A few questions

[brit1981]

Yes, ant that's why National Institute of Justice lists toothbrushes as a good source of DNA in case the individual from which the sample is needed, is not available.

http://nij.gov/topics/forensics/evidence/dna/basics/Pages/types-of-samples.aspx



There would be a plethora of skin cells on the panties, also a bit of feces and urine and vaginal secretions might be there, all of it contains DNA. And, as far as I remember, police did not take away all the Maddie's clothes and did not obligate McCanns to make a laundry.



A sample containing so small amount of DNA it needs amplification is far from ideal. As for clarity, panties or towel used by Maddie also would contain only her DNA. And please, don't tell me they shared also their underwear and towels.



Still it begs the question why Gerald McCann had to go to the UK to retrieve the pillowcase. Maddie somehow drooled while asleep only at home? Or someone wanted to delay things maybe? And why to give such a weak sample? McCanns are educated people and doctors, they know very well where to find a good amount of DNA.

The reference sample was not amplified.

Why would the mccanns preserve dirty pants for months, and why would they chose them over her pillow.

The pillowcases she used in 5a belonged to the odeon club not the mccanns,therefore they would not be in possession of it months later.

Children on holiday share toothbrushes and again it was months later so why choose a toothbrush over a bigger patch of saliva.
Why is it an issue that her pillowcase was used anyway. Its her DNA unless there is a second mccann daughter missing.

 

[brit1981]

The most likely reason Eddie did not find blood in the Renault is because the DNA was from a non blood source.

It has been suggested that Madeleine leaked decomposition fluid in the Renault.

That is untrue.
First if you believe the dogs then the DNA came from blood from a living person. If you don't believe the dogs then all you can say is that the substance was unidentified.
The material contained 37 markers from at least three people possibly up to five. 15 of these are found in madeleines DNA, however they are found in her parents DNA too and it is not known how many people the markers came from.

It is a complete fabrication to say that it indicated a decomposing madeleine mccann was in the car.

 

[brit1981]

Cuddle cat would have dripped with her DNA, but Kate got that through the wash too.

Ahhh hindsight.

Can you please explain why a cuddly toy handled by different people is a better source of DNA than her pillow which was found to contain the genetic profile of a female child of the mccanns who was not the twin girl. So it is a fabrication to say only kate and Gerry's word states it is madeleines.

 

[brit1981]

Just add it to the growing pile of inconsistencies that make up this case.

It is absolutely true that there is no independent source of Madeleine DNA to corroborate the control sample

We have only Kate and Gerry's word.


Considering the difficulties they had re opening and closing shutters, 30 minutes vs 30 seconds, doors being locked or unlocked, they hardly qualify as a reliable source.

Untrue for each point.
A control sample is an independent source of her DNA.

http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/adn-dna/video/25/ this explains what a reference sample is. As for independent, who do people expect to provide SNA of a toddler if not their parents. There is no national DNA database in the UK. But if you look at the fss report the DNA reference sample had to be from kate and Gerry's daughter, but not the twin girl.

We do not have only kate and Gerry's word, the fss confirmed the DNA came from a female biological child of the mccanns who was not the twin girl.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

Kate and gerry have not been unreliable, there is nothing in the files to suggest they lied about shutters or doors being locked or unlocked, or anything else. There has never been a thirty minute thirty second inconsistency.

As this is a negative it is a case of looking through the files and seeing there are no lies. Follow the link to the fss report above to access other pj files, but be warned this is a site containing not just the pj files but media reports and personal opinion.

 

[Salem]

Both blood and non blood DNA was found at the alert sites consistent with the indications. The blood dog was brought in ONLY when the cadaver dog alerted first and as you would expect, ONLY alerted to the blood DNA sites.

Eddie did not alert to any blood, only cadaver.

Keela didn't alert to any cadaver, only blood.

The science then confirmed their findings. DNA consistent with Madeleine WAS located at the alert sites, and only at the alert sites.

You need a link here, or I will remove this post.

