Bennett identifies a new Eddie alert - could it re-open the case?

muratfan01 wrote:

DCB1 wrote:Well some would believe that because she only alerts to blood then there must have been blood. Apart from that - who knows?

But in the Madeleine case there was always some stuff where she alerted.

Whos blood was it? There is no forensics that it belonged to Madeleine.

Well some of the stuff at least was the CSI bloke who collected the DNA samples!

candyfloss wrote:

tyra wrote:If a sniffer dog sniifed explosives then no-one would be getting anywhere but that is not a good analogy, as these dogs didn't sniff anything they reacted as if there was evidence there but there was none, other than a bit of blood that didn't match Madeleoine. now if a sniffer dog sniffed something and reacted as though there was explosives and the object examined and nothing found then, now you have an analogy, would you think the dog got it wrong it would you refuse to accept there was no explosives there?

or even better... this is gonna be good, trained dogs to find explosives can sniff both the weapons themselves but also cheeseburgers, lets pretend the smell is identical to dogs, so somone is stopped going through the underground, the dog goes loopy, the handlers take the individual and search them, they find no explosives but he is eating a mcdonalds, do you refuse to let him on his way?

Oh tyra you are coming out with some stupid analagies are you not. Weapon and cheeseburgers fgs, but they are not trained to sniff both are they. So if they sniff explosives then that is what they are trained for.

Of course there is no tangible evidence, but the cadaver dog smelt cadaver scent, just because there was no body there, doesn't mean the dog was wrong.

I was actually trying to help out by making it very simple for you, both dogs can scent blood, one can scent decomposing bodies, no bodies were found, no evidence of a body having been there was found but blood was found, what do you think they dogs smelt?

The forensics on the blood said different. It was not proved to be Madeleine's. Grimes is not a forensics officer

DCB1 wrote:Well some would believe that because she only alerts to blood then there must have been blood. Apart from that - who knows?

But in the Madeleine case there was always some stuff where she alerted.

Not always.

And much of it was not even corroborated as blood but as organic material.

Slartibartfast wrote:

DCB1 wrote:Well some would believe that because she only alerts to blood then there must have been blood. Apart from that - who knows?

But in the Madeleine case there was always some stuff where she alerted.

Not always.

And much of it was not even corroborated as blood but as organic material.

Indeed. The key fob for instance.

muratfan01 wrote:The forensics on the blood said different. It was not proved to be Madeleine's.

Absolutely untrue and nonsense as you well know.

The final FSS report, amended from the first because of a second set of DNA tests, merely changed a certainty or near-certainty that the blood was Madeleine's into a tangled and convoluted set of probabilities which made the FSS at the end of the day say that the DNA results were 'inconclusive' so far as it being Madeleine's blood.

You have totally twisted that to come up with a blatant lie: "It was not proved to be Madeleine's".

DCB1 for one will back me up on what I have said.

Tony Bennett wrote:

muratfan01 wrote:The forensics on the blood said different. It was not proved to be Madeleine's.

Absolutely untrue and nonsense as you well know.

The final FSS report, amended from the first because of a second set of DNA tests, merely changed a certainty or near-certainty that the blood was Madeleine's into a tangled and convoluted set of probabilities which made the FSS at the end of the day say that the DNA results were 'inconclusive' so far as it being Madeleine's blood.

You have totally twisted that to come up with a blatant lie: "It was not proved to be Madeleine's".

DCB1 for one will back me up on what I have said.

The dna tests certainly did not find any sort of certainty of a match with madeleine, why are you lying mr bennett or are you doing that forgetting thing again, this has been explained to you numerous times.

Tony, that is such rubbish.
There is no evidence for a first report which said the DNA was Madeleine's.

Plenty of evidence that some people got their knickers in a twist and misunderstood the preliminary results, but the question of the 'first report' was thoroughly debunked a long while ago. Which doesn't stop Amaral from repeating it, because he's an idiot.

Tony Bennett wrote:

muratfan01 wrote:The forensics on the blood said different. It was not proved to be Madeleine's.

Absolutely untrue and nonsense as you well know.

