John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

hogwash wrote:

  Me likey!

Verdi wrote:

hogwash wrote:

  Me likey!

Do you accept it is possible Maddie was never in the car

This topic has strayed - the thread title is do we think Lowe thinks there was a match because she was in the car or that it was a chance match.  I therefore take it that mike7777 has plumped for `chance match`.

Richard IV wrote:This topic has strayed - the thread title is do we think Lowe thinks there was a match because she was in the car or that it was a chance match.  I therefore take it that mike7777 has plumped for `chance match`.

I think chance was a poor choice of words

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:Imike7777

t is your prerogative to believe that she wasn't in the car.  That is not the question.

1)  Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE she was in the car?

2)  Do you also acknowledge that although FSS could not claim which body fluid, the fact that a BLOOD dog alerted to the spot, and knowing Keela does not alert to anything else, that it was BLOOD found in the back of the car?

Of course its possible that Maddie had been in the car...do you also agree its possible maddie was never in the car... As the FSS were not able to confirm it was blood then it may have been blood but there is NO evidence that it was blood

mike7777,

Many members today, including myself, have spent time and patience responding to your comments.

I am not sure of you agenda as I see no apparent effort to acknowledge what this thread was about other than to claim you disagree, even when you have been carefully shown important details to the contrary.

This leads me to wonder whether your reason for being here is to seriously search for the truth, or to play games and have everyone speding their precious time answering you.

I was fully aware of that possibility from the start but chose to respond for many hours for one reason...

We have had nearly 5,000 views on this thread, more than 1100 of those in the last 4 hours and though you may not appreciate the time and effort of members in here, I'm sure there were many viewers that were able to see some information they were not aware of.

If you were here to seriously discuss the issue then I suggest you should at least make some serious effort to input with an informed opinion.


If you are here mainly to challenge for the sake of challenging, then we will no longer tolerate any game playing and it will be closed to your posts.

This forum is for the details and facts of the case and not to promote an opinion based on lack of knowledge, and possibly lack of respect.

We need to maintain respect for the members here.

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:Imike7777

t is your prerogative to believe that she wasn't in the car.  That is not the question.

1)  Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE she was in the car?

2)  Do you also acknowledge that although FSS could not claim which body fluid, the fact that a BLOOD dog alerted to the spot, and knowing Keela does not alert to anything else, that it was BLOOD found in the back of the car?

Of course its possible that Maddie had been in the car...do you also agree its possible maddie was never in the car... As the FSS were not able to confirm it was blood then it may have been blood but there is NO evidence that it was blood

mike7777,

Many members today, including myself, have spent time and patience responding to your comments.

I am not sure of you agenda as I see no apparent effort to acknowledge what this thread was about other than to claim you disagree, even when you have been carefully shown important details to the contrary.

This leads me to wonder whether your reason for being here is to seriously search for the truth, or to play games and have everyone speding their precious time answering you.

I was fully aware of that possibility from the start but chose to respond for many hours for one reason...

We have had nearly 5,000 views on this thread, more than 1100 of those in the last 4 hours and though you may not appreciate the time and effort of members in here, I'm sure there were many viewers that were able to see some information they were not aware of.

If you were here to seriously discuss the issue then I suggest you should at least make some serious effort to input with an informed opinion.


If you are here mainly to challenge for the sake of challenging, then we will no longer tolerate any game playing and it will be closed to your posts.

This forum is for the details and facts of the case and not to promote an opinion based on lack of knowledge, and possibly lack of respect.

We need to maintain respect for the members here.

I'm her to search for the truth based on the evidence....could you point to any of my posts that have shown disrespect for other posters views...perhaps you could explain to me what relevance Harry Belafonte has to the discussion

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:Imike7777

t is your prerogative to believe that she wasn't in the car.  That is not the question.

1)  Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE she was in the car?

2)  Do you also acknowledge that although FSS could not claim which body fluid, the fact that a BLOOD dog alerted to the spot, and knowing Keela does not alert to anything else, that it was BLOOD found in the back of the car?

Of course its possible that Maddie had been in the car...do you also agree its possible maddie was never in the car... As the FSS were not able to confirm it was blood then it may have been blood but there is NO evidence that it was blood

mike7777,

Many members today, including myself, have spent time and patience responding to your comments.

I am not sure of you agenda as I see no apparent effort to acknowledge what this thread was about other than to claim you disagree, even when you have been carefully shown important details to the contrary.