Thank you,

Salem

 

[Captain_Khan]

That is untrue.
First if you believe the dogs then the DNA came from blood from a living person.

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but I don't understand this point.

How old does spilled blood need to be before it transitions from 'old' blood to 'fresh' blood?

Obviously the dog cannot tell if the human that the blood once came from is alive or dead, but if we understand exactly what type of blood each dog indicates to, we might be able to better understand their signals.

As a side point, I always wondered why the McCanns acted the way they did around the dog indications. I mean, if they didn't really know what happened to Madeleine, then how do they know for sure that the dogs were wrong and Madeleine did not die in the flat? How did they know for sure bodily fluids weren't on towels or similar from the flat that were then transferred into the boot of the car, thus causing the dog to indicate etc etc?

Surely a reaction of "We're praying that Madeleine is still alive, and ask people to remain vigilant" would make more sense than making a large debate about how the dogs are statistically wrong?

Just an observation.

 

[Salem]

Untrue for each point.
A control sample is an independent source of her DNA.

We do not have only kate and Gerry's word, the fss confirmed the DNA came from a female biological child of the mccanns who was not the twin girl.

Kate and gerry have not been unreliable, there is nothing in the files to suggest they lied about shutters or doors being locked or unlocked, or anything else. There has never been a thirty minute thirty second inconsistency.

You need a link here or this post will be removed.

Thank you,

Salem

 

[Hexe]

The reference sample was not amplified.

Okay, my mistake. But still, an old, dried and possibly deteriorated saliva stain is certainly not a better DNA source than a tootbrush, or an underwear, recently used.

Why would the mccanns preserve dirty pants for months, and why would they chose them over her pillow.

Because they are educated people who knew they needed a good sample of Maddie's DNA. Using the same logic I could ask why would they preserve a dirty pillowcase.

And no, they did not need to preserve anything for months. Maddie's profile was ready at the end of May. You can check it here:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm#oa1v1p275

Children on holiday share toothbrushes

I amn not buying it. You basically say, that two doctors made their kids share one tootbrush on holiday, which is horribly unhigienic and guarantees that whatever disease one kid catches, the other kids will have too. For instance a bacterial diarrhoea, a common health problem among the tourists abroad. The tootbrush is small, it does not take a lot of space in your luggage, and here we ae taking about tiny tootbrushes for kids. And you can buy a tootbrush practically everywhere if you forget to pack it. On the airport, in the supermarket, every-friggin-where and in Portugal you can get basically the same brands as in the UK. And yet two educated in medicine parents make their kids to do something so unhygienic?
No way.

and again it was months later

No, it wasn't.

so why choose a toothbrush over a bigger patch of saliva.

Because the tootbrush used during the trip to Portugal would contain fresher sample of DNA than a pillowcase used before that trip? Because going to UK to get that pillowcase makes a delay in obtaining a sample?

 

[SapphireSteel]

You need a link here, or I will remove this post.

Thank you,

Salem

I'm still trying to figure out copy and paste on this thing but my source in this instance is the report from PC Martin Grime Dog Handler, which appeared in the PJs final archiving report.

Plus The Truth of the Lie which has been endorsed by the Portugese courts as an accurate record of the investigation.

 

[~n/t~]

I'm still trying to figure out copy and paste on this thing but my source in this instance is the report from PC Martin Grime Dog Handler, which appeared in the PJs final archiving report.

Plus The Truth of the Lie which has been endorsed by the Portugese courts as an accurate record of the investigation.

Are these the links

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

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

 

[~n/t~]

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

 

[brit1981]

You need a link here or this post will be removed.

Thank you,

Salem

Done.

 

[brit1981]

I'm still trying to figure out copy and paste on this thing but my source in this instance is the report from PC Martin Grime Dog Handler, which appeared in the PJs final archiving report.

Plus The Truth of the Lie which has been endorsed by the Portugese courts as an accurate record of the investigation.

