Re: Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a

by Joss 21.10.14 2:22

Nina wrote:
Joss wrote:Did they ever find out who this forensic evidence belonged to?

2-Nature of the sample

Acid Phosphatase Test to detect semen on the small spot on the cloth fragment in envelope no. 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Weakly positive.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
yes was discovered to be the saliva of a toddler who had been a guest in 5A just before the McCanns. Sorry Joss but I am struggling with data availability so cannot go searching for you for the results.

Thanks for your reply, and i don't expect you to research for me, :) From what i did read about that evidence it was destroyed once out of Portugal.
I don't know how they could mistake one for the other but it is what it is.

by Snifferdog 21.10.14 5:53

Yes - how could they possibly mistake one for the other??? This case is full of improbabilities!

by nglfi 21.10.14 9:27

Snifferdog wrote:Yes - how could they possibly mistake one for the other??? This case is full of improbabilities!

I've just finished reading the new Jack the Ripper book, where DNA was analysed from one of the victim's supposed shawls. Due to the age of the item only very partial samples could be obtained, so what was found in the end were squamous cells. I'm not much of a scientist and don't remember the exact explanation, but it was said that squamous cells can come from saliva, urine or semen because they are epithelial (I think from the skin surrounding those areas). The way they determined it was semen on the shawl was by putting a sort of dye on it and showing it up in UV light. Semen showed up green whereas saliva was a different colour. I think if they could only obtain a partial match for the DNA in 5a it could be that they originally thought it was Semen before further testing.

by **PeterMac** 21.10.14 9:52

nglfi wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Yes - how could they possibly mistake one for the other??? This case is full of improbabilities!
I've just finished reading the new Jack the Ripper book, where DNA was analysed from one of the victim's supposed shawls. .

You may know that the alleged results have been disproved in the last week or so.

by Guest 21.10.14 9:58

PeterMac wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Yes - how could they possibly mistake one for the other??? This case is full of improbabilities!
I've just finished reading the new Jack the Ripper book, where DNA was analysed from one of the victim's supposed shawls. .

You may know that the alleged results have been disproved in the last week or so.

Indeed.

Massive blunder in the analysis.

by nglfi 21.10.14 10:07

PeterMac wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Yes - how could they possibly mistake one for the other??? This case is full of improbabilities!
I've just finished reading the new Jack the Ripper book, where DNA was analysed from one of the victim's supposed shawls. .

You may know that the alleged results have been disproved in the last week or so.

No, I didn't, what has been disproved? Depending on what has been disproved I would say that the method still holds true, in that based on a partial extraction, it may not be immediately obvious whether cells are semen or saliva?

by nglfi 21.10.14 11:16

I've just finished reading an article in the Independent which explained the error. It's disappointing but I wouldn't say it quite disproves the shawl belonged to Eddowes. I don't want to get off topic but the disproving apparently refers to one of the DNA profiles found, where the scientist in question has made an error of nomenclature. Where he thought the profile he had found was incredibly rare and greatly increased the chances that the shawl belonged to Eddowes, the profile he found was actually quite common and could belong to almost any European person. However the other samples found and the haplotype data are unaffected by this and it is just one profile that provided a match. Anyway the only point I was making is that it seems fairly common for a partial match to be initially unclear whether it is semen or saliva :)

by Naz_Nomad 21.10.14 12:26

I posted a comment on a news site, (I paraphrase) "Let's hope the forensic evidence isn't lost or destroyed this time" and received this reply.

"...no evidence was lost or accidentally destroyed, this is a fallacy.
Certain items are destroyed along carefully regulated guidelines. A letter was written to the Portuguese inquiry, stating they had 30 days to put a stop to these items being destroyed, no stop order was sent. This is normal everyday practice and the fact someone has used this as support for a conspiracy theory means either they are too stupid to read the documents or they used this information for mischievous purposes."

How true is this?

by Doug D 21.10.14 12:54

Second document down is the letter relating to the destruction of samples.

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

Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a - Page 9 09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2282

Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a - Page 9 09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2282

by LombardySkeptik 21.10.14 14:01

Joss wrote:
Nina wrote:
Joss wrote:Did they ever find out who this forensic evidence belonged to?