This leads me to wonder whether your reason for being here is to seriously search for the truth, or to play games and have everyone speding their precious time answering you.

I was fully aware of that possibility from the start but chose to respond for many hours for one reason...

We have had nearly 5,000 views on this thread, more than 1100 of those in the last 4 hours and though you may not appreciate the time and effort of members in here, I'm sure there were many viewers that were able to see some information they were not aware of.

If you were here to seriously discuss the issue then I suggest you should at least make some serious effort to input with an informed opinion.


If you are here mainly to challenge for the sake of challenging, then we will no longer tolerate any game playing and it will be closed to your posts.

This forum is for the details and facts of the case and not to promote an opinion based on lack of knowledge, and possibly lack of respect.

We need to maintain respect for the members here.

What we have established is that maddie may have been in the car....but she may not have been in the car.  I would also say that as the alerts are NOT evidence then there is no evidence that any blood apart from Gerry's was found in the car...please correct anything you do not agree with

Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

BlueBag wrote:Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob...in the car........IF any blood was present it could have been from one person

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob...in the car........IF any blood was present it could have been from one person

Gerry's blood?

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob...in the car........IF any blood was present it could have been from one person

Gerry's blood?

yes....Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob in the car

You have twisted this:

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

How incomplete?

And did it exclude Madeleine?

Also that particular DNA found on the key fob wasn't necessarily from blood.

"The sample has not been sent for further testing".... hmmm.....

BlueBag wrote:You have twisted this:

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

How incomplete?

And did it exclude Madeleine?

Also that particular DNA found on the key fob wasn't necessarily from blood.

"The sample has not been sent for further testing".... hmmm.....

do you feel the FSS have been inept

mike7777... 

What is recognisable in your posts is that you seem to insist on making 3 main  claims...

1) We don't know that Maddie was in the car
2) Alerts should be confirmed by forensics
3)No evidence that it was blood in the car (except Gerry's)

1) We don't know that Maddie was in the car


We don't KNOW that Maddie was in the car.  The point of the thread is that it CANNOT BE EXCLUDED that Maddie was in the car.


2) Alerts should be confirmed by forensics


In a court of law it would be usually to have a conclusive match (though not always as shown in the Bianca Jones trial video (posted) where Martin Grime's dog alerts WERE considered key evidence in the case.)





HOWEVER, an investigation has not yet entered the trial phase and there is a level of possibility/probabilty even when 100% match is not found.  It is up to the investigation to decide whether a 75% match is a possibility or whether it needs to be 80%, 90% or 99% match and that would dependant on many other factors.

Was there one alert with a 55% match or were there 17 alerts with 80% of the missing child's markers found in a compilation of three or four people's markers?

Did a cadaver dog alert to areas of interest when a child is missing?

There is a point where possibility changes to probability.

I am obviously not a forensic person but I'm sure corroborating evidence does not rely only on  100% proof

BOTH dogs alerted to the same spot and forensics were retrieved so we know the dogs were successful and it's up to the investigation to decide what corroborates the findings.

The point of this thread was to show that John Lowe acknowledges it is a match to Maddie's DNA and he asked the question whether it was because she was in the car or because it was a chance match of a mixture of other people that deposited their DNA with a mixture of 15 markers matching Madeleine





3)No evidence that it was blood in the car (except Gerry's blood on key fob)

What is interesting about this comment, that you were insistent on continually claiming, is that it is one of the most common 'defences' used against the possibility of Maddie being in the car.

We are always hearing claims that any DNA found in the car can be accounted for.  DNA can be found on many bodily fluids that could be transferred from any of Maddie's belongings that were in the car.  THAT has been, as mentioned before, the MAIN insistence for anyone defending the possibility of Maddie being in the car and therefore defending the parents for not being complicit in their daughter's removal of her body.

If it were to be established that Maddie's BLOOD was in the car that was rented weeks after her disappearance then that would be VERY troubling for Kate and Gerry and anyone defending them.   That is why the PJ brought in a BLOOD dog.

It is OBVIOUS why ANY suggestion that Maddie's BLOOD is in the car needs to be curtailed as soon and effectively as possible.

May I ask if that was the MAIN reason you joined this forum today ONLY to discredit the possibility it was blood?

Regardless of proof that it WAS blood, you continued to claim it wasn't.

I'm sorry if that set off alarm bells for me but I'm sure you can understand why, given the history of 'pros' continually trying to discredit the finding of blood.

The claim is ALWAYS that FSS cannot distinguish which bodily fluid is attributed to the samples tested.  That is true.  John Lowe makes it very clear.  It is not their responsibility to find out whether  it was retrieved by a blood dog.

What PROVES the samples are blood is Keela.  She does not alert to anything other than blood and to suggest that she was 'wrong' undermines a  highly respected and specialised dog trainer who has recently been working (successfully) with the FBI.  Martin Grime's dogs are reliable despite claims to the contrary.

When Keela alerts, she alerts to BLOOD.  Nothing else.







In summary, it is absolutely your prerogative to have your own opinions, despite the proof that has been carefully shown to you, but it is NOT acceptable to attempt to influence other members and viewers by the age old method of 'suggestion'.  (ie. if you say it often enough then people will believe it)

Here on CMOMM we want people to feel free make their own opinions based on the facts from the case and not be urged to believe an opinion that is not based on fact, but based on an agenda to remove the ONE piece of 'evidence' in the case that is most damaging if found to be true.

BLOOD was found in the back of the car and  John Lowe ACKNOWLEDGES it is a MATCH to Maddie, as he claims, it is just not known if it exists because she was IN THE CAR or because it is a mixture of a few people that deposited their DNA, with the equivalent of 15 (of Maddies 19) markers in ONE blood spot in the back of the car.

I apologise if reviewing your posts pointed in the direction of the agenda as suggested above.

If required, I can post all your comments in sequence to show there was little effort to discuss, only to make the points listed above and to discredit the findings.

Also, I did not suggest you were disrespectful towards any members, but an effort to affect people's perception and ignore member's attempts to correct you is disrespectful of their time.

If I am wrong in my thoughts then please explain to me why your 'discussion' was based primarily on the points I have highlighted and in 45 posts you INSIST it was not blood more than 15 times, even after you had been corrected several times!

That is not what most would consider a 'discussion'.

If I am wrong I will apologise.

Thank you for refreshing my memory re the McCanns minging Renault carboot, HdH    

Also for this stark reminder:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob...in the car........IF any blood was present it could have been from one person

Gerry's blood?

yes....Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob in the car

I don't insist it wasn't blood...I'm saying there is no evidence it is blood as Grime has told us that the alerts themselves have no evidential reliability.
Again...Maddie may have been in the car or she may not have...we do not know. The dna is from 3 people or even 5 according to Lowe and according to Lowe there is no way of knowing if the markers came from the DNA of Maddie.

I read the forum and saw this thread and wished to comment on it....

pennylane wrote:Thank you for refreshing my memory re the McCanns minging Renault carboot, HdH    

Also for this stark reminder:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

How can Amaral tell what type of fluid it was when the FSS were unable to determine it's type

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:  Of course its possible that Maddie had been in the car...do you also agree its possible maddie was never in the car... As the FSS were not able to confirm it was blood then it may have been blood but there is NO evidence that it was blood


There IS evidence that vestiges of blood were located in the luggage compartment of the Renault Scenic - KEELA!  You have again failed to address this issue, so clearly laid out by HiDeHo today so I will take the liberty of re-posting..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

So if not blood detected by Keela the trained dog, what do you think it was - rice pudding?  Or are you of the same school of thought as propagated by the McCann faction - that the odours sprang from rotting meat, shrimps, dirty nappies, Madeleine's sandals etc? 

Although not confirmed by material evidence or the forensic scientists, the probability of MBM's body having been in the Renault Scenic out weighs any lame explanations and/or excuses so far put forward.  Either MBM had been in the car or it was a chance match? Talk about hedging your bets!

Hopefully the graphics help put the findings in perspective.


1) We don't know that Maddie was in the car

Madeleine is NOT excluded from being in the car.



2) Alerts should be confirmed by forensics


Forensics WERE confirmed with a MATCH to Maddie that may have been because she was in the car or from a combination of people depositing a combination of 15 markers that match 15 of Madeleine's markers (15 of 19)


3)No evidence that it was blood in the car (except Gerry's blood on the key fob)

Blood WAS found in the back of the car.  Keela the BLOOD dog alerted

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi is that Mike7777 nose in the Renault car in place of Keela's, sniffing Sea Bass or the dripping "Beef residue,BS"?
In respect,Mike7777,this must be the first time in"History of Crime" that a Police force,UK chose to have evidence of a DNA sample to be "Destroyed after testing" in an unproven case of the demise of a missing person,Madeleine?

A comment to note from an HDH member...

There werent 37 markers in M's profile sample .  19 unique to her , unique above all others, and 15 of those markers unique above all others, were identified and matched.

I doubt there’s a scientist in the world who would stand up in court and say it’s impossible that MM’s DNA couldn’t have gotten into that vehicle..  This sample along with sample found in the apartment may be crucial to solving this crime! .… it’s just beyond belief that there are people who not only resist this idea but to all intents and purposes are determined to try and bury the possibility that  it was Madeleine’s DNA under a mountain of excuses and negligence. 

The forensic report like the rest of the police files aren’t going to go away. 

The forensic report does not exclude the possibility that she contributed to the evidence, it does not exclude her, yet we are to believe it is neither inconclusive nor conclusive. The authors opinion, that the results  “could not determine whether or not”,   leaves it wide open to interpretation. It might be or it might not be, it may be or it may not be… if anything the report deliberately leads people to believe details which we know aren’t factual. A prime example of this being that scientists DNA could account for extra markers in samples. 

This is very deceptive because although not exactly wrong, it does not inform the reader that there were systems and methods in place to prevent exactly this type of thing from happening, nor does the report inform people that the chances of the DNA originating from the scientists is 100% zero, given they could not possibly have contributed to the original sample in the car itself, the same applies to 99.9% of the population, because they weren’t in that car or anywhere near it when the evidence was left.   ..Those are  true facts that cannot be disputed.   

We’ve heard all kinds of excuses for these samples from DNA soup to you name it.  Has anyone ever heard of a DNA ‘ soup ‘ that generated a definite profile of a victim but was written off because it may have been generated by chance?  Here’s some more hard facts for you, when a profile comes from a mixed sample, that profile can be treated as a single source / primary profile. 

 But let’s not go over and over DNA and genetics, lets stick to simplicities, -  all 19 markers in her profile sample were unique to her, unique above all others, and 15 of those were identified – 15 unique above all others within that sample :  Another fact, DNA with a 100% match should have been in the car, to suggest it got there by ‘ chance?’,  is not only ridiculous, it’s also misleading. There is more a  “chance “  that her DNA could NOT have gotten into that car. 

But of course when you accept that her DNA will have gotten into that car, you enter into whole different arena. It no longer becomes a chance event. The chance event is the main person’s unique DNA profile being found in a forensic sample which stands out from anything else and wasn’t and still isn’t seen as any old DNA transfer. 

 Just like the confirmed sample in their apartment..

Perhaps this might help the terminally bewildered to undestand the outstanding capabilities of trained dogs..

VD Rogatory Letters 3rd volume
Martin Grime - Dated May 14 2008

I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The Judicial Police is in possession of the originals of the search reports and the videos showing all searches performed and the reaction of the dogs. In addition to the report, Sam Harkeness of the Progresso National Police Agency sent me by email several written questions sent by the Judicial Police together with a request for a written deposition. This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.

Questions and Answers:

Q. 'Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs bearing in mind the searches that were performed''

A.  Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).

Q.  'Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases''
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).

A.  The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.

Q.  'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''

A.  The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

Q.  'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.

A.  The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

Q.  'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''

A.  The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

Q.  'With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver'
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred''

A.  There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

Q.  'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'

A.  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.

Q.  'Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids''

A.  The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
Platelets
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.

Q.  'Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion'

A.  The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

Q.  'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''

A.  Cross-contamination is immediate.

Q.  'How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog''

A.  During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

Q.  'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''

A.  I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.

EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

Q.  'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''

A.  I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
During training, the dogs are barely rewarded for positive alert signals regarding targets of known substances.

Q.  'At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case''

A.  I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.

This deposition was made by me and is true according to my understanding.

This is like the Haute de la Garenne case where the pro's like to diss the dogs' because humans dug up coconut shell after Eddie had alerted. Martin Grime said "People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human."


The McCanns wouldn't need to air the car boot for several days if there was only blood in the car, even if it was from meat or nappies.

But cadaver scent stinks to high heaven and that would be enough reason to air the car boot for several days.

As an aside, I'm interested in seeing how the Corrie storyline develops about Callum being buried under Gail Platt's bedroom floor as the corpse is starting to smell through the concrete. 

Cadaver dogs have been known to smell cadaver through concrete, just like they would have been able to detect if Madeleine was buried under Murat's driveway as Stephen Birch claims.

Sorry, HDH, I know this thread is about blood and not cadaver.