the dna test frame they built up came from at least 3 people. Now you could understand 2 of the being explained by her brother and sister, however from what ive read, and even tho ive studied biochemisty im no expert on dna analysis, because a child shares half only half of each parents DNA a 15 out of 19 match would be unlikely for a parent. So who owns the other sample, logic would suggest maddie is the most likely person to have the similar DNA, but due to the fact that the reference frame had 3 samples, its impossible to say for sure. So we are left with the idea that it sure seems like its maddies DNA, but we can't prove it. I think i might email a forensics expert to see what the chances are of a 15 of 19 match are for a parent and then for someone unrelated.

 

[pakeha]

Well from the interview with the officer in charge on Crimewatch I think it's more a case of wanting to pin down who this was, and they also had several other sightings of people around the complex that they want to identify. He certainly seemed to be very cautious but of course the newspapers went to town on it.

Isn't it rather pathetic the best the Met has is an ambiguous sighting which had been shunted aside back in the day to give preference (and $$$ and manpower)to Jane Tanner's 'bundleman'?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I don't know if you just wrote this badly, but you do understand right that there was two dogs? One would signal on blood and one would signal on a cadaver. It was the dog that signals on a cadaver that alerted to the boot of the hire car.

So your logic about the dog alerting to blood etc, is completely wrong, you are talking about the wrong dog, and even that dog does not alert for DNA.
After the dog alerted for a cadaver, they police checked the boot and found some DNA.

Now through testing they know the dna test frame they built up came from at least 3 people. Now you could understand 2 of the being explained by her brother and sister, however from what ive read, and even tho ive studied biochemisty im no expert on dna analysis, because a child shares half only half of each parents DNA a 15 out of 19 match would be unlikely for a parent. So who owns the other sample, logic would suggest maddie is the most likely person to have the similar DNA, but due to the fact that the reference frame had 3 samples, its impossible to say for sure. So we are left with the idea that it sure seems like its maddies DNA, but we can't prove it. I think i might email a forensics expert to see what the chances are of a 15 of 19 match are for a parent and then for someone unrelated.

the number of dogs used is irrelevent.
The data obtained is still useless for supporting your theory

You have yet to show otherwise anywhere in that word salad.

 

[Nessie]

Nope sorry, you linked to the file and bolded the parts to do with car sample, you quoted me talking about fluid in the car, which you then debated me on. Only now are you changing to say you were talking about the apartment, its clear from the posts and the evidence of our interaction above you were talking about the car, the fact you deny it now only makes you seem more suspect.

I have shown you that I was talking about the apartment. I thought the links referred to the apartment. When I realised they were about the car I started to talk about the car.

It is interesting to see how you deal with evidence. You latch onto one piece of evidence, ignore evidence to the contrary and then refuse to alter your position no matter what. What you are doing with me is what you are doing with the evidence regards the McCanns. You have latched onto a cadaver dog's sniff, ignore evidence to the contrary which suggests the dog has made a mistake and then you call the McCanns suspect and go on the attack.

 

[lionking]

I have shown you that I was talking about the apartment. I thought the links referred to the apartment. When I realised they were about the car I started to talk about the car.

It is interesting to see how you deal with evidence. You latch onto one piece of evidence, ignore evidence to the contrary and then refuse to alter your position no matter what. What you are doing with me is what you are doing with the evidence regards the McCanns. You have latched onto a cadaver dog's sniff, ignore evidence to the contrary which suggests the dog has made a mistake and then you call the McCanns suspect and go on the attack.

In CT thread terminology, it's called JAQing off.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

I have shown you that I was talking about the apartment. I thought the links referred to the apartment. When I realised they were about the car I started to talk about the car.

It is interesting to see how you deal with evidence. You latch onto one piece of evidence, ignore evidence to the contrary and then refuse to alter your position no matter what. What you are doing with me is what you are doing with the evidence regards the McCanns. You have latched onto a cadaver dog's sniff, ignore evidence to the contrary which suggests the dog has made a mistake and then you call the McCanns suspect and go on the attack.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[Nessie]

In CT thread terminology, it's called JAQing off.

What does that mean?

 

[Nessie]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

I have owned up to my error, I have shown and stated at first I thought the report referred to the apartment. When I realised it referred to the car boot, I changed my position. There is nothing wrong with that.

I suspect you are using this as an excuse to continue to dodge my questions, so you do not need to deal with the mistakes you have made over how a body decomposes and so you can continue to latch onto one piece of week evidence so as to continue with your beliefs.

 

[lionking]

What does that mean?

You can look it up. When CT proponents' arguments are comprehensively demolished, their retort is that they are Just Asking Questions. JAQing off has made the Urban Dictionary I believe.

It's what CT proponents have when all else is gone.

 

[Nessie]

You can look it up. When CT proponents' arguments are comprehensively demolished, their retort is that they are Just Asking Questions. JAQing off has made the Urban Dictionary I believe.

It's what CT proponents have when all else is gone.

Thanks, I thought it was a reference to JREF debates, not universal. I do not go on any other similar forums, one is enough and I want to stay sane

 

[lionking]

Thanks, I thought it was a reference to JREF debates, not universal. I do not go on any other similar forums, one is enough and I want to stay sane

Actually, I believe the term was created in the 9/11 CT forum by the Marquis.

Sorry, this is now a derail.

 

[Kaosium]

It being maddies DNA is a possability you seem to think that because they cant prove it was hers, that means that it was not.

Lets be clear here we arnt talking about a random bit of dna here, we are talking about a very strong match for maddies, 15-19 markers, this does not happen if its just some strangers dna.

You're mistaken. Fifteen of nineteen alleles present is not a match, with her profile (having the double and that number of loci) nineteen of nineteen is. Fifteen of nineteen might still indicate that person contributed to the sample, but you'd have to allow for four dropouts which happens with low template DNA analysis but it isn't a very encouraging sign being as there's a minimum of three contributors to the sample and they'd have to fail to pick up those alleles from there as well. All factors considered (number of contributors, the fact the parents accessed that trunk, the nature of LT/LCN DNA and that something of the victim might have been placed in the trunk) it by no means could be considered 'strong' and the best the results could be described is 'irrelevant.'

You do realize that with a mixed sample with three to five contributors you could match 19 of 19 and that person still didn't contribute to the sample? With the parents (and a sibling?) also being likely contributors (meaning roughly half the alleles would be a gimme) that would not be as unlikely as you might think.

These results are meaningless. Strangers can share a number of alleles and the more contributors the more possibilities you can piece together a profile from strangers for a person who didn't even contribute to the sample. In another case the victim, whose parentage was British/Indian and the killer, who was from sub-Saharan Africa between them share ~eight alleles with a third man who is from Italy. A sample with the victim and the killer and 1-3 others could very well put together ~75% of the profile of the Italian who didn't contribute.

When you're working with low template mixed samples two of the normal ways of excluding someone are nerfed or eliminated. Normally with a high template single-contributor sample an allele that does not belong to the subject would exclude him, you can't do that with a mixed sample as that allele could have been one of the other contributors. Usually drop out (with non-degraded DNA) is fairly rare, with low template it's more common meaning even if the alleles aren't there you have to take into account the possibility of all the missing ones having dropped, which is a damned sloppy way of getting a match!

What this means is you, I and everyone on this thread couldn't actually be excluded from having contributed to the sample. Some would have a higher statistical weight of evidence than others, but there's no actual way of excluding someone completely. Also due to the nature of low template mixed samples there's the fact that you're dealing with trace DNA of numerous people and you know they weren't all stuffed in that trunk! Trace DNA transfers far easier and if anything that toddler had touched, or someone who touched that toddler put something in that trunk it may well have transferred that way, so even if they'd found a full low template profile there's no way of determining how it got there and many plausible ways it might have.

Where the dog barked they found blood belonging to maddie in the apartment.
Where the dog barked in the car they found dna that is a 15-19 marker match for maddie.

I've not followed this story so I am uncertain as to the relevance or probative value of the former, but including the latter is not suggestive of anything, and the little I have learned about this event actually more indicative of having nothing to do with the disappearance of the toddler. Those DNA results are worthless and including that in your summary doesn't help your case.

The coconut skull fragment was explained, the dog barked at the ground there, it was the police who dug up and assumed the coconut was a skull, the dog could have barked there for another reason, i.e the body being placed there for a time.

The dog barked and...huh? Just whose police force thought a coconut was a skull? Are they...the same ones who you're relying on for any evidence or theorizing?