The final FSS report, amended from the first because of a second set of DNA tests, merely changed a certainty or near-certainty that the blood was Madeleine's into a tangled and convoluted set of probabilities which made the FSS at the end of the day say that the DNA results were 'inconclusive' so far as it being Madeleine's blood.

You have totally twisted that to come up with a blatant lie: "It was not proved to be Madeleine's".

DCB1 for one will back me up on what I have said.

which made the FSS at the end of the day say that the DNA results were 'inconclusive' so far as it being Madeleine's blood.

WHICH BIT OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...INCONCLUSIVE...IT COULD NOT BE PROVED IT WAS MADELEINES...OR ANYONES.

Tony Bennett wrote:

muratfan01 wrote:The forensics on the blood said different. It was not proved to be Madeleine's.

Absolutely untrue and nonsense as you well know.

The final FSS report, amended from the first because of a second set of DNA tests, merely changed a certainty or near-certainty that the blood was Madeleine's into a tangled and convoluted set of probabilities which made the FSS at the end of the day say that the DNA results were 'inconclusive' so far as it being Madeleine's blood.

You have totally twisted that to come up with a blatant lie: "It was not proved to be Madeleine's".

DCB1 for one will back me up on what I have said.

What initial report? The made up one that nobody has ever seen?

Too complex for meaningful INTERPRETATION/INCLUSION.

DNA results are based on the probability outside of close KIN.

Four of Madeleine's closest relatives were in the car and the sample was a severely degraded mixture of up to 5 people.

The probability of it being Madeleine's is less than the probability of it being a mixture of her parents or sibling's DNA given what we know about who actually occupied that vehicle.

Be careful what you say here Tony.
You are in grave danger of repeating malicious falsehoods for which you have already been held partially to account, and the final reckoning may yet come.

Discussing what is actually in the files is one thing - extrapolating what you think might have been in them if Amaral's thesis were right is quite another.

Tony Bennett wrote:

muratfan01 wrote:The forensics on the blood said different. It was not proved to be Madeleine's.

Absolutely untrue and nonsense as you well know.

The final FSS report, amended from the first because of a second set of DNA tests, merely changed a certainty or near-certainty that the blood was Madeleine's into a tangled and convoluted set of probabilities which made the FSS at the end of the day say that the DNA results were 'inconclusive' so far as it being Madeleine's blood.

You have totally twisted that to come up with a blatant lie: "It was not proved to be Madeleine's".

DCB1 for one will back me up on what I have said.

Wow TB - that is expecting a lot from me. If you could give me a link to the missing set of DNA reports that say something different to the first then I may have some chance.

badmanners wrote:Be careful what you say here Tony.
You are in grave danger of repeating malicious falsehoods for which you have already been held partially to account, and the final reckoning may yet come.

Discussing what is actually in the files is one thing - extrapolating what you think might have been in them if Amaral's thesis were right is quite another.

Things like the famous initial FSS report.
Seen by Duarte Levy and who else?

ol. 8, pages 2023 to 2027

FIRST INML REPORT 9 JULY 2007


NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LEGAL MEDICINE
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL FORENSIC SERVICES


Processo n? 2007/000268/P-B
Processo n? 2007/000244/CR-B
Processo n? 2007/000226/LX-BC


EXPERT REPORT

IDENTIFICATION OF BIOLOGICAL TRACES AND COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH REFERENCE SAMPLES

INFORMATION


REQUESTING AGENCY: Departamento de Investigacao Criminal de Portimao da Pol?ia Judiciaria e Directoria Nacional.

PROCESSO: NUIPC 201/07.0GALGS
NOME: MADELEINE BETH MCCANN.

OFICIO N.? 013.079 and fax n? 399, both dated 08/05/2007, that say "to proceed to deliver the traces recovered from apartment n? 5-A of the tourist resort "The Ocean Club" in Praia da Luz in Lagos", which were accompanied by 7 (seven) sealed envelopes under a delivery note n? 156/2007-CR/L, as part of the investigation into the disappearance of the child MADELEINE BETH MCCANN.

