scotland yard investigation

jordynsmommy529 said:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/424745/Madeleine-McCann-police-to-start-interviews

Click to expand...

Thanks...

Madeleine McCann police to start interviews

DETECTIVES in Portugal have been recruited to help Scotland Yard quiz suspects and witnesses as the hunt for Madeleine McCann gained pace yesterday.
By: Mark Reynolds
Published: Mon, August 26, 2013

The Algarve-based officers have already been handed a list of more than 30 people’s names by British police who they want to interview over Madeleine’s disappearance in May 2007.

Click to expand...

It's been two months and if they're now only starting to ask please can we interview some people I think it's safe to say that it was extremely overoptimistic to say that there could be arrests within weeks.

The “persons of interest” are expected to include a taxi driver who claims he may have picked up Madeleine the night after she vanished.

Driver Antonio Castela, 73, said he took three men, a woman and a child in pink pyjamas who resembled the missing youngster from close to the Spanish border to a hotel near Faro. He gave a statement to the Policia Judiciaria but was never questioned afterwards.

Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like a likely story to me geographically. Why would the abductors travel two hours or more to take Madeleine all the way to the Spanish border only to travel halfway back to Faro, to stay with an kidnapped child in a hotel...?

i dont think scotland yard have anything at all about any stranger.....going over old ground two yrs later over thngs the PJ already investigated and 10 million dollars later....they should look closer to home..im sure they are too

Clutchbag said:

i dont think scotland yard have anything at all about any stranger.....going over old ground two yrs later over thngs the PJ already investigated and 10 million dollars later....they should look closer to home..im sure they are too

Click to expand...

God I hope so.

If they are doing a proper job, there should be arrests within weeks :cow:

If they are doing just another PR exercise, look for more attention grabbing headlines with zero substance.

:banghead:

Inana said:

"These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are only evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dog, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory."

The dogs findings were never verified or identified by forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory, therefore the dogs findings and alerts are all rendered invalid and nugatory.

Click to expand...

This is not entirely accurate. Without going to deep, the dog's alert is just that - an alert. It is something the dog uses to communicate to it's handler that it has located the odor it has been trained to find. Hopefully, this will be confirmed through laboratory testing but lack does not render the alerts invalid or nugatory (had to look that one up in my dictionary). While, training records, certifications, and previous history help to substantiate the alert it is possible for odor to be deposited without physical evidence. So while LE tries to confirm the dog's alert through laboratory testing, lack of positive results do not negate the alert. Science is still trying to catch up to the sensitivity of a dog's nose.

In some cases the dog's alert is enough to establish probable cause for a search warrant. In others, it's considered circumstancial evidence taken and weighted with the rest of the circumstancial evidence. One piece of circumstancial evidence taken by itself may not be enough to establish probable cause but take enough circumstancial evidence and you can make a case. I have watched the videos of Eddie's work. The method and manner of his work is consistant with a dog working in odor. You may not agree with Eddie and question his "validity" but, in this, I have to side with the dog.

I understand how scent dogs work, and have said nothing negative about their performance in this case. If laboratory validation is not possible, their work was in vain. Maybe not in your opinion, but in the eyes of the law, it is not evidence.

This was a "holiday apartment". Just a hotel suite, used over and over and over for 20 years, now (14 years at the time.) The dogs don't know how old the scent is. Obliviously some person/person's over the years have left decomposition odor and blood too.

Same thing with the car--it was a rental. Been rented many times before. The DNA could have been from anyone. Does not mean a thing.

No McCann DNA identified, The evidence is in the FSS report:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

I believe the dogs alerts were genuine. Its too bad they can't tell us when and how these scents were left, and especially in this cause, who. If you refuse to believe the science, I have to believe you are unreasonable.

All my own opinion (except for the FSS link. That's science)

I have no desire to hash and rehash. Believe what you like.

Tulessa said:

... and the mother said she had handled 6 dead bodies before going on vacation.

Click to expand...

Pronouncing death does not mean Kate McCann would have been handling bodies enough to transfer body fluids onto either her clothing or her person. Latex gloves would prevent transfer to her hands, and alcohol wipes would clean her stethoscope before putting it back into her bag. All the GP does in terms of contact with the body is to check for and confirm death, so apart from observing for pallor, pupillary reaction and respirations, listening for heartbeat or breath sounds, checking pulses and testing for corneal reflexes or doing a sternal rub (not always), the GP would have no reason for direct contact with the body.

In fact, in the case of a body which is decomposing, GP's would be well aware of the risks of aerosolizing potentially hazardous material by undue movement, and would take pains to follow Universal Precautions i.e. to wear the appropriate barrier garments.

Morgue staff or undertakers or coroner's staff, i.e. those physically handling and moving the body are the ones you'd expect to find transfer on.

And, of course she wouldn't holiday with her GP clothes... and surely she showered each day. For me too, the 6 bodies "excuse" holds no water.

Inana said:

I understand how scent dogs work, and have said nothing negative about their performance in this case. If laboratory validation is not possible, their work was in vain. Maybe not in your opinion, but in the eyes of the law, it is not evidence.

This was a "holiday apartment". Just a hotel suite, used over and over and over for 20 years, now (14 years at the time.) The dogs don't know how old the scent is. Obliviously some person/person's over the years have left decomposition odor and blood too.

Same thing with the car--it was a rental. Been rented many times before. The DNA could have been from anyone. Does not mean a thing.

No McCann DNA identified, The evidence is in the FSS report:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

I believe the dogs alerts were genuine. Its too bad they can't tell us when and how these scents were left, and especially in this cause, who. If you refuse to believe the science, I have to believe you are unreasonable.

All my own opinion (except for the FSS link. That's science)

I have no desire to hash and rehash. Believe what you like.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I will! :seeya:

Trouble is, no one has ever died in 5a before.

There was also a hit in the garden just outside, the Renault hired 24 days later, on Kate's clothing, and on Madeleine's pink toy, cuddle cat, which had been carried around by Kate since she vanished.

So unless cuddle cat was rubbed up against a spare dead body lying around somewhere, it does seem as though it was contaminated right there on the holiday along with all the other sites.

This makes me wonder if M was in the garden bed all through the initial search. No one would have even thought to look under landscaping material.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug5

:twocents:

Inana said:

I understand how scent dogs work, and have said nothing negative about their performance in this case. If laboratory validation is not possible, their work was in vain. Maybe not in your opinion, but in the eyes of the law, it is not evidence.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you have spoken negatively and I don't believe you fully understand the rules of evidence. If the dog alerts you try to validate through laboratory testing but even if the lab cannot it doesn't invalidate the alert or mean the odor isn't present. It just means the lab couldn't find any evidence on their end to back up the dog's alert. Just because something can't be validated in a lab does not mean it is not present or does not exist.

So, Yes, it is evidence. Circumstancial, perhaps, but still evidence. While you may not consider it to be, it is. And admissible in court.

My dogs have done many things over the years that couldn't be backed up by lab testing such as indicating a dead body was transported in a certain vehicle when science could find no physical evidence of such with luminal testing or dna results or that the suspect's scent was present as certain locations or on certain items that couldn't be validated through fingerprints or dna swabs. Or the suspect argued the dogs were wrong and we were a bunch dumb clucks to believe a stupid mutt. But in almost every case, after the guy got sentenced to jail, where the dogs' work was part of the evidence used, they would walk up and say, "by the way, those damn dogs.... they were right."

Federal Rules of Evidence

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

please feel free to browse around. And learn just what is considered evidence and how it gets included - or excluded - from a court case. And if you locate the Rule where it says lack of laboratory results invalidate a trained canine's alert, please bookmark it for the rest of us. I was unable to locate it.

K9Snoop said:

This is not entirely accurate. Without going to deep, the dog's alert is just that - an alert. It is something the dog uses to communicate to it's handler that it has located the odor it has been trained to find. Hopefully, this will be confirmed through laboratory testing but lack does not render the alerts invalid or nugatory (had to look that one up in my dictionary). While, training records, certifications, and previous history help to substantiate the alert it is possible for odor to be deposited without physical evidence. So while LE tries to confirm the dog's alert through laboratory testing, lack of positive results do not negate the alert. Science is still trying to catch up to the sensitivity of a dog's nose.

In some cases the dog's alert is enough to establish probable cause for a search warrant. In others, it's considered circumstancial evidence taken and weighted with the rest of the circumstancial evidence. One piece of circumstancial evidence taken by itself may not be enough to establish probable cause but take enough circumstancial evidence and you can make a case. I have watched the videos of Eddie's work. The method and manner of his work is consistant with a dog working in odor. You may not agree with Eddie and question his "validity" but, in this, I have to side with the dog.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.

RANCH said:

Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.

Click to expand...

~bbm

Yes, that's a big part of the problem. The Federal Rules of Evidence wouldn't apply in this case since it wouldn't be venued in the US, obviously. But to the extent the relevant jurisdictions' law is similar, I found this case talking about this exact problem. This site has the defense's motion in limine to exclude a cadaver dog hit and a detailed discussion of the relevant considerations and existing precedent. It also includes the court's ruling denying the motion as moot because the gov't agreed not to offer the evidence. Imo, that usually happens only when there's a good chance of setting bad precedent with a negative ruling.

On the other hand, given the US propensity to protect a defendant's rights to the extreme, possibly a European court would be more likely to admit inculpatory evidence that would be inadmissible in the US. jmo

I didn't follow this case but loosely when it happened, but it caught my attention here in the past couple of days and is very interesting!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30194903/Def-in-Limine-Cadaver-Dog

RANCH said:

Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.

Click to expand...

of course you do, no one has argued otherwise...and as far as I am aware no case ever has been brought on dog alerts alone!!!!


The alerts remain as evidence...circumstantial but evidence all the same....it is up to a jury to weigh that evidence and all other evidence given.....do you think the cadaver dog in this case falsely alerted seven times? Because that how many times he alerted...that is, to cadaver scent alone..places and items the blood dog made no alert when taken there......he made other alerts too but because the blood dog alerted in the those same places some argue they could havebeen just to blood as this cadaver dog also alerts to dry blood... all alerts being around the mccanns homes and belongings? And for some reason did not falsely alert anywhere else in the six other homes he was taken to?? Where he did not alert at all? What are the odds?

RANCH said:

Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.

Click to expand...

That is false.

The dogs alerted, the areas were swabbed, and in the exact same areas 15/19 of Madeleine's alleles (DNA) were located.

Oh yes, only 15/19, could have been random, blah blah. What cannot be explained is the presence of the DNA only at the cadaver alert spots. The chances of this belonging to someone else and accidentally ending up exactly where the dogs said, are so vast they really cant be calculated let alone considered a viable explanation.

If it wasn't Madeleine who died that holiday, it was another McCann.

The rest of them got home in one piece.

Random chance does not explain the alert Eddie made to Cuddle Cat. Unless Kate had taken her daughter's favourite toy to work with her and dragged it around the only dead body she'd seen for 3 years, Cuddle Cat got the Cadaver odor on that holiday, the same time as Kate's clothing, behind the sofa, in the garden bed.

:twocents:

RANCH said:

Are you saying that a well trained HRD dog will have 100% accuracy when deployed? No false alerts are possible?

I think that HRD dogs are great for establishing probable cause for getting a search warrant but not as stand alone evidence that a particular person was dead at a specific spot.

The problem with this case is that there is no other forensic evidence to back up the dogs alert. So that means that maybe the alerts where valid and decomposing human remains caused the alerts. Or maybe the alerts where false. Hard to say without any corroboration.

A prosecutor could try and use an HRD dog alert in a case like this without any other evidence to back it up, but I would think that his chances of winning his case would be slim. You need more than a dog alert. MOO.

Click to expand...

Nope, never said 100%. But you have to go back to the original question

Originally Posted by Inana View Post
"These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are only evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dog, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory."

The dogs findings were never verified or identified by forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory, therefore the dogs findings and alerts are all rendered invalid and nugatory.

This poster indicated that evidence collection should be attempted and subjected to forensic analysis at a lab. And that lack of confirmation by said lab renders the alert invalid - which is untrue. The alert happened. That's fact. Now can a lab confirm? Yes, or no. If yes, then that's wonderful. If no, then it does not mean the alert is invalid? No, it just means the lab could not confirm what the dog is alerting on. Now, if lab testing comes back with a non-human material identified such as animal remains or barbeque sauce then the dog's alert could be ruled "invalid".

As of this moment in time, I am unaware of ANY case where the dog's alert was the one sole piece of evidence. Which, again, I never stated. Normally, it's weighted separately and then again as a whole with the rest of the case. But an alert in the case where someone is missing or potential foul play is suspected, gives LE a good reason to dig a little deeper than might be typical in a missing person case.

Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.

The Cadaver dog was brought in by the British police, because the British police wished to have an indication as to whether or not Madeleine may have died in 5a.

They got that indication.

Swabs confirmed that someone sharing 15/19 (at least) with Madeleine, had laid in the cadaver spots.

I don't care about proving stuff at trial (especially an imaginary trial), I care about the results of different investigatory techniques.

Eddie clearly indicated a death. He didn't invent it, he wasn't steered towards the cadaver. He found it all by himself because that's his job.

Dogs don't lie.

:cow:

Well the scientists involved in the FSS state that no conclusive results can be found from the DNA analysis - it states it in black and white - - but still people spin it - Amaral made the classic mistake of thinking he had the smoking gun - all his eggs were in the same basket - he didn't have any plan B as he had not pursued any other suspects or leads

Hence now SY looking at all the other possibilities

Here is the complete e-mail from JL to SP

10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2617
Task Portugal
From: "Prior Stuart" <Stuart.Prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
To: "Task Portugal" <Task.Portugal@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence

From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Op Task - In Confidence


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 Birmingham, myself included. it'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

gord said:

Well the scientists involved in the FSS state that no conclusive results can be found from the DNA analysis - it states it in black and white - - but still people spin it -

Click to expand...

~snipped for space

Thank you. I knew I'd read the dna was inconclusive but didn't know where to begin to find a credible source on it.

Gord said:

Well the scientists involved in the FSS state that no conclusive results can be found from the DNA analysis - it states it in black and white - - but still people spin it - Amaral made the classic mistake of thinking he had the smoking gun - all his eggs were in the same basket - he didn't have any plan B as he had not pursued any other suspects or leads

-----


bit of an exaggeration there, did you forget about robert murat? Who was also an official suspect until July 2008? Did you forget the dozens of sightngs over the world investigated by the PJ with or without the help of Interpol?Did you forget about the people investigated in PDL where fingers were pointed? Did you forget about the 50 or so known sex offenders investigated? Obviously. The investigation up until when the BRITISH suggested considering the Mccanns suspects as their statements contained inconsistencies....and then recommending bringing in the dogs was always centred around abduction, even IF members of the PJ had doubts from early on. They would NOT be doing their jobs properly if they didnt have suspicions, and the Mccanns got an easy ride for quite a while. Indeed, not investigating the parents more rigorously from the start was a huge mistake..and that quote is from BRITISH experts! Indeed, the truth is the PJ did not actively investigate the Mccanns for months later.

Amaral was pretty clear in his book that he suspected the Mcanns pretty early doors - it was not the McCann's fault that they waited till they did before the Arguido status was introduced.

I also doubt that they were having an easy ride = the press were hounding them - both brit tabloids and portugese lots of lurid headlines etc .

If Scotland Yard can find 38 new people of interest that were not fully investigated then then I challenge the fact that they looked at all possibilities

But lets see what SY bring out.

Another point I find interesting is that Amaral never actually interviewed the McCann's himself - In fact I don't think he ever spoke to them

gord said:

Amaral was pretty clear in his book that he suspected the Mcanns pretty early doors - it was not the McCann's fault that they waited till they did before the Arguido status was introduced.

I also doubt that they were having an easy ride = the press were hounding them - both brit tabloids and portugese lots of lurid headlines etc .

If Scotland Yard can find 38 new people of interest that were not fully investigated then then I challenge the fact that they looked at all possibilities

But lets see what SY bring out.

Another point I find interesting is that Amaral never actually interviewed the McCann's himself - In fact I don't think he ever spoke to them

Click to expand...

So, it follows that Blaming Amaral for the Unfortunate Direction of The Investigation is pointless and inaccurate.

He wasn't the one who interviewed them = someone else did = someone else developed the information against them.

We now know that the driving force behind the McCann as Suspects was the British Police.

Yes, those police. The ones who right now are saying "let's go back and finish what we started!"

The question here surely is, why do they need to "go back"? Why didn't they persue the evidence properly at the time?

:banghead: