Explain the Blood in the Trunk

[brit1981]

"No blood was found" refers to the courtains and fragments of bushes, not to the area of the luggage compartment.
But title of this thread is: "Explain the blood in the trunk".

Lowe says specifically that it was not possible to ascertain what bodily material the DNA in the boot of the car came from.

 

[brit1981]

Moongoddess/Diane (lovely name,by the way!)

That is so interesting about the bar/restaurant staff and table settings. It is yet another fact that makes the scenario different in reality than what one might think from the original reporting.

Originally, we read that the family was vacationing with their children, and spent their time with the children during the day, then going out to dinner with adult friends in the evening. Come to find out, the children were in the day care/creche during the day, and the only days they were with their parents, was the day the creche was closed.

Originally, we heard that the restaurant was like "eating in the garden" of one's house. Reality, the apartment was a block away, and not easily seen from the restaurant, with a back door open and opening onto a public thoroughfare.

Originally, we heard that comments from the Tapas 9 diners and from the staff, that seemed to be contradictory. It seemed that perhaps the staff would be more likely to get things wrong, in a busy restaurant with other diners. But now we see that the staff was much larger and the restaurant much smaller than one would think. The staff's word carries much more weight than the usual U.S. large vacation resort staff would have.

The flat was about fifty one metres away directly, and less than eighty metres when you had to walk there. It is directly viewable from the Tapas bar.

 

[rashomon]

Lowe says specifically that it was not possible to ascertain what bodily material the DNA in the boot of the car came from.

You have to put it in context: Lowe spoke of "cellular material".
Since the dog Keela only alerts to blood, it allows the inference that the cellular material found in the boot of the car was in fact blood.

 

[brit1981]

keela has made false alerts. There is a reason why these dogs are not considered proof or evidence - they are not accurate enough. They act as a guide for the police when they are trying to find something, but they are not in anyway accurate enough to say blood or a corpse was present when these cannot be found. One cannot infer that it was blood when there was not enough material to analyse. Think about it this way - I believe one of the claims Tony bennett made was that blood was found in the car, yet he was unable to prove this in court, and now thanks to his repeating of various allegations he has been unable to prove he is now facing prison. If the claim blood was in the car was true, why has it not been possible to demonstrate this in court?

You do realise that all biological material could be referred to as cellular material don't you?

The only way anyone could possibly claim it was blood in the car was if they put it there or were a witness to it.

 

[rashomon]

keela has made false alerts. There is a reason why these dogs are not considered proof or evidence - they are not accurate enough.

Since Keela did alert to cellular material having 15 components that are also present in the reference sample from Madeleine,
this was no false alert.

You do realise that all biological material could be referred to as cellular material don't you?

I do realize that. But keep in mind that Keela alerts to human blood only.

Interesting also that the term "body fluid" is used in forensics to refer not only to body liquids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fluid
The term body fluid is used in a forensic science context to refer to items of biological evidence. The term is a historical one whose meaning has been expanded due to the discovery of the evidential significance of various biological materials. Body fluid therefore refers to not only to typical body liquids such as blood or semen, but to any item of trace evidence with a biological origin, including hair, bone, teeth, faeces and skin or muscle tissue.

 

[brit1981]

Since Keela did alert to cellular material having 15 components that are also present in the reference sample from Madeleine,
this was no false alert.


I do realize that. But keep in mind that Keela alerts to human blood only.

Interesting also that the term "body fluid" is used in forensics to refer not only to body liquids.

well, unless you are a witness who for some reason has decided not to go to the police, you have no idea if it is blood, do you?
Also eela does not alert to an individuels bloos, so the fact it has fifteen components in means nothing. She is also not infallible, and her handler admits this (the dogs have made false alerts before).
Lowe says the material cannot be identified as blood, and cannot be identified as belonging to any individuel. I hope you do not think components means material belongs to one specific individuel. 100% of the components in Madeleine's DNA are in the DNA of her parents, so the fact that 15 out of the 37 components present were shared by madeleine mean nothing, as those exact same components are in her parent's DNA (as well as that of thousands of others).
If it is true that the material is blood and belonged to Madeleine then why have people like Tony Bennett failed to prove this. If I was facing prison for contempt of court, I would show my proof.

And no it is not interesting that the term body fluid does not mean liqued, at least not to people who actually understand lab work with DNA.

