Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

[~n/t~]

I have even posted the exact email from the FSS explaining how the DNA in the car was inconclusive and why. maddy gets all DNA from parents and shares with siblings. FSS said it came from up to 5 people. It is in the files

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I would agree if these were not cadaver dogs but these dogs were trained to alert to blood and bodies. Her parents and siblings are alive.

 

[gord]

humans share 50% DNA with bananas . True . If you look at say Caucasians from northern Europe the amount of shared DNA is huge. Once you get down to offspring and siblings it gets closer. To say they found b her DNA in the hire car is wrong and b misleading

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[~n/t~]

humans share 50% DNA with bananas . True . If you look at say Caucasians from northern Europe the amount of shared DNA is huge. Once you get down to offspring and siblings it gets closer. To say they found b her DNA in the hire car is wrong and b misleading

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Again, these dogs were trained to alert to blood and dead bodies which they did. How can that be explained? Dead skin from clothing? Hair?

 

[aa9511]

Actually I think that is the one thing they didn't lie about. Leaving the patio door unlocked so they each took turns checking on the kids. How often is debatable. I don't think they did as often as they said.

I think it might have been locked b/c I believe their "checks" actually only consisted of listening checks. And they would probably lock it in case one of the (older) kids woke up and decided to see where Mommy and Daddy were (I'm talking about the group in general). And I believe I read somewhere in the rogatories where someone (accidentally) admitted that the Tanners' actually locked their patio door on the previous nights.

I'm not talking about the night of the "abduction." Because IMO, that whole night was staged and the death happened before the Tapas dinner begun. So everything that night, IMO, was staged. However, I believe that if it had just been a regular night, the door would have been locked. And they would have just done listening checks, meaning they would just go around the outside of the rooms and listen to check if any of the kids were crying. Because if any kid was awake, obviously they would be making noise, either crying to knocking on the door, something. IF it was all quiet, that meant all-clear, they could go back to their dinner/drinking.

 

[haden]

15 out of 19 of her DNA in a car she wasn't even in? How could that be?

Please read my post of earlier today where I put the link from John Lowe letter, it is all explained there:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

 

[haden]

Again, these dogs were trained to alert to blood and dead bodies which they did. How can that be explained? Dead skin from clothing? Hair?

And how did they alert on DNA belonging to Gerry McCann on the car key or to DNA of three PJ forensics specialists found on the wall?

 

[NirvanaGirl]

Can I just ask if the McCanns & their friends ever said whether they checked regularly on the children any of the nights prior to Madeleine disappearing? I only ask because it's well documented that both Madeleine & Sean woke up while they were gone the previous night.

The upstairs neighbour said it was about an hour & a half she heard them crying for I believe. That must mean that nobody checked the children at all the night before, for at least an hour & a half.

That surely must raise a flag as to whether they actually did check them the night of Madeleine disappearing.

 

[~n/t~]

I think it might have been locked b/c I believe their "checks" actually only consisted of listening checks. And they would probably lock it in case one of the (older) kids woke up and decided to see where Mommy and Daddy were (I'm talking about the group in general). And I believe I read somewhere in the rogatories where someone (accidentally) admitted that the Tanners' actually locked their patio door on the previous nights.

I'm not talking about the night of the "abduction." Because IMO, that whole night was staged and the death happened before the Tapas dinner begun. So everything that night, IMO, was staged. However, I believe that if it had just been a regular night, the door would have been locked. And they would have just done listening checks, meaning they would just go around the outside of the rooms and listen to check if any of the kids were crying. Because if any kid was awake, obviously they would be making noise, either crying to knocking on the door, something. IF it was all quiet, that meant all-clear, they could go back to their dinner/drinking.

You make a good point. Maybe that's why Matthew Oldfield story changed from listening to actually entering.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, that makes me very suspicious of him. If I was a detective working on the case I would have checked him inside out.

Especially if true that he was sent to call the police the first time and the police wasn't called at this time.

IMO the mistake Amaral was making is accusing the whole group of lying. What he had to do is to check out every single friend separately, as if the others were not included.

And this should have been done on the day one. I hope SY and new PJ teams corrected this.

Yes, absolutely. Drilled each and every member independent of the other.

 

[aa9511]

Matthew Oldfield said he used the patio door, when he went to check up the McCanns children. Kate in her first statement said:

Around 9.30pm was the time the interviewee should have gone to see her children, but her friend Matt (a member of the group) had just done a check in his apartment then gone to the interviewee's. He had entered the apartment by a glass sliding side door, that was always unlocked and once inside had not gone into the children's bedroom. He only looked through the door, and did not hear any noise. He went back to the restaurant and said that everything was fine.

At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

Bolded by me.

As for Gerald, this is the excerpt from his first statement:

In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant." At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building.

Another excerpt from the same statement:

At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open.

Bolded also by me.

Okay, so they leave the sliding door unlocked, but they bother with the froont door and passing over the key? Weird.

But it's not the end. Here comes an excerpt from his second statement (BBM):

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.

So then he and his wife used the key on an unlocked door, while checking on the kids?

At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings.

So now he changd his mind. He used the sliding patio door, not the front one. Undecided man he is. Also notice, he stated, he left the children bedroom door ajar and found it half open. Didn't he said somewhere else he left that door nearly closed?

Half and hour later, without anything to signal [with no way to tell the time], it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door.

He changed his mind also about Kate, Now he says, she also entered through the rear door. Why that change?

Ohh, good catches. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the pj used this type of recording of the interrogations?? It is so un-useful. Why would they give a summary of what the person is saying, instead of just using a recorder to record the actual conversation and then making a trancript??

 

[gord]

Again, these dogs were trained to alert to blood and dead bodies which they did. How can that be explained? Dead skin from clothing? Hair?

Dogs are not an exact science. DNA testing also cannot tell if the sample is from a living body or dead body. Also as far as i know there is no forensic test cadaver scent. So the dogs alert to blood they found a minute spot of gerrys blood on the key fob. The alerts to the boot found nothing conclusive . If there had been a 100% match of maddy in that car it still would have meant n little because of possible contamination from clothes or belongings. Though it would have been a tougher situation for the mcanns

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[~n/t~]

Please read my post of earlier today where I put the link from John Lowe letter, it is all explained there:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

I bet if this case had ever gone to trial you would have another scientist interpreting the results which would contradict this scientist

Agh these forensic experts. Who to believe?

 

[Donjeta]

And how did they alert on DNA belonging to Gerry McCann on the car key or to DNA of three PJ forensics specialists found on the wall?

We don't know that they alerted on the DNA that was found in the samples. Wherever we sample, we might find DNA that is unrelated to the scent that triggered the alert, and for all we know the forensic people DNA could have gotten there after the dog alert. Presumably they went there to look and see and take samples where the dogs alerted and they might have gone there contaminated the samples by sneezing or something. Perhaps they were allergic to the dogs.

Finding DNA in a sample does not indicate that the DNA source is the cause of the alert, necessarily.

We could find DNA in any number of random places that no dog ever alerted at.

 

[gord]

I bet if this case had ever gone to trial you would have another scientist interpreting the results which would contradict this scientist

Agh these forensic experts. Who to believe?

If that was the case why did Amaral not get a second opinion. Why have we never heard of another scientific expert refuting these views on DNA. The FSS were one of the leading independent authorities on DNA analysis in the world. Sometimes we have to accept the experts .

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

You make a good point. Maybe that's why Matthew Oldfield story changed from listening to actually entering.

exactly.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Disappointing to see we have a new e-fit yet we are still criticising the dogs.

The DNA was consistent with Madeleine and was found in the Cadaver alert locations.

It should not have been there in the first place.

 

[SapphireSteel]

If that was the case why did Amaral not get a second opinion. Why have we never heard of another scientific expert refuting these views on DNA. The FSS were one of the leading independent authorities on DNA analysis in the world. Sometimes we have to accept the experts .

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

No one is saying the FSS is "wrong".

They confirmed that DNA was found at the cadaver spots, and that the DNA was consistent with Madeleines.

See my earlier post re. "100% DNA".

 

[gord]

Disappointing to see we have a new e-fit yet we are still criticising the dogs.

The DNA was consistent with Madeleine and was found in the Cadaver alert locations.

It should not have been there in the first place.

It was consistent with the parents too and also the siblings of course it should have been there.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[haden]

No one is saying the FSS is "wrong".

They confirmed that DNA was found at the cadaver spots, and that the DNA was consistent with Madeleines.

See my earlier post re. "100% DNA".

That what you saying in here is simply not true.

There was no 100% match to Madeleine ever found in any of the spots where the dogs alerted.

The closest they came to Madeleine was in the car boot, 15 out of 19, with 19 belonging to more than 3 people, therefore inconclusive.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If that was the case why did Amaral not get a second opinion. Why have we never heard of another scientific expert refuting these views on DNA. The FSS were one of the leading independent authorities on DNA analysis in the world. Sometimes we have to accept the experts .

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Because Amaral was too busy being judgmental to be investigating.

Glad he is off the case.