Not it has not been, could you provide a link yo the actual supreme court transcript.
Only a libel hearing can rule on whether it is true or not and that has not finished.

And Grimes report did not contain a forensic analysis so cannot be used to prove the claim about what was found.

 

[brit1981]

Okay, my mistake. But still, an old, dried and possibly deteriorated saliva stain is certainly not a better DNA source than a tootbrush, or an underwear, recently used.



Because they are educated people who knew they needed a good sample of Maddie's DNA. Using the same logic I could ask why would they preserve a dirty pillowcase.

And no, they did not need to preserve anything for months. Maddie's profile was ready at the end of May. You can check it here:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm#oa1v1p275



I amn not buying it. You basically say, that two doctors made their kids share one tootbrush on holiday, which is horribly unhigienic and guarantees that whatever disease one kid catches, the other kids will have too. For instance a bacterial diarrhoea, a common health problem among the tourists abroad. The tootbrush is small, it does not take a lot of space in your luggage, and here we ae taking about tiny tootbrushes for kids. And you can buy a tootbrush practically everywhere if you forget to pack it. On the airport, in the supermarket, every-friggin-where and in Portugal you can get basically the same brands as in the UK. And yet two educated in medicine parents make their kids to do something so unhygienic?
No way.



No, it wasn't.



Because the tootbrush used during the trip to Portugal would contain fresher sample of DNA than a pillowcase used before that trip? Because going to UK to get that pillowcase makes a delay in obtaining a sample?

The mccanns were not asked for a reference sample straight away so items would have been contaminated by being packed with the family's things. And children grab each others toothbrushes, it's not a case of being forced to share. And there are no reports that madeleine had bacterial diarhorea on holiday.

And as for preserving a pillowcase, it was from their hone and they had not been there since the morning they left for Portugal, and were unlikely to have washed the bed linen they used the night before that morning.

The fss made no complaints about using the pillow. I don't see the issue, a clear reference sample was obtained.

 

[~n/t~]

The mccanns were not asked for a reference sample straight away so items would have been contaminated by being packed with the family's things. And children grab each others toothbrushes, it's not a case of being forced to share. And there are no reports that madeleine had bacterial diarhorea on holiday.

And as for preserving a pillowcase, it was from their hone and they had not been there since the morning they left for Portugal, and were unlikely to have washed the bed linen they used the night before that morning.

The fss made no complaints about using the pillow. I don't see the issue, a clear reference sample was obtained.

When were samples asked? Why did Gerry have to get the sample and not LE ?

 

[brit1981]

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but I don't understand this point.

How old does spilled blood need to be before it transitions from 'old' blood to 'fresh' blood?

Obviously the dog cannot tell if the human that the blood once came from is alive or dead, but if we understand exactly what type of blood each dog indicates to, we might be able to better understand their signals.

As a side point, I always wondered why the McCanns acted the way they did around the dog indications. I mean, if they didn't really know what happened to Madeleine, then how do they know for sure that the dogs were wrong and Madeleine did not die in the flat? How did they know for sure bodily fluids weren't on towels or similar from the flat that were then transferred into the boot of the car, thus causing the dog to indicate etc etc?

Surely a reaction of "We're praying that Madeleine is still alive, and ask people to remain vigilant" would make more sense than making a large debate about how the dogs are statistically wrong?

Just an observation.

The mccanns have not made a large debate about the dogs, they answered questions in interviews and in Kate's book they addressed the issue. [modsnip]

The point I was making about the dogs was that according to its handler Eddie, the cadaver dog, alerts to old blood but not fresh blood whereas keela the CSI dog alerts to fresh and old blood. Therefore as keela alerted in the boot where the DNA was found but Eddie did not alert there if we believe the dogs were reliable it means the boot had fresh blood not old blood in it.
As for the question as to when fresh blood becomes old, both dogs alerted to a fob used for the car which contained genetic material belonging to gerry mccann who rented the car three weeks after madeleine disappeared. So the weeks between him renting the car and the searches had been enough for it to become old. But if the material had come from a corpse then Eddie would gave alerted to it regardless assuming he was reliable.

 

[brit1981]

When were samples asked? Why did Gerry have to get the sample and not LE ?

You will have to double check the files for the exact dates. But what's wrong with gerry getting the pillow, why ask the police if he was there anyway?

 

[Hexe]

The mccanns were not asked for a reference sample straight away so items would have been contaminated by being packed with the family's things.

The pillowcase could have been contaminated as well, they could not have been sure that it was clear. Someone put that pillowcase on a pillow, the sibligs might have jump into Maddie's bed... That's why they needed the reference samples of the family members DNA when they were obtaining Maddie's profile.

And children grab each others toothbrushes, it's not a case of being forced to share.

As I said, reference samples from the family are demanded for a reason.

And there are no reports that madeleine had bacterial diarhorea on holiday.

I did not write she had diarrhoea. I wrote that bacterial diarrhoea is pretty common among the tourists abroad (as our bodies are not used to the foreign bacterial flora). The possibility of transmitting the isease from one kid to the others as just an example of a reason why the kids should not share tootbrushes. A reason that should be perfectly clear for two MDs, like McCanns.

And as for preserving a pillowcase, it was from their hone and they had not been there since the morning they left for Portugal, and were unlikely to have washed the bed linen they used the night before that morning.

So that means the stain was at the moment of the pillowcase retrieval by G. McCann almost month old, maybe even older, as we don't know when actually Maddie drooled on it (they left Rothley April 28, the retrieval visit was May 21, according to the timeline from The McCann Files ). And McCanns had a plethora of much fresher sources of Maddie at their hand, the Cuddle Cat included. But Kate preferred to drag the toy through a half of an Iberrian Penninsula and then wash, instead of giving it to the LE.

The fss made no complaints about using the pillow. I don't see the issue, a clear reference sample was obtained.

I see. Because it's strange, that having a lot of potential sources of the fresh DNA in the reach (tootbrush, towel, shoes, comforter, toys, underwear...) McCanns preferred to travel to UK to retrieve an old one. Why?

 

[Captain_Khan]

The mccanns have not made a large debate about the dogs, they answered questions in interviews and in Kate's book they addressed the issue. Given the hate campaign uses the dogs as an excuse to harass them, I don't blame them for addressing it. And wouldn't you want to dismiss the idea your child was dead?

The point I was making about the dogs was that according to its handler Eddie, the cadaver dog, alerts to old blood but not fresh blood whereas keela the CSI dog alerts to fresh and old blood. Therefore as keela alerted in the boot where the DNA was found but Eddie did not alert there if we believe the dogs were reliable it means the boot had fresh blood not old blood in it.
As for the question as to when fresh blood becomes old, both dogs alerted to a fob used for the car which contained genetic material belonging to gerry mccann who rented the car three weeks after madeleine disappeared. So the weeks between him renting the car and the searches had been enough for it to become old. But if the material had come from a corpse then Eddie would gave alerted to it regardless assuming he was reliable.

I'm still really unclear. Does this mean there was 'old' blood on the car keys? How did that happen? There must be some distinction somewhere between 'fresh' and 'old' blood for it to have some forensic use.

Do you mean that the dogs did not detect cadaverine, but they did detect blood? That would point to a struggle and the body moved either before or extremely soon after death, wouldn't it?

And I certainly don't blame the McCanns for addressing the dog's findings - but to dismiss them as inaccurate and false? That seems just downright strange to me. I would be utterly devastated if signs pointed to the death of someone in my home, but I doubt my reaction would be to claim it couldn't possibly be true, when I had no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

 

[~n/t~]

You will have to double check the files for the exact dates. But what's wrong with gerry getting the pillow, why ask the police if he was there anyway?

He was only there for a day but I could be mistaken. I just think it would have been more practical and less risk of contamination if someone from LE got the sample.

He returned home 17 days after Madeleine's disappearance.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id280.html