 

[saggymoon]

well, unless you are a witness who for some reason has decided not to go to the police, you have no idea if it is blood, do you?
Also eela does not alert to an individuels bloos, so the fact it has fifteen components in means nothing. She is also not infallible, and her handler admits this (the dogs have made false alerts before).
Lowe says the material cannot be identified as blood, and cannot be identified as belonging to any individuel. I hope you do not think components means material belongs to one specific individuel. 100% of the components in Madeleine's DNA are in the DNA of her parents, so the fact that 15 out of the 37 components present were shared by madeleine mean nothing, as those exact same components are in her parent's DNA (as well as that of thousands of others).
If it is true that the material is blood and belonged to Madeleine then why have people like Tony Bennett failed to prove this. If I was facing prison for contempt of court, I would show my proof.

And no it is not interesting that the term body fluid does not mean liqued, at least not to people who actually understand lab work with DNA.

It doesnt matter if the fss could not confirm the source of the dna, it was blood as keela alerts to nothing else and mr grime tells us as does the fss that science cant always match the dogs capabilities

please provide a link to your assertion that mr grime has said his dogs have made false alerts in the past, as i do believe this is a falsehood seeing as mr grime says false alerts are always possible but in training and operations his dogs have never made a false alert, cheers

 

[brit1981]

The jersey care home is the big one.
But Grimes says his dogs cannot be taken as evidence, and there must be other evidence used to back them up.

But even if it was blood, so what. It was a miniscule amount of material that was found, it came from three to five people. So all we can say is that there was a tiny amount of cellular material, that may have either contained blood, or been entirely blood, and it came from three to five people, and either all or some of these people had some of the same components as madeleine McCann, and that the material was found in an area used by her parents and other close relatives, and that her parents would have shared all of her components in total, and her relatives would have shared some of her compoents to. It was a meaningless find.

 

[saggymoon]

The jersey care home is the big one.
But Grimes says his dogs cannot be taken as evidence, and there must be other evidence used to back them up.

But even if it was blood, so what. It was a miniscule amount of material that was found, it came from three to five people. So all we can say is that there was a tiny amount of cellular material, that may have either contained blood, or been entirely blood, and it came from three to five people, and either all or some of these people had some of the same components as madeleine McCann, and that the material was found in an area used by her parents and other close relatives, and that her parents would have shared all of her components in total, and her relatives would have shared some of her compoents to. It was a meaningless find.

Please provide a link for your assertion that mr grime has stated his dogs have falsely alerted in the past. Then we can take it from there instead of shifting the goalposts every two minutes. Thanks.

 

[saggymoon]

keela has made false alerts. .

Please provide a link to show the above assertion is true. Thanks.

 

[brit1981]

I have provided plenty of links about this in other posts, go back and look at them.

can you provide any links showing primary evidence that Keela has never made a false alert.

 

[saggymoon]

I have provided plenty of links about this in other posts, go back and look at them.

can you provide any links showing primary evidence that Keela has never made a false alert.

No you have not provided any proof that mr grime or any other professional has stated, as you assert, that Keela has made false alerts.

Seeing as you are claiming this it is up to you to prove it, it is not up to me to prove that she never has.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The big evidence seems to be Maddie's blood in a rental car trunk THREE WEEKS after she went missing.

WHAT????? HOW????

How in the world could her parents have kept her body hidden before putting her in the trunk?

I think it's blood transfer from a towel or a blanket. Only thing that makes sense.

What do you all think?

Here's what was said at the time -

Madeleine: 'Hair in car came from her body'

By Caroline Gammell in Praia da Luz
4:34PM BST 11 Sep 2007

The police case against Kate and Gerry McCann was submitted to the public prosecutor today, amid conflicting reports about the nature of the DNA case against them.

According to police briefings given to Portuguese journalists, the samples found in the back of the McCanns' car were not blood but other "bodily fluids". These have provided an 88 per cent DNA match to Madeleine.

So much of Madeleine's hair was also found in the vehicle's boot that it must have come directly from her body, and not just been transferred from clothing or a toy, according to the briefing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562823/Madeleine-Hair-in-car-came-from-her-body.html



This brings us back to the Mystery of the Missing Hair.

The sample referred to in this article, quite a large amount, has been lost/misplaced/whatever by FSS Ltd.

The sample has, quite simply, now vanished, but not before this was published in the second FSS Ltd report -

My colleague, Andrew Palmer, submitted various hair collected from the Renault Scenic for tests, using tests for obtaining the DNA profile through the use of LCN. Those hairs were designated as 7B hair 1 and 7C hairs 7, 13 and 15. Attempts to obtain a DNA profile of each hair by LCN was unsuccessful, because no DNA profile was obtained by LCN, possibly due to there being an insufficient quantity of good quality DNA.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html



So, the hair went from being a large amount, to being not mentioned at all (report one) then dismissed in report two as being insufficient for DNA testing...and now the sample itself has been destroyed/lost/mislaid whatever. FSS Ltd allegedly no longer possesses it for further testing.

