Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

[Little Jedi]

And blood.

:banghead:

He's BARKING !!!!

 

[Little Jedi]

This dog is no longer licensed in the UK

:facepalm:

Probably due to fact 'this dog' is DEAD now !!

 

[Cherwell]

This dog is no longer licensed in the UK

Is the dog still alive?

 

[Little Jedi]

:seeya:

For anyone who is actually interested :
MARTIN GRIMES

" I am an U.K.A.C.P.O. accredited police dog training instructor in post at the Operational Support Services. I am a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor.
I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training.

I am a Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
I am regularly deployed to assist in high profile homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

____________________________________

Martin Grime Rogatory Statement

CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3,

"I am a retired police officer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police......."

Full statement

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12

 

[haden]

:facepalm:

Probably due to fact 'this dog' is DEAD now !!

Eddie is dead?

 

[haden]

:seeya:

For anyone who is actually interested :
MARTIN GRIMES

" I am an U.K.A.C.P.O. accredited police dog training instructor in post at the Operational Support Services. I am a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor.
I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training.

I am a Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.
I am regularly deployed to assist in high profile homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

____________________________________

Martin Grime Rogatory Statement

CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3,

"I am a retired police officer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police......."

Full statement

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug12

But his dogs were not of any help during the Madeleine case search.
They found no Madeleine's body.
They found no Madeleine's blood.
Probably because she was neither injured or dead.

 

[aa9511]

But his dogs were not of any help during the Madeleine case search.
They found no Madeleine's body.
They found no Madeleine's blood.
Probably because she was neither injured or dead.

:scared:

No Madeleine's body....IIRC they were not sent out to sniff out every square inch of Portugal.

No Madeleine's blood...the only reason it was not ruled conclusively to be Madeleine's blood is because, unfortunately, her immediate family members were also living in the same villa and they also drove the rental car. Because their each of their DNA is connected, they could not rule conclusively which member's DNA was in the sample collected.

To me, this is just a technicality. They cannot legally claim it was Madeleine's when it could have been Kate's, Gerry's, or the twins. However, which one in the family is the one who had something tragic happen to them, whatever that was? Madeleine. The others are alive and well. Again, the scientists and the pj cannot legally claim it's Merediths' DNA when it could actually be Kate's, Gerry's, or the twins. That is what this is all about. There are no other random people's DNA involved. They cannot rule conclusively because of the mixture of the same DNA in all of these 5 family members, all who stayed in the same villa.

Because they cannot legally claim something, does not mean we can't use our own brains and come to the conclusion ourselves.

 

[Donjeta]

So what about the cadaver dog then, alerting to cadaver scent? Oh, so we're supposed to discount the dogs too? Not only are we supposed to discount the DNA, but the dogs too.

The fact is that Madeleine is gone. We cannot discount that fact. A child goes missing under highly suspicious circumstances, still not found, and a specially trained elite dog alerted to there being a dead body in the apartment and in the car. Are we to imagine that there was someone else's dead body in those places? Since the DNA is inconclusive? Does that mean that there was another dead person that someone brought to the villa and to the car, just to leave the scent there? Then they took that body back away.

Look, I'm not arguing that the dogs were wrong. I'm arguing against erroneous interpretations of the DNA statistics.

For all I know, Madeleine might be dead and the dogs might have correctly alerted to the scent of her body but that still doesn't change the statistics of the DNA thing.

Whether she died or not, the likelihood of finding 15 of her alleles in a mixture containing alleles from three to five people, some of whom might be her parents and siblings is not astronomical.

Whether the dogs were alerting on dried blood or cadaver scent we still can't compare the odds of finding a match to her exact DNA profile to the odds of finding some of her alleles in a mixture of several people, not knowing which alleles belong to the same profile and which don't.

 

[Donjeta]

:scared:

No Madeleine's body....IIRC they were not sent out to sniff out every square inch of Portugal.

No Madeleine's blood...the only reason it was not ruled conclusively to be Madeleine's blood is because, unfortunately, her immediate family members were also living in the same villa and they also drove the rental car. Because their each of their DNA is connected, they could not rule conclusively which member's DNA was in the sample collected.

To me, this is just a technicality. They cannot legally claim it was Madeleine's when it could have been Kate's, Gerry's, or the twins. However, which one in the family is the one who had something tragic happen to them, whatever that was? Madeleine. The others are alive and well. Again, the scientists and the pj cannot legally claim it's Merediths' DNA when it could actually be Kate's, Gerry's, or the twins. That is what this is all about. There are no other random people's DNA involved. They cannot rule conclusively because of the mixture of the same DNA in all of these 5 family members, all who stayed in the same villa.

Because they cannot legally claim something, does not mean we can't use our own brains and come to the conclusion ourselves.

RBM. How do you know that? The DNA in the car boot contained 37 alleles from three to five persons so even if it was Madeleine there were other people's DNA involved by necessity. Only 15 of those 37 alleles matched Madeleine and I don't recall seeing it stated anywhere if all of the 22 other alleles matched someone else in the McCann family.

 

[aa9511]

Look, I'm not arguing that the dogs were wrong. I'm arguing against erroneous interpretations of the DNA statistics.

For all I know, Madeleine might be dead and the dogs might have correctly alerted to the scent of her body but that still doesn't change the statistics of the DNA thing.

Whether she died or not, the likelihood of finding 15 of her alleles in a mixture containing alleles from three to five people, some of whom might be her parents and siblings is not astronomical.

Whether the dogs were alerting on dried blood or cadaver scent we still can't compare the odds of finding a match to her exact DNA profile to the odds of finding some of her alleles in a mixture of several people, not knowing which alleles belong to the same profile and which don't.

Please see my post above regarding the DNA. Yes, you are essentially discounting the dogs. Because they alerted to a dead body and blood. You are saying that because the DNA is the spot of the dead body was not ruled conclusively as Madeleine's, then we are not sure if it was Madeleine or not. However, the reason it can't be ruled conclusively is because of the mixture of the same DNA in 5 people who were all staying at the same location. Those 5 people are Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, and each of the twins. Let's say Madeleine is unknown. So are any of the other 4 dead? Is Kate dead? how about Gerry, or the twins? Then why would their DNA be located in the spot where cadaver fluid was found? If that cadaver wasn't Madeleine, that means some other cadaver would have to have been brought in order to leave the scent of death for the dog to pick up on.

It's the combination of dog alerts plus DNA which can lead to a logical conclusion.

 

[aa9511]

RBM. How do you know that? The DNA in the car boot contained 37 alleles from three to five persons so even if it was Madeleine there were other people's DNA involved by necessity. Only 15 of those 37 alleles matched Madeleine and I don't recall seeing it stated anywhere if all of the 22 other alleles matched someone else in the McCann family.

When I read the e-mail, I understood it to mean that they could not rule conclusively as to which member of the family's DNA it was. Because their DNA is all intertwined, so to speak, it was impossible to determine exactly which members' it was.

Even if we completely rule out the DNA, the cadaver scent is still there. 4 of the family members are alive, and one is missing. If that cadaver scent was not from Madeleine, then who was it from?

 

[Donjeta]

Please see my post above regarding the DNA. Yes, you are essentially discounting the dogs. Because they alerted to a dead body and blood. You are saying that because the DNA is the spot of the dead body was not ruled conclusively as Madeleine's, then we are not sure if it was Madeleine or not. However, the reason it can't be ruled conclusively is because of the mixture of the same DNA in 5 people who were all staying at the same location. Those 5 people are Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, and each of the twins. Let's say Madeleine is unknown. So are any of the other 4 dead? Is Kate dead? how about Gerry, or the twins? Then why would their DNA be located in the spot where cadaver fluid was found? If that cadaver wasn't Madeleine, that means some other cadaver would have to have been brought in order to leave the scent of death for the dog to pick up on.

It's the combination of dog alerts plus DNA which can lead to a logical conclusion.

Where was cadaver fluid found?

Since the handler says that the dogs could be alerting on dried blood from a live person there is no confirmation that they were alerting on a cadaver, and I don't recall it being stated that they matched all the DNA on someone in the McCann family.

 

[Donjeta]

Eddie is dead?

Eddie was 7 years old in 2007 so if he's not dead he'd be thirteen or fourteen years old now. Probably well past the retirement age for a service dog.

 

[Donjeta]

When I read the e-mail, I understood it to mean that they could not rule conclusively as to which member of the family's DNA it was. Because their DNA is all intertwined, so to speak, it was impossible to determine exactly which members' it was.


Even if we completely rule out the DNA, the cadaver scent is still there. 4 of the family members are alive, and one is missing. If that cadaver scent was not from Madeleine, then who was it from?

That is not the whole thing imo. He does point out that the DNA of the family is all intertwined so everything that matches Madeleine would match someone else in the family too but the problem is that the DNA in the car boot is a mix of three to five people. (I don't know how they know that, maybe because there are more versions of a single gene that one person could have?) If it was just from one person they could in all likelihood determine whether it was Madeleine or one of the family members. But since there is no saying how many alleles each of the unknown 3 to 5 contributors donated to the mix there is a chance that the 15 alleles that match Madeleine's came from several different sources, not all from the same person which means the results mean much less.

Even if Madeleine's corpse was in that car it might still not be her DNA. You would expect to find the McCanns DNA in the car they used. You would find it in the trunk of the car they use now, even and you would find components that match Madeleine. You would be unlikely to conclude that this means Madeleine was in the car.

I can't believe they would have stored a corpse that was several weeks old in the trunk of a hired car without bagging and double bagging and triple bagging and packaging it in a plastic container and whatnot so even if she was in that car dead at some point it is not a given that her cadaver fluids were ever in much direct contact with the interior. (If not, they might not have needed the dog to detect an odor.)

 

[Inana]

DNA for dummies -

The allele 10 at the locus CSF1PO was observed 109 times in a population sample of 432 alleles (216 people). Therefore it is reasonable to estimate that there is a chance p=0.25 that any particular CSF1PO allele, selected at random, would be a 10. Similarly, the chance is about q=0.31 for a random CSP1PO allele to be 11. Prior to typing the suspect, if we assume that he is not the donor of the evidence then we can think of him as someone who received a CSF1PO allele at random from each of his parents. The chance to receive 10 from his mother and 11 from his father is therefore pq, and to receive 11 from mother and 10 from father is another pq, so the probability to be 10,11 by chance is 2pq. Hence about 16% of people have the 10,11 genotype at the CSF1PO locus.

At the TPOX locus, since both alleles are the same there is only one term – pp or p2, which represents the combined probability of inheriting the allele 8 from each parent. Hence about 28% of people have the same TPOX genotype as does the evidence. It is to be expected that the proportion of TPOX 8,8 people is still 28% even if attention is restricted only to people who have a particular CSF1PO genotype such as 10,11. Therefore the chance for a person to have the combined genotype in the two loci is 28% of 16% – about 4%.

The calculations for the THO1 and vWA loci are similar, and taking them into account whittles the overall chance for a random person to have the combined genotype from 4% down to about 1/7000.

http://dna-view.com/profile.htm

So...about 1/7000 that it NOT be Madeleine's. At least.

:seeya:

Interestingly enough, the link you provided ends with this paragraph:

"Omitted topic

It is beyond the ambition of this section to discuss computations for DNA identification when the evidence consists of a mixture ("Interpreting DNA mixtures") from several people, or how to analyze when the suspect is found through a database search, or how to analyze relationship cases including paternity and missing bodies."

It often helps to read the entire site to ascertain the true context of the information.

 

[Donjeta]

Those calculations in the dna-view quote are not usable to the mixture of DNA because calculating the odds of finding both the 10,11 genotype at the CSF1PO locus and the 8,8 genotype at the TPOX locus and whatever the genotypes were in the THO1 and vWA loci in two different people presupposes that we know which components came from which individuals.

it is not possible to know that in a mixture according to John Lowe.

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.

 

[CHERIE.T]

No to both questions

Thank you so much.

 

[gord]

Footage of a sniffer dog searching inside a Jersey children's home as part of an historical abuse investigation has been published on an internet site.

The film was acquired and published by the blog site Voice for children.

The footage was shot on a mobile phone by police investigators at Haut de la Garenne in early 2008.

The former senior investigating officer Lenny Harper said the dog, Eddie, gave officers enough evidence to widen their abuse investigation at the home.

He said he was initially sceptical about using the dog and his handler, Martin Grimes, but said his initial impression changed after working with them.

He said: "Whilst dogs can always get it wrong, I think that there was ample corroborating evidence of the dog's reaction to justify the need to investigate further."

'React strongly'

Eddie is trained to detect human remains and helped in the search for Madeleine McCann.

In the video he was seen to react strongly in certain parts of the building.

The day after the video was made, the police found what they thought were partial human remains.

Dozens of teeth were also uncovered, but later that year statements from the police cast doubt on those initial findings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-17337414

Eddie reacted, they found human remains, and corroborating evidence, whatever that is.

So now we have accusations of Lenny Harper being corrupt too? Jersey Police, South Yorkshire police, all cueing their sniffer dogs to incriminate the innocent?

What's their motive?

sorry that link doesn't state that they found human remains - all it says that the dogs alerting in the home made them search further

I remember the case very well as it came just after the Mcanns - As I remember they found no trace of human remains in the cellar ( where the dog alerted ) There were all sort of lurid headlines at the time of a torture chamber etc

So if you can provide a MSM link or anything that verifies they found human remains in Jersey it will be a first to me - unless you count milk teeth as human remains


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...police-chiefs-admit-NO-children-murdered.html

A £4million investigation into possible child murders at a Jersey care home was 'ripped up' yesterday as police revealed it was based on tainted evidence.
The farcical nature of the high-profile investigation at Haut de la Garenne became apparent when the island's police chief, Graham Power, was suspended.
Fears of mass murder and unspeakable child torture first came to light when deputy police chief Lenny Harper told the world's media that 'at least' six children had been killed at the home.

 

[CHERIE.T]

The "facts" are thus -

British forensic scientist John Lowe, of the major incidents team of the Forensic Science Service (FSS), said the car sample contained 15 out of 19 components of Madeleine's DNA but they were not "unique to her".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7543064.stm

How anyone says this excludes the DNA being Madeleine's, is beyond me. He has never said any such thing.

He said....portion above BBM.

 

[Donjeta]

sorry that link doesn't state that they found human remains - all it says that the dogs alerting in the home made them search further

I remember the case very well as it came just after the Mcanns - As I remember they found no trace of human remains in the cellar ( where the dog alerted ) There were all sort of lurid headlines at the time of a torture chamber etc

So if you can provide a MSM link or anything that verifies they found human remains in Jersey it will be a first to me - unless you count milk teeth as human remains


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...police-chiefs-admit-NO-children-murdered.html

A £4million investigation into possible child murders at a Jersey care home was 'ripped up' yesterday as police revealed it was based on tainted evidence.
The farcical nature of the high-profile investigation at Haut de la Garenne became apparent when the island's police chief, Graham Power, was suspended.
Fears of mass murder and unspeakable child torture first came to light when deputy police chief Lenny Harper told the world's media that 'at least' six children had been killed at the home.

JMO milk teeth should count as human remains as far as a dog's nose is concerned. They're not proof of murder and abuse but they contain decaying human fleshy bits. The dogs are not trained to distinguish evidence of horrific abuse and murder from bits of human that came off naturally imo. It is the job of the police to find out if there was a crime involved, not the dog's. If the dog alerted on a tooth it did its job correctly.

The Daily Mail link says they also found some ancient bones that might be human.


According to Grimes his dog was trained on teeth.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.