OFICIO N.? 13443 and fax n? 413 both dated 15/05/2007, that say to proceed to deliver the traces recovered from the residence at Rua do Ramalhete, Casa Liliana in Praia da Luz in Lagos (1 envelope), and from the Volkswagen with numberplate 44-77-KD (7 sealed envelopes), which were accompanied by delivery notes n? 170A/2007CR/L and 170B/2007-CR/L. respectively.

FAX N? 000415 dated 15/05/2007, that requests the INML to proceed with all necessary examinations on all the traces delivered to them as part of the abovementioned Inquiry.

OFICIO N.? 13453 /I /2007 dated 15/05/2007, that says to proceed to deliver the bucal swabs recovered from Matthew David Oldfield, Jane Michelle Tanner, Gerald Patrick Mccann, Kate Marie Healy, with delivery note n? 170C/2007-CR/L and relevant official documents from the Departamento de InvestigacaoCriminal de Portimao da Policia Judiciaria.

OFICIO N.? 001803 dated 17/05/07, that says "to remit bucal swabs recovered from individuals, asking for comparisons of DNA profiles with those from biologicaltraces recovered from various locations, as part of the present legal documents", accompanied by relevant official documents from the Departamento de lnvestigacaoCriminal de Portimao da Pol?ia Judiciaria.

OFICIO N.? 002026 dated 05/06/07, that says "to deliver two bucal swabs provided by Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat", with relevant official documents from the Departamento de InvestigacaoCriminal de Portimao da Pol?ia Judiciaria.


MATERIAL RECEIVED


There were received 258 traces and 12 reference samples - bucal swabs from 11 individuals.


DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL RECEIVED


TRACES
Relating to Apartment n? 5-A in the tourist resort "The Ocean Club" Praia da Luz-Lagos:

- 32 hairs in envelope n? 1 recovered from the floor at the entrance to the children's bedroom.

- 28 hairs in envelope n? 2 recovered from the floor next to the bed from which the child disappeared.

- 4 hair in envelope n? 3 recovered from the top of the bed from which the child disappeared.

- 15 hairs in envelope n? 4 recovered from the floor next to the bed that was next to the window in the children's bedroom.

- 1 piece of cloth in envelope n? 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children's bedroom.
Fragment of cloth, mauve/violet in colour with square motifs, circular in form about 10cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a Crime-light.

- 31 hairs in envelope N? 6 recovered from the floor of the lounge.

- 58 hairs in envelope N? 7 recovered from the entrance hall at the front door of the apartment.

[The above were] Delivered by the Pol?ia Judiciaria on 08/05/2007.

Relating to the Volkswagen 44-77-KD:

- 15 hairs in envelope N? 1 recovered from the front-right seat.

- 2 hairs in envelope N? 2 recovered from the front-left seat.

- 12 hairs in N? 3 recovered from the floor in front of the front seats.

- 7 hairs in envelope N? 4 recovered from the floor in front of the rear seat.

- 4 hairs in envelope N? 5 recovered from the rear seat.

- 5 hairs in envelope N? 6 recovered from the rear part of the vehicle.

- 4 hairs in envelope N? 7 recovered from the internal covering of the roof.

Relating to Residencia Casa Liliana - Praia da Luz-Lagos:

- 40 hairs in envelope N? 1 recovered from the bed in the bedroom of of the suspect.

[The above were] Delivered by the Policia Judiciaria on 15/05/2007.

REFERENCE SAMPLES

- 4 sealed bucal swabs from:
Matthew David Oldfield, Jane Michelle Tanner, Gerald Patrick McCann, Kate Marie Healey.

Delivered by the Pol?ia Judiciaria on 15/05/2007.

- 6 sealed bucal swabs from:
Dianne Webster, Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly, Russell James O'Brien, Fiona Payne, David Anthony Payne, Silvia Maria Correia Batista.

Delivered by the Pol�cia Judiciaria on 18/05/2007.

- 2 sealed bucal swabs from:
Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat.

Remitted by the Departamento de Investigacao Criminal de Portimao da Pol?ia Judiciaria and delivered on 06/06/2007.

METHODOLOGY

1-Morphology analysis of hairs

- Macro- and microscopic characterisation.

2-Nature of the sample

Acid Phosphatase Test to detect semen on the small spot on the cloth fragment in envelope n? 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom.
[Ref: http://www.semenonpanties.com/laux.htm ]

3- DNA extraction:

The following methods were used to extract DNA from the material received for analysis:

- Extraction with phenol-chloroform (organic extraction) [1,2]
[Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol-chl ... extraction ]
- Tissue and Hair Extraction kit -"DNA IQ(tm) System" (Promega)
- "QIAamp micro DNA kit" method (Qiagen)
- Chelex method [3]

[1] Huhne, J., Pfiffer, H., Waterkamp, K., Brinkmann, B. 1999. "Mitochondrial DNA in human hair shafts existence of intra-individual differences'". International Journal of Legal Medicine (1999), 112: 172-175.
[2] Maniatis T. Fritsch EF, Sambrook J. 1982. "Molecular Cloning - A Laboratory Manual". Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
[3] Walsh P.S., Metzer D.A., Higuchi (1991). Chelex-100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10: 506-513.

4-Nuclear DNA study

After extraction the following genetic markers were studied by PCR:

? Autosomic STRs: D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSFlPO, D3S1358, HUMTH01, D13S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, HUMVWA31/A, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818, HUMFIBRA/FGA and Amelogene, using the primers and conditions of amplification suggested in the kit AmpFISTR Identifiler (Applied Bioystems).

? Autosomic STRs: D3S1358, HUMTH01, D21S11, D18S51, Penta E, D5S818, D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, CSFlPO, Penta D, HUMVWA31/A, D8S1179, TPOX, HUMFIBRA/FGA, and Amelogene using the primers and the conditions ofamplification suggested in kit PowerPlex(tm)16 System (Promega).

5-Mitochondrial DNA study

The following methodology was used in the Mitochondrial DNA study:

PCR Amplification:

PCR Amplification of the human mtDNA regions HVI and HVII, using specified primers and amplification conditions in accordance with Vigilant et al., 1989 [4] e Wilson et al., 1995 [5], Alvarez-lglesias et al., [6].

[4] Vigilant L, Pennington R. Harpending 11, Kocher TD, Wilson AC. 1989. "Mitochondrial DNA Sequences in Single Hairs from a Southern African Population". Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA, 1989, Vol. 86: 9350 - 9354.
[5] Wilson MR, DiZinno JA, Polanskey D, Replogle J. Budowle B. 1995. "Validation of Mitochondrial DNA Sequencing for Forensic Casework Analysis". Int J Legal Med. 1995,108: 68 - 74.
[6] Alvarez-Iglesias V, Jaime JC, Carracedo A, Salas A.2007. "Coding region mitochondrial DNA SNPs:Targeting East Asian and Native American haplogroups" Forensic Sci. Int. Genetics, 2007, 1 :44-55.

Sequenciation:
Direct sequenciation of the HVI e HVll segments by capilar electrophoresis in "ABI PRISM 3100 ou 3130 Genetic Analyser" (Applied Biosystems) automated sequenciator with fluorescent detection using the following kits:

- "BigDye(R) Terminator vl.1 Cycle Sequencing" (Applied Biosystems)
- "BigDye(R) Terminator v1.3 Cycle Sequencing" (Applied Biosystems)
- "dRhodamine Terminator Cycle Sequencing Ready Reaction" (Applied Biosystems)

The programme "SeqScape(R) Software Version 2.0" (Applied Biosystems) was used for comparison of the sequences obtained from the analysed samples with the CRS (Cambridge Reference Sequence).


RESULTS


1- Morphology analysis of the hairs

All hairs received for analysis were subjected to macro- and microscopic characterisation, with the majority of those having the root being in a telogenic phase.
[Ref: https://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/e ... c/ab20.pdf ]

Relating to Apartment n? 5-A

- Envelope N? 1 - "recovered from the floor at the entrance to the children's bedroom" 25 hairs with root; 4 hairs only stem; 3 hairs non-human.

- Envelope N? 2 - "recovered from the floor next to the bed from which the child disappeared" 3 hairs with root; 25 hairs only stem.

- Envelope N? 3 - "recovered from the top of the bed from which the child disappeared" 2 hairs with root; 2 hairs only stem.

- Envelope N? 4 - " recovered from the floor next to the bed that was next to the window in the children's bedroom" ll hairs with root; 4 hairs only stem.

- Envelope n? 6 - "recovered from the floor of the lounge" 26 hairs with root; 4 hairs only stem; l hair non-human.

- Envelope n? 7 - "recovered from the entrance hall at the front door of the apartment" 44 hairs with root; 8 hairs only stem; 6 hairs non-human.

Relating to the Volkswagen 44-77-KD

- Envelope n? 1 - "recovered from the front-right seat" 13 hairs with root; 1 hair root only; 1 hair non-human.

- Envelope n? 2 - "recovered from the front-left seat" 2 hairs with root.

- Envelope n? 3 - "recovered from the floor in front of the front seats" 9 hairs with root; 2 hairs only stem; 1 hair non-human.

- Envelope N? 4 - "recovered from the floor in front of the rear seat" 1 hair with root; 6 hairs only stem.

- Envelope N? 5 - "recovered from the rear seat" 4 hairs only stem.

- Envelope N? 6 - "recovered from the rear part of the vehicle" 1 hair with root; 4 hairs only stem.

- Envelope N? 7 - "recovered from the internal covering of the roof" 3 hairs with root; 1 hair only stem.

Relating to the Residencia Casa Liliana - Praia da Luz-Lagos:

- Envelope N? 1 - "recovered from the bed in the bedroom of of the suspect" 36 hairs with root; 4 hairs only stem.

2-Nature of the sample

Acid Phosphatase Test to detect semen on the small spot on the cloth fragment in envelope n? 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Weakly positive.





3 - Nuclear DNA study

Autosomic STRs:

- were obtained from: hair root CEnv 7-51 recovered in the apartment (entrance hall-Env.7), hair root PVT07 recovered in the vehicle (floor in front of rear seat Env.4), hair root C742-05 recovered in the vehicle (floor in front of the front seat- Env. 3) and the small spot on the piece of cloth (recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children's bedroom Env.5).

- were obtained from swabs:

Matthew David Oldfield, Jane Michelle Tanner, Gerald Patrick McCann, Kate Marie Healey, Dianne Webster, Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly, Russell James O'Brien, Fiona Payne, David Anthony Payne, Silvia Maria Correia Batista e Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat.

4 - Mitochondrial DNA study

- Mitochondrial DNA was obtained from 194 vestiges - 1 spot and 193 hairs (roots and/or stems) of the 246 analysed. It was not possible to obtain results from 52 hairs, 31 of which were recovered in the apartment.


Mitochondrial DNA profiles of the vestiges




Input check

Sample Identification Perfil S
Database Release 1
Maximum differences displayed 5
Include partially overlapping profiles no
Consider(multiple)insertions in the
polyC-stretches at 16193, 309 and 573
individual differences as:
Selected ranges 73-340
16024-16365

mtDNA query profile 73A>G
263A>G
315.1C
16256C>T
16270C>T

Source Forensic data

Selected populations Africa: ALL
East Asia: ALL
South East Asia: ALL
West Eurasla: ALL

OUTPUT
Selected ranges: 73-340
16024-16365

mtDNA query profile: 73A>G, 263A>G, 315.1C, 16256C>T, 16270C>T

OVERALL RESULT SUMMARY (4527/4527)

DIFFERENCES TO NUMBER OF CUMULATIVE
QUERY PROFILE HAPLOTYPES NUMBER OF HAPLOTYPES
0 8 8
1 40 48
2 54 102
3 178 280
4 442 722
5 595 1317
>5 3210 4527

Africa RESULT SUMMARY (348/348)

East Asia RE5ULT SUMMARY (162/162)

South East Asia RESULT 5UMMARY (187/187)

West Eurasia RESULT SUMMARY (3830/3830)

DIFFERENCES TO NUMBER OF CUMULATIVE
QUERY PROFILE HAPLOTYPES NUMBER OF HAPLOTYPES
0 8 8
1 39 47
2 54 101
3 178 279
4 429 708
5 584 1292
>5 2538 3830

http://www.empop.org 19-05-2008

As I understand it, the EMPOP database is the global repository of regional profiles of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
The person doing the query entered the specific mt DNA characteristics of JT's hair into the query form and found 8 exact matches in the database, i.e. at least eight maternal lines having the identical Haplotype to JT exist in Europe.
There were no exact matches in the other three regional groups.

Because of this result the inquiry could not say with absolute certainty that the hair found in Burgau actually came from JT because it could have come from any person born of a mother belonging to any of the eight profiles in the database - one profile, of course, had to be of JT's maternal line, so it could have been some distant (or close) relative.
CODE
mtDNA Number of Comparison with
profile Samples Recovered from reference samples

B 3 3 entrance hall
B1 1 1 entrance hall
-------------------------------------------------------
13 lounge
15 entrance hall
C 53 13 entrance to bedroom Haplotype of Kate Healy (Mother)
4 floor; bed next to window
1 bed of the child
7 floor; next to child's bed
-------------------------------------------------------
D 1 1 lounge
D1 1 1 entrance to bedroom
D1 1 1 floor; bed next to window
-------------------------------------------------------
F 3 1 lounge
2 entrance hall
-------------------------------------------------------
G 1 1 lounge Haplotipo de Matthew Oldfield
I 1 1 entrance hall Haplotipo de David Payne
-------------------------------------------------------
1 floor; bed next to window
J 3 1 entrance hall
1 floor; next to child's bed
-------------------------------------------------------
K 14 1 Residencia Liliana
13 vehicle(envlps 1,3,4,5 and 6)
-------------------------------------------------------
1 spot on bedspread
L 8 1 entrance to bedroom
2 entrance hall
4 floor; bed next to window
-------------------------------------------------------
M 48 13 vehicle (envlps 1,2,3 and 4)
35 Residencia Liliana Haplotipo de Robert Murat
-------------------------------------------------------
2 lounge
11 entrance hall
N 24 6 entrance to bedroom Haplotipo de Gerald Mccann
2 floor; bed next to window
3 floor; next to child's bed
-------------------------------------------------------
0 2 1 lounge
1 entrance hall Haplotipo de Russell O'Brien
-------------------------------------------------------
Q 2 1 entrance hall
1 lounge
-------------------------------------------------------
Profiles different from each other and from those above:
28 17 of which were found in the apartment.


=====================================

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE YOU SAID THERE WAS BENNETT.

muratfan01 wrote:WHICH BIT OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...INCONCLUSIVE...IT COULD NOT BE PROVED IT WAS MADELEINES...OR ANYONES.

Yes, not proved to be Madeleine's. But quite posibly, or even probably, was.

Tony Bennett wrote:

muratfan01 wrote:WHICH BIT OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...INCONCLUSIVE...IT COULD NOT BE PROVED IT WAS MADELEINES...OR ANYONES.

Yes, not proved to be Madeleine's. But quite posibly, or even probably, was.

You really are as stupid as you look aren't you.

You just cannot help yourself can you.

Slartibartfast wrote:

badmanners wrote:Be careful what you say here Tony.
You are in grave danger of repeating malicious falsehoods for which you have already been held partially to account, and the final reckoning may yet come.

Discussing what is actually in the files is one thing - extrapolating what you think might have been in them if Amaral's thesis were right is quite another.

Things like the famous initial FSS report.
Seen by Duarte Levy and who else?

Duarte was an admitted fraudster wasn't he, did Morais not out him as being full of it and having diddled her out of large sums of money? made up a load of carp about photographs that never existed either, he had a willing audience I suppose I'm only surprised he stopped there, he could have told folks anything and as long as it cast suspicion on the Mccanns it'd be lapped up.

DCB1 wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

muratfan01 wrote:The forensics on the blood said different. It was not proved to be Madeleine's.

Absolutely untrue and nonsense as you well know.

The final FSS report, amended from the first because of a second set of DNA tests, merely changed a certainty or near-certainty that the blood was Madeleine's into a tangled and convoluted set of probabilities which made the FSS at the end of the day say that the DNA results were 'inconclusive' so far as it being Madeleine's blood.

You have totally twisted that to come up with a blatant lie: "It was not proved to be Madeleine's".

DCB1 for one will back me up on what I have said.

Wow TB - that is expecting a lot from me. If you could give me a link to the missing set of DNA reports that say something different to the first then I may have some chance.

I think I can help you out there. In Amarals documentary, Levey confirmed that he had, with his own eyes, seen the missing first report. He will no doubt be able to furnish you with a copy, as well as the incriminating 24 photos.

Tony Bennett wrote:

muratfan01 wrote:WHICH BIT OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...INCONCLUSIVE...IT COULD NOT BE PROVED IT WAS MADELEINES...OR ANYONES.

Yes, not proved to be Madeleine's. But quite posibly, or even probably, was.

At least 3 people contributed to the sample and they could not be identified, Mr bennett please stop telling people lies, particularly not ones that are so obvious, all of this is in the files.

Please mr bennett, this is not a game, you are telling lies about an official police investigation

DCB1 wrote:Wow TB - that is expecting a lot from me. If you could give me a link to the missing set of DNA reports that say something different to the first then I may have some chance.

I apologise to muratfan01 and all, I had read muratfan01's post as: "It was proved not to be Madeleine's" whereas s/he actually said "It was not proved to be Madeleine's". My challenge to muratfan01 on that point was therefore misplaced and again I apologise for that as well. As for the existence of a 'first' or 'preliminary' report, I thought that was generally agreed that there was one. If you are all saying there was no preliminary report before Lowe presented his report on or about 5/6/7 September IIRC, I will have to look up my notes on the subject.

Under the circumstances I shan't prevail upon you for support DCB1, I shall come back to this thread when I see what my notes say.

Tony Bennett wrote:

DCB1 wrote:Wow TB - that is expecting a lot from me. If you could give me a link to the missing set of DNA reports that say something different to the first then I may have some chance.

I apologise to muratfan01 and all, I had read muratfan01's post as: "It was proved not to be Madeleine's" whereas s/he actually said "It was not proved to be Madeleine's". My challenge to muratfan01 on that point was therefore misplaced and again I apologise for that as well. As for the existence of a 'first' or 'preliminary' report, I thought that was generally agreed that there was one. If you are all saying there was no preliminary report before Lowe presented his report on or about 5/6/7 September IIRC, I will have to look up my notes on the subject.

Under the circumstances I shan't prevail upon you for support DCB1, I shall come back to this thread when I see what my notes say.

Your comment to me aknowledged.

Tony Bennett wrote:

muratfan01 wrote:WHICH BIT OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...INCONCLUSIVE...IT COULD NOT BE PROVED IT WAS MADELEINES...OR ANYONES.

Yes, not proved to be Madeleine's. But quite posibly, or even probably, was.

Less probable, Tony, given the nature of the sample of UP TO 5 PEOPLE.

5 people who may include Kate and Gerry( where all Madeleine's DNA comes from) and her sibling's who share a very similar DNA profile.

Given the unliklihood that people would transport a dead body at least 25 days after the fact amid the glare of constant media attention you still maintain it was more likely to be Madeleine's DNA?

Tony Bennett wrote:

DCB1 wrote:Wow TB - that is expecting a lot from me. If you could give me a link to the missing set of DNA reports that say something different to the first then I may have some chance.

I apologise to muratfan01 and all, I had read muratfan01's post as: "It was proved not to be Madeleine's" whereas s/he actually said "It was not proved to be Madeleine's". My challenge to muratfan01 on that point was therefore misplaced and again I apologise for that as well. As for the existence of a 'first' or 'preliminary' report, I thought that was generally agreed that there was one. If you are all saying there was no preliminary report before Lowe presented his report on or about 5/6/7 September IIRC, I will have to look up my notes on the subject.

Under the circumstances I shan't prevail upon you for support DCB1, I shall come back to this thread when I see what my notes say.

So you only THOUGHT there was a first report. This is what people have pointed things out to you, but you have never listened.

I can't believe what I am reading here.
TWO YEARS it took Tony Bennett to realise that there is no first preliminary report except in the mind of fantasist, Duarte Levy.
I await for Tony Bennett to return with the alleged document that was alegedly revised.
A hint to Tony, IT DOESN'T EXIST like so many other stories dreamt up by Levy.

Just to clarify - my notes are the released files. (Brunt was wrong)