Likewise with the DNA in the trunk.

When it left the PDJ it was a "88% match". When it got to FSS Ltd, it was "weak and inconclusive".

:furious:

The fact that it exists at all exactly where the cadaver dog alerted is the one thing they cannot explain away.

:cow:

 

[Gem2626]

Here's what was said at the time -

Madeleine: 'Hair in car came from her body'

By Caroline Gammell in Praia da Luz
4:34PM BST 11 Sep 2007

The police case against Kate and Gerry McCann was submitted to the public prosecutor today, amid conflicting reports about the nature of the DNA case against them.

According to police briefings given to Portuguese journalists, the samples found in the back of the McCanns' car were not blood but other "bodily fluids". These have provided an 88 per cent DNA match to Madeleine.

So much of Madeleine's hair was also found in the vehicle's boot that it must have come directly from her body, and not just been transferred from clothing or a toy, according to the briefing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562823/Madeleine-Hair-in-car-came-from-her-body.html



This brings us back to the Mystery of the Missing Hair.

The sample referred to in this article, quite a large amount, has been lost/misplaced/whatever by FSS Ltd.

The sample has, quite simply, now vanished, but not before this was published in the second FSS Ltd report -

My colleague, Andrew Palmer, submitted various hair collected from the Renault Scenic for tests, using tests for obtaining the DNA profile through the use of LCN. Those hairs were designated as 7B hair 1 and 7C hairs 7, 13 and 15. Attempts to obtain a DNA profile of each hair by LCN was unsuccessful, because no DNA profile was obtained by LCN, possibly due to there being an insufficient quantity of good quality DNA.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html



So, the hair went from being a large amount, to being not mentioned at all (report one) then dismissed in report two as being insufficient for DNA testing...and now the sample itself has been destroyed/lost/mislaid whatever. FSS Ltd allegedly no longer possesses it for further testing.

Likewise with the DNA in the trunk.

When it left the PDJ it was a "88% match". When it got to FSS Ltd, it was "weak and inconclusive".

:furious:

The fact that it exists at all exactly where the cadaver dog alerted is the one thing they cannot explain away.

:cow:

"When it left the PDJ it was a "88% match". When it got to FSS Ltd, it was "weak and inconclusive"."

Why are you putting so much faith in the media? The 88% match quote comes from an unknown police source in the telegraph. Websleuths has taught me not to rely on anything the media has to say. Look what they did to Chris Jeffries in the Joanne Yeates case!

Ignoring everything else said as it's already been discussed backwards and forwards several times.

 

[SapphireSteel]

"When it left the PDJ it was a "88% match". When it got to FSS Ltd, it was "weak and inconclusive"."

Why are you putting so much faith in the media? The 88% match quote comes from an unknown police source in the telegraph. Websleuths has taught me not to rely on anything the media has to say. Look what they did to Chris Jeffries in the Joanne Yeates case!

Ignoring everything else said as it's already been discussed backwards and forwards several times.

No, this information came from press briefings given by the Portugese police...ie, straight out of the horses mouth. Amaral's book is confirmation.

As FSS Ltd later confirmed in black and white, 16 out of 19 alleles matched Madeleine. 16/19 = 84.

:waitasec:

<modsnip>

 

[Gem2626]

No, this information came from press briefings given by the Portugese police...ie, straight out of the horses mouth. Amaral's book is confirmation.

As FSS Ltd later confirmed in black and white, 16 out of 19 alleles matched Madeleine. 16/19 = 84.

:waitasec:

<modsnip>

No the horses mouth is the forensic experts. The unnamed police source already made a mistake with the 88% when it was actually 84%.

Brit1981 has explained the forensics so many times on here. The DNA could have come from anyone of the McCanns seeing as they share the same DNA.

<modsnip>

 

[brit1981]

my reply in bold

No, this information came from press briefings given by the Portugese police...ie, straight out of the horses mouth. Amaral's book is confirmation.

As FSS Ltd later confirmed in black and white, 16 out of 19 alleles matched Madeleine. 16/19 = 84.

Er, all Amaral's book is confirmation of is that he does not even have a basic high school level understanding of genetics. If he did he would never have come up with the idea that finding 15 (not 16) of madeleine's alleles meant that was a 15 out of 19 chance it was madeleine's.

Every individual gets their alleles from their parents. So in any individual there will not be a single allele in their DNA that is not shared by one of the parents, and by extension one of their grandparents. These alleles will also be present to a lesser extent in the dna of relatives, and in many cases even strangers will share one or two (madeleine received the same allele twice as both kate and gerry, despite being genetic strangers, shared an allele). So for madeleine every single one of her alleles will be found inthe dna of her parents, and grandparents, and to a lesser extent in her other relatives.