2-Nature of the sample

Acid Phosphatase Test to detect semen on the small spot on the cloth fragment in envelope no. 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Weakly positive.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
yes was discovered to be the saliva of a toddler who had been a guest in 5A just before the McCanns. Sorry Joss but I am struggling with data availability so cannot go searching for you for the results.

Thanks for your reply, and i don't expect you to research for me, :) From what i did read about that evidence it was destroyed once out of Portugal.
I don't know how they could mistake one for the other but it is what it is.

In forensics -- The presence of acid phosphatase to determine if a substance/fluid is semen is standard practice - various tests for this exist

However, depending on the specific testing method used, saliva can also show positive (in this sense a false positive (False for semen)) - I'm not sure of the specificity of the test usedin this case

Perhaps of interest to our readers is the other rather well known false positive for semen using Acid phosphatase tests ---- Tea stains!

by Joss 21.10.14 15:20

LombardySkeptik wrote:
Joss wrote:
Nina wrote:
Joss wrote:Did they ever find out who this forensic evidence belonged to?

2-Nature of the sample

Acid Phosphatase Test to detect semen on the small spot on the cloth fragment in envelope no. 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Weakly positive.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
yes was discovered to be the saliva of a toddler who had been a guest in 5A just before the McCanns. Sorry Joss but I am struggling with data availability so cannot go searching for you for the results.

Thanks for your reply, and i don't expect you to research for me, :) From what i did read about that evidence it was destroyed once out of Portugal.
I don't know how they could mistake one for the other but it is what it is.

In forensics -- The presence of acid phosphatase to determine if a substance/fluid is semen is standard practice - various tests for this exist

However, depending on the specific testing method used, saliva can also show positive (in this sense a false positive (False for semen)) - I'm not sure of the specificity of the test usedin this case

Perhaps of interest to our readers is the other rather well known false positive for semen using Acid phosphatase tests ---- Tea stains!

I did a little bit of research on forensics earlier, and they do use different methods for testing different substances, but didn't see anything about tea stains, interesting.

by bobbin 21.10.14 15:43

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24443142

Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014 Mar;10(1):69-75. doi: 10.1007/s12024-013-9515-6. Epub 2014 Jan 18.
Sensitivity and specificity of presumptive tests for blood, saliva and semen.
Vennemann M, Scott G, Curran L, Bittner F, Tobe SS.

Author information

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Despite their wide use, the limits of presumptive tests can be poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the specificity and sensitivity of conventional, as well as innovative, presumptive tests for blood, semen and saliva.

METHODS:

We investigated Kastle-Meyer (KM) and leucomalachite green (LMG) tests for blood with regard to their sensitivity and specificity in the presence of oxidizing (hypochlorite) and anti-oxidizing (ascorbic acid) agents. The suitability and specificity of the red starch paper (RSP) test for saliva was assessed. Finally, the inhibitory effect of detergent on the acid phosphatase (AP) test for semen was investigated along with possible cross reactions to tea stains.

RESULTS:

Our results confirm previous findings of higher sensitivity and specificity of the KM test compared to LMG test for blood. Contrary to previous studies, no statistically significant difference was observed in the sensitivity of the tests between dry and wet stains. The novel RSP test was found to successfully detect saliva. We demonstrated that acid phosphatase (AP) testing for semen is possible on used RSP. A common multipurpose detergent had an inhibitory effect on AP tests. False positive results were obtained from tea stains. Testing different sorts of tea (black, green and herbal teas) revealed that only Camellia varieties produce positive result with the AP test, due to AP being present in the plants.

CONCLUSIONS:

From our results we conclude that specific knowledge of each test, including substances that may affect the test outcome, is imperative to ensure correct interpretation of presumptive test results.
PMID:24443142 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Now why did Kate make such a do about washing a tea stain out, obviously using some sort of detergent ?

