Dr. Martin Roberts and claims about Kate McCann and perjury

by C.Edwards 20.11.12 12:28

In his piece "You can bet on the law" from 7th December last year, Dr. Roberts (DMR from now) says that Kate explicitly committed perjury at the Leveson enquiry by stating "There were no body fluids." DMR goes on to quote the FSS response "A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area" as evidence for that claim of perjury.

I've been re-reading the reports and I can't see how "cellular material" as quoted can be taken as "body fluids" per se. I may be missing something but couldn't cellular material be, I dunno, dandruff, skin flakes, even hair? I found a reference within the report stating "it is not possible to
attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid" talking about swab 3a, but weren't swabs 3a and 3b from the apartment floor and not the car?

Is there anything that actually states anywhere that body fluids were found in that luggage compartment, because if there aren't, I find it somewhat disappointing that DMR is making a very hard claim of perjury where there appears to be nothing corroborating his claim? I'm kind of surprised that the McCanns aren't going after him in the same way they're going for TB if this is the case.

Candyfloss, you're usually a dab hand at finding reference material - can you drop a link in here if you find something please?
Dr. Martin Roberts and claims about Kate McCann and perjury 636506

Dr. Martin Roberts and claims about Kate McCann and perjury 636506

by **tigger** 20.11.12 12:48

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

Above is the reference you need, it's quite a long read.

Clearly it is cellular material from which the DNA is extracted since the DNA was present in body fluids that had leaked into the cellular material. It was not extracted from epithelial cells or tissue, otherwise this would have been in the report.
After several months it cannot be expected that the material would still be either wet or damp. Especially since the car had been aired for weeks on end.

Besides, Kate stated that nappies might have leaked in the boot, that in itself would be evidence of fluids. They initially did not deny the DNA evidence, just that the source was leaking nappies or leaking meat, by the time of the Leveson inquiry there was no fluid whatsoever.

by C.Edwards 20.11.12 13:41

Thanks tigger, I'll have a read! I may be some time....

by Smokeandmirrors 22.11.12 6:28

Interesting - point 13 of the description of Eddie and Keelas investigation of the cars states that the key fob was concealed under a sand box within the car park, and was located by the dog. I had overlooked this before, but strengthens the work of the dogs. Presumably the sand box didn't have a poster on it, thus giving the dog a clue!!