Now for this specific sample, it was a mixed sample from three to five people and consisted of 37 different alleles. Now this means that not one allele could be attributed to a specific individuel. This sample was also found in a location used by Kate, gerry, the grandparents and other relatives. Therefore it is not surprising that 15 of the 37 alleles were also found in madeleine's dna, since the dna is likely to have come from people who shared 100% of her alleles with her. So it is a complete misunderstanding of dna and basic genetic inheritance to claim that finding 15 of madeleine's 19 alleles is akin to a 15/19 chance it is hers because even if all 19 of her alleles were found there, they could easily have come from any number of her relatives.


As for the 88% claim, this was fro an unconfirmed media report and was not base don any first hand reports. If one watched the leveson inquiry one could see that the UK media admitted they printed flase stories about the dna in the early days claiming that they belived there were being told the truth by the portuguese, and were angry when they discovered they had been lied to when they actually gor hold of the real first hand reports.

:truce:
:waitasec:

<modsnip>

 

[nursebeeme]

Agree to disagree here folks and stop the back and forth.

 

[SapphireSteel]

No the horses mouth is the forensic experts. The unnamed police source already made a mistake with the 88% when it was actually 84%.

Brit1981 has explained the forensics so many times on here. The DNA could have come from anyone of the McCanns seeing as they share the same DNA.

<modsnip>

Yes I've read some of the posts.

It is easy to tear away at the science as the samples were so "inconclusive", but not so easy to explain the fact that the DNA should not have been found in the first place.

It is the existence of the DNA where it should not be that is the unexplainable, unspinnable issue.

No one in Madeleine's family claimed to have bled or died anywhere near 5a or the Renault.

How come the cadaver dog alerted for cadaverine and the swabs taken at the alert sites were positive for one of Madeleine's close family, none of whom have died in Portugal?

:waitasec:

I've yet to see this elephant in the lounge room explained, or even addressed by those who are insistent on the McCann innocence.

I feel like I'm working for the PDJ when they asked Kate those 48 questions and she just flatly refused to respond.

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

my replies in red

Yes I've read some of the posts.

It is easy to tear away at the science as the samples were so "inconclusive", but not so easy to explain the fact that the DNA should not have been found in the first place.


It is the existence of the DNA where it should not be that is the unexplainable, unspinnable issue.

How can that be - every person is made of DNA, so why would there not be dna found in a car used by so many people. the material foudn coudl ahve come from any of the mccanns and their relative swho used the car, what is so special about them that they should be the only people on the planet who do not leave DNA anywhere.

No one in Madeleine's family claimed to have bled or died anywhere near 5a or the Renault.

In the renault - the only time the vr dog alerted was at the card fobb, which contained material belonging to gerry mccann that may or may not have been blood. The blood alerts dog alerted in the back of the car, but the material foudn could ahve been there. Now according to grime keela alerts to fresh blood, but eddie only alerts to dried blood not fresh blood. Keela alerted, eddie did not. So if people are going to claim the dogs are 100% reliable it means that IF a tiny bit of blood was in the back of the car it was fresh, and so could not have come from a dead body. No-one has asked the mccanns if they ever bled in the car. But as there were bits of nail belonging to gerry his bodily fluid on the car fobb, it is not unlikely his finge rbled a tiny tiny bit, and some got in the boot.

In the flat - no-one has been roven to have died there. No blood was ever identiefied as being there, and no material belonging to madeleine was ever found. The dog IF we assume he is always accurate, alerts to dried blood too. a previous tennat ble dprofusly there, so there is no way anyone can say that he was not alerting to that.

How come the cadaver dog alerted for cadaverine and the swabs taken at the alert sites were positive for one of Madeleine's close family, none of whom have died in Portugal?

The evrd never alerted in the boot of the car. He only alerted to the card fobb. the material on the card fobb belonged to gerry mccann not madeleine. I do not think a coronor is going to accept the dogs findings as enough to declare gerry dead.
:waitasec:

I've yet to see this elephant in the lounge room explained, or even addressed by those who are insistent on the McCann innocence.

It has been explained several times, inc. just above. I have yet to see those who are determined to make claims about the mccanns, come up with an explanation as to how the body was removed from the flat, how it was inpossible for it to be an abductor, why their claims rely on claiming conspiracy theories involving everyone from governments to their friends friends mother, ignoring the very basics of genetic inheritance etc. If they are so sure the mccanns are guilty then they must have evidence of these claims, yet so far not one person has provided any.

I feel like I'm working for the PDJ when they asked Kate those 48 questions and she just flatly refused to respond.

:banghead: