Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[erwinl]

What was the temperature then?

According to this report dogs are best when it is cold up to ca 10 degrees Celsuis.
If it is too hot, the dogs start to pant and cannot then sniff and realibly detect remains.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

citations please, because when i get home i can link you to numerous cases where dogs were used as primary evidence to convict someone

Of course i mean the dogs found evidence, do you really think i was suggesting they were used as eye witnesses?

This is getting silly now, Nothing from the aparent skeptic side but avoidance of evidence and stupid blogs and their "thoughts"

If the dogs found a corpse/a weapon/ a suitcase full of drugs, than that is the primary evidence, not the dog.

I think what Guybush Threepwood is getting at is that the dogs are useful when they lead investigators to other evidence - bodies, blood tissue etc. If the only evidence is that the dogs detect a scent, that is not as strong evidence because a) there can be false positives (and research shows these do happen occasionally) and b) because there can be other explanations for the scent being there. The dogs can only report the presence of a particular scent, they can't tell us who it belongs to or how it got there. The evidence has to be interpreted.

Quite, my point wasn't completely obscure then.

 

[catsmate]

Really? I am stunned, and also glad I don't live in the UK if the reaction of dogs is enough to get you jailed.

It might be enough to get a warrant to search for actual evidence. This is less likely in the US where greater familiarity with such evidence and a higher 'probably cause' hurdle exists, except with drug sniffing dogs.

I think what Guybush Threepwood is getting at is that the dogs are useful when they lead investigators to other evidence - bodies, blood tissue etc.

Precisely. At best a scent trail is indicative, or in legal terms "opinion" evidence rather than hearsay or witness evidence. There's been substantially more activity in the US in this field due to the greater prevalence of scent dogs there.
Cadaver dogs generally detect one or two molecules released by decaying human tissue, putrescine or cadaverine. However training with one, or both in combination, merely leads the dog to react to that scent. Often training is done with human tissue or artificially formulated scents which may train a dog to react to that mix, whether caused by decaying human tissue or now.

If the only evidence is that the dogs detect a scent, that is not as strong evidence because a) there can be false positives (and research shows these do happen occasionally) and b) because there can be other explanations for the scent being there. The dogs can only report the presence of a particular scent, they can't tell us who it belongs to or how it got there. The evidence has to be interpreted.

Exactly.

Now for IFCIG, some homework reading:
Andrew E. Taslitz: Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of the Dog Scent Lineup
Robert C. Bird: An Examination of the Training and Reliability of the Narcotics Detection Dog
Richard E. Myers II: In the Wake of Caballes Should We Let Sniffing Dogs Lie? [An interesting review, published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice in 2006, after the SCOTUS decision in the Illinois v Caballes case, discussing the ease with which a handler can cue a search dog even subconsciously]
Lisa Lit et al.: Handler’s Beliefs Affect Scent Detection Dog Outcomes [published in Animal Cognition in 2011 this caused something of a stir in the scent dog business]
Richard E. Myers II: Detector Dogs and Probable Cause [more aimed at the legal professions, this is a review of US standards, practices and case law, with copious references]
Stephen P. Hurley & Marcus J. Berghahn: Best in Show: Admissibility of Police Dog Evidence
Innocence Project of Texas: Dog Scent Lineups, A Junk Science Injustice
Andrew Rebman et al.: Cadaver Dog Handbook: Forensic Training and Tactics for the Recovery of Human Remains [unfortunately rather dated, especially given the progression of US case law]
J. M. Johnson: Canine Detection Capabilities: Operational Implications of Recent R&D Findings [also rather dates, it's from 1999, but a good overview of the scent detection capability of canines in general]
Various, FBI: Specialized Use of Human Scent in Criminal Investigations [Forensic Science Communications JUL2004, this is an overview of the FBI's view of the use of scent dogs]


S/he could also peruse the journals I listed previously for numerous articles on the subject.

 

[Nessie]

My silly game? You claim things without a source backing it up and because i wont find it for you, im playing a game? Its happened a few times on here where people have claimed things, ive spent my time proving them wrong and they just disappear or ignore it. So from now on, if you are claiming a document says something, link to it.

OK, relevant parts to do with DNA found on a cellular level, the DNA showing the McCanns were in the apartment and there is no blood or other fluid pools or spatter which would suggest a crime scene highlighted;

"Stuart

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

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?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

John Lowe
Forensic Scientist
Major Incidents Team
Priory House

Quote:
FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
Police reference: 07/06085 Qperation TASK
Laboratory reference:
Order reference: 300 555190
Scientist:400 913 609
Scientist: LESLEY DENTON
Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Kate HEALY 51162896) and Gerald McCANN (51162897).

A DNA profile has also been obtained from a pillowcase (SJM/1).

DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which ït ïnherits from their natural father
(paternal)

In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of theirs.

The results of the DNA profife obtaïned from the pïllowcase is approximately 29 million times more likely if the profïle originates form a natural child of theirs rather than someone unrelated to them.

In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN.

Please note: I understand that the McCANN's have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those described above.

If I can be of further assitance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01XXX XXXXXX.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Anne Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 28 June 2007

Quote:
FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
Police reference: 07/06085 Operation TASK
Laboratory reference: 300 655 190
Order reference: 400 922 755
Scientist: Lesley Denton
Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).

In this case, all of the bands present in the profiles of both Amelie McCANN and Sean McCANN are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.

Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile.

If I can be of further assistance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01937 548287.

Yours sincerely,

Lesley Ann Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 18 July 2007"

This was my post describing my thoughts and conclusions

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!

So where have I gone wrong?

 

[Nessie]

Yes i gave that response earlier, so why am i being asked again. My opinion is not relevent, we are trying to discuss facts and evidence, not opinions.

That does not answer my question about the cadaver dog.

 

[Nessie]

If the dogs found a corpse/a weapon/ a suitcase full of drugs, than that is the primary evidence, not the dog.



Quite, my point wasn't completely obscure then.

I understood your point and was surprised with IamFreeCanIGo's claim about "primary evidence to convict". That is why I want to know how much importance he thinks the cadaver dog's actions has.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

OK, relevant parts to do with DNA found on a cellular level, the DNA showing the McCanns were in the apartment and there is no blood or other fluid pools or spatter which would suggest a crime scene highlighted;

"Stuart

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

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?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

John Lowe
Forensic Scientist
Major Incidents Team
Priory House

Quote:
FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
Police reference: 07/06085 Qperation TASK
Laboratory reference:
Order reference: 300 555190
Scientist:400 913 609
Scientist: LESLEY DENTON
Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Kate HEALY 51162896) and Gerald McCANN (51162897).

A DNA profile has also been obtained from a pillowcase (SJM/1).

DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which ït ïnherits from their natural father
(paternal)

In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of theirs.

The results of the DNA profife obtaïned from the pïllowcase is approximately 29 million times more likely if the profïle originates form a natural child of theirs rather than someone unrelated to them.

In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN.

Please note: I understand that the McCANN's have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those described above.

If I can be of further assitance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01XXX XXXXXX.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Anne Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 28 June 2007

Quote:
FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
Police reference: 07/06085 Operation TASK
Laboratory reference: 300 655 190
Order reference: 400 922 755
Scientist: Lesley Denton
Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).

In this case, all of the bands present in the profiles of both Amelie McCANN and Sean McCANN are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.

Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile.

If I can be of further assistance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01937 548287.

Yours sincerely,

Lesley Ann Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 18 July 2007"

This was my post describing my thoughts and conclusions



So where have I gone wrong?

What you have quoted does not claim what you think it does. For some reason you seem to think celluar material cannot come from a bodily fluid. The can, the first bits you bolded was simply saying, we cannot determine what type of bodily fluid they came from.

There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors.

So what? We have all said the DNA evidence was inconclusive, markers match maddies but because it contains dna from 3 people we cannot be sure

Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Yes, which is what we have been saying all along. The DNA has markers that are similar to maddies but because there is 3 contributors we cannot say for sure.


What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?

Originaly you stated that it didn't come from bodily fluid secreted by a cadaver, this is saying they cannot determine what type of bodily fluid it came from, not that it didnt come from a bodily fluid.

In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of theirs.


What do you think this proves. This was from the pillow case of the apartment to try and get a dna profile of maddie to compare with others, its nothing to do with anything you said.

This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.


Who is saying they arnt their natural children, you are just posting gibberish.

Seriously, you don't even know what you are saying anymore and if you think im going to read all those papers you listed, you can jog on. Because its clear you didnt read them, if you have a specific part of a paper you want me to read, quote it and give me the reference and tell me exactly what you think it means.

 

[Garrison]

Of course i mean the dogs found evidence, do you really think i was suggesting they were used as eye witnesses?

This is getting silly now, Nothing from the aparent skeptic side but avoidance of evidence and stupid blogs and their "thoughts"

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

How does the report saying they don't know what type of fluid the dna come from support your view that

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

I seriously don't know why you quoted the other stuff its not at all relevent to anything you mentioned before.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Pot, meet kettle.

Ive posted files from the police record, show me one time where i quoted some random idiots blog.

 

[pakeha]

...
In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of theirs.


What do you think this proves. This was from the pillow case of the apartment to try and get a dna profile of maddie to compare with others, its nothing to do with anything you said. ...

Not to cavil, but the pillowcase was from the family residence in the UK.
At the holiday flat, the techs were unable to pinpoint a single object with the child's DNA, not even a toothbrush.

 

[Azrael 5]

I find it highly unlikley they harmed Madeleine but did themselves no favors in not answering Police questions,not searching,not doing a reconstruction and being protected by British Government.

Incidentally fair pay to JREF for allowing this thread,I post on Digital Spy forum and the merest mention of a McCann thread has it removed.

 

[Information Analyst]

How about this?

Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.

Which doesn't back up gtm's claims that, a) "The dog was reacting to the handlers cues..." and b) "this particular dog identified a coconut shell as human remains..."

The dog indicating a particular spot that is then dug, revealing a coconut shell is not, "the dog identifiying a coconut shell as human remains." there could have been anything in the ground that triggered a response, but was over-looked when whoever did the digging found - and was convinced by - said coconut shell. I'm pretty sure we can assume that the dog didn't place the scale rule seen in the photograph, or take the photograph, for that matter.

It's also clear from the article that the dog having a licence was because the handler didn't renew it when he should two weeks before arriving in Jersey, not because the licence had been revoked on the grounds of the dog not being competent. It's all typical Mail spin, of course, such as the fixation on the handler's fee. I wodner how it compares to a Mail journalist's salary....?

 

[Nessie]

What you have quoted does not claim what you think it does. For some reason you seem to think celluar material cannot come from a bodily fluid. The can, the first bits you bolded was simply saying, we cannot determine what type of bodily fluid they came from.

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."

There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors.

So what? We have all said the DNA evidence was inconclusive, markers match maddies but because it contains dna from 3 people we cannot be sure

Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Yes, which is what we have been saying all along. The DNA has markers that are similar to maddies but because there is 3 contributors we cannot say for sure.

So I am correct to conclude "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."

What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?

Originaly you stated that it didn't come from bodily fluid secreted by a cadaver, this is saying they cannot determine what type of bodily fluid it came from, not that it didnt come from a bodily fluid.

In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of theirs.


What do you think this proves. This was from the pillow case of the apartment to try and get a dna profile of maddie to compare with others, its nothing to do with anything you said.

This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.


Who is saying they arnt their natural children, you are just posting gibberish.

Seriously, you don't even know what you are saying anymore and if you think im going to read all those papers you listed, you can jog on. Because its clear you didnt read them, if you have a specific part of a paper you want me to read, quote it and give me the reference and tell me exactly what you think it means.

I explained why I could not quote for a time whilst using my phone. I am now back on my computer. I originally did quote you in post #488. Maybe you did not spot that the reports you pasted in do not come up and so you missed exactly what I was referring to, which was your post #411 containing the reports which you originally posted in response to a question from me.

I have now quoted the actual report and you have not shown why I am wrong to say (post #490)

"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 cellular 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 the 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."

Instead your responses are just childish "jog on"

 

[Nessie]

How does the report saying they don't know what type of fluid the dna come from support your view that



I seriously don't know why you quoted the other stuff its not at all relevent to anything you mentioned before.

I went on to expand on that and say no pools or spots or anything was found by forensic examination that suggesting a crime scene. Just minute traces of DNA which only tell us what we already know, the McCanns were in that apartment.

If a cadaver dog reports a smell, but forensics find nothing to back up the dog that there was a dead body present, the dogs evidence is insufficient to make a case that there was a dead body there.

There may have been, we just do not have enough evidence to say there definitely was.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

A summary of the DNA (lack of) evidence from wikipedia:

Material, including hair and other fibres, was collected from the areas in the apartment and car that the dogs had reacted to, and was sent to the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in Birmingham for DNA profiling.[69] The FSS used a technique known as low copy number (LCN) DNA analysis, which they had developed in 1999.[70] LCN DNA is used when only a few cells are available for testing; it is viewed as controversial because the test is more sensitive than other techniques, and therefore more vulnerable to contamination and misinterpretation.[71] On 3 September 2007 John Lowe of the FSS emailed Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior of the Leicestershire police to say that a sample from the boot of the car contained 15 out of 19 of Madeleine's DNA components. He wrote that the result was "too complex for meaningful interpretation":
A complex LCN [low copy number] DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section ... Within the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. ... 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. ... The individual components in Madeleine'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 Madeleine's profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. It's important to stress that 50% of Madeleine'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. ... Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine, or is it a chance match.[72]
The email was translated into Portuguese on 4 September. Portuguese police nevertheless told Gerry McCann on 7 September that Madeleine's DNA had been found in the boot of the car and behind the sofa in the apartment.[73] Both Kate and Gerry were named as suspects that day.[74]
Journalists in Portugal were told that the DNA evidence was a "100 percent match."[75] A British tabloid published the front-page headline, "Brit Lab Bombshell: Car DNA is 100% Maddie's," while another reported that "a clump of Maddie's hair" had been found in the car.[76] Jerry Lawton, a reporter with the Daily Star, a British tabloid, told the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 that the leaks came directly from the Portuguese police, and caused a "sea change" in the way the case was viewed by the media.[77] Matt Baggott told the inquiry that it was this misinterpretation of the DNA evidence by the Portuguese police that led them to conclude that the McCanns had faked an abduction to cover up Madeleine's death. Baggott knew that the DNA evidence was being wrongly interpreted, but because the Portuguese were in charge of the inquiry, he did not correct reporters who were being briefed by Portuguese police that the McCanns were involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#British_DNA_analysis

 

[Information Analyst]

Re-arranged for clarity:

1. Cadaver dogs are unreliable.
3. The dog in question has a poor track record.

Presumably you have more to base that claim on than just the Jersey thing?

2. Cadaver dogs (and scent traces in general) are initial, suggestive, signs to be followed up by more exhaustive tests

Like in Jersey, then?

 

[truethat]

Which is why I used the word "convincing", which to your credit, you acknowledge.

To keep up a charade (if guilty) for six and a half years in the face of unrelenting, false and libelous (which was proven in court) UK media attacks is beyond belief.

No, I disagree with you. Their composure, determination and unwillingness to simply melt into the background speaks volumes for their innocence. Along with the lack of evidence, if course.

Argument from Incredulity. OJ Simpson spent years saying he was trying to find the real killer.

Josh Powell spent years insisting he had no idea what happened to his wife, he did the media circuit and a dateline special. Then he blew himself and his children up in his house.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

That some sniffer dogs get excited at such odours is not the smoking gun you are making it out to be

- 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.

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."

- 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.

I went on to expand on that and say no pools or spots or anything was found by forensic examination that suggesting a crime scene. Just minute traces of DNA which only tell us what we already know

- Right but how does that explain a cadaver in the boot? The fact that where they found the cadaver odor is also some DNA which shows DNA from 3 or more sources. One of which could be maddie, but due to the contamination of the sample it cannot be proven to be hers.

If a cadaver dog reports a smell, but forensics find nothing to back up the dog that there was a dead body present

- They found dna, which was a possible match for maddies, but due to the contamination it cannot be said for sure.


What i find hilarious is that you seem to think we should have found a pool of blood. I cannot grasp such a lack of understanding. Just so we are clear, the report said, they could not determine which bodily fluid the dna came from. But your nitpicking is designed to neatly ignore the fact that a cadaver odor was found in the car, which cannot be explained, where the cadaver would found they lifted DNA which was a possible match for maddie but due to the contamination they could not say for sure.

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 cellular level in a place we knew her to have been

- The hire care was rented 23 days after she want messing, the DNA which was from a bodily fluid (they cannot determine which) does match maddies but because it also contains sources from at least two others, it cannot be said for sure.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

A summary of the DNA (lack of) evidence from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#British_DNA_analysis

This is hilarious. The part about the markers is correct and has been posted here. How you think its evidence that clears the mccanns is beyond me, so the markers was a 15 out of 19 match for maddie right?

So here is an interesting fact about DNA testing

DNA tests usually examine six to ten markers. The chances that two unrelated people have identical profiles is less than one in one billion.

So usually dna tests 6-10 markers, looking for matching, in this case they matched 15 out of 19.

but they are siblings right?

Potential siblings can also be matched via the database by comparing markers. "On average, two people would probably have six or seven DNA markers in common out of 20, simply by chance," explains Whitaker, but "with over 12 bands in common, you very, very rarely see unrelated people with that degree of similarity".

So that could be sean and amiele. But wait there was 3 dna samples. How did the other one match so well?