ETA good find LombardySkeptik clapping

by **PeterMac** 21.10.14 15:51

by bobbin 21.10.14 15:53

PeterMac wrote:

by Joss 21.10.14 16:41

PeterMac wrote:

by Gaggzy 21.10.14 17:01

bobbin wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24443142

Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014 Mar;10(1):69-75. doi: 10.1007/s12024-013-9515-6. Epub 2014 Jan 18.
Sensitivity and specificity of presumptive tests for blood, saliva and semen.
Vennemann M, Scott G, Curran L, Bittner F, Tobe SS.
Author information

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Despite their wide use, the limits of presumptive tests can be poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the specificity and sensitivity of conventional, as well as innovative, presumptive tests for blood, semen and saliva.
METHODS:

We investigated Kastle-Meyer (KM) and leucomalachite green (LMG) tests for blood with regard to their sensitivity and specificity in the presence of oxidizing (hypochlorite) and anti-oxidizing (ascorbic acid) agents. The suitability and specificity of the red starch paper (RSP) test for saliva was assessed. Finally, the inhibitory effect of detergent on the acid phosphatase (AP) test for semen was investigated along with possible cross reactions to tea stains.
RESULTS:

Our results confirm previous findings of higher sensitivity and specificity of the KM test compared to LMG test for blood. Contrary to previous studies, no statistically significant difference was observed in the sensitivity of the tests between dry and wet stains. The novel RSP test was found to successfully detect saliva. We demonstrated that acid phosphatase (AP) testing for semen is possible on used RSP. A common multipurpose detergent had an inhibitory effect on AP tests. False positive results were obtained from tea stains. Testing different sorts of tea (black, green and herbal teas) revealed that only Camellia varieties produce positive result with the AP test, due to AP being present in the plants.
CONCLUSIONS:

From our results we conclude that specific knowledge of each test, including substances that may affect the test outcome, is imperative to ensure correct interpretation of presumptive test results.
PMID:24443142 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Now why did Kate make such a do about washing a tea stain out, obviously using some sort of detergent ?

ETA good find LombardySkeptik

Those McCann kids, eh?

Tiny tots drinking tea when the norm is warm milk.

Eating Sea Bass when the norm is Fish Fingers.

What have they progressed to now? Pate de foie gras? Baluga caviar? Veal and venison steaks?

Well - what the hell - mum and dad can afford it.

The tea stain / semen link here with reference to a missing little girl's pyjamas just adds to the horror.

by bobbin 21.10.14 17:12

Gaggzy wrote:
bobbin wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24443142

Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014 Mar;10(1):69-75. doi: 10.1007/s12024-013-9515-6. Epub 2014 Jan 18.
Sensitivity and specificity of presumptive tests for blood, saliva and semen.
Vennemann M, Scott G, Curran L, Bittner F, Tobe SS.
Author information

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Despite their wide use, the limits of presumptive tests can be poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the specificity and sensitivity of conventional, as well as innovative, presumptive tests for blood, semen and saliva.
METHODS:

We investigated Kastle-Meyer (KM) and leucomalachite green (LMG) tests for blood with regard to their sensitivity and specificity in the presence of oxidizing (hypochlorite) and anti-oxidizing (ascorbic acid) agents. The suitability and specificity of the red starch paper (RSP) test for saliva was assessed. Finally, the inhibitory effect of detergent on the acid phosphatase (AP) test for semen was investigated along with possible cross reactions to tea stains.
RESULTS:

Our results confirm previous findings of higher sensitivity and specificity of the KM test compared to LMG test for blood. Contrary to previous studies, no statistically significant difference was observed in the sensitivity of the tests between dry and wet stains. The novel RSP test was found to successfully detect saliva. We demonstrated that acid phosphatase (AP) testing for semen is possible on used RSP. A common multipurpose detergent had an inhibitory effect on AP tests. False positive results were obtained from tea stains. Testing different sorts of tea (black, green and herbal teas) revealed that only Camellia varieties produce positive result with the AP test, due to AP being present in the plants.
CONCLUSIONS:

From our results we conclude that specific knowledge of each test, including substances that may affect the test outcome, is imperative to ensure correct interpretation of presumptive test results.
PMID:24443142 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Now why did Kate make such a do about washing a tea stain out, obviously using some sort of detergent ?

ETA good find LombardySkeptik

Those McCann kids, eh?

Tiny tots drinking tea when the norm is warm milk.

Eating Sea Bass when the norm is Fish Fingers.

What have they progressed to now? Pate de foie gras? Baluga caviar? Veal and venison steaks?

Well - what the hell - mum and dad can afford it.

The tea stain / semen link here with reference to a missing little girl's pyjamas just adds to the horror.

The tea stain apparently, oh if only Kate's claim could be believed, was for the previous or pre-previous day.
Perhaps someone can verify if they have reference to hand.

It was already dry apparently, so had been deposited on the pyjama top prior to being discovered.

I have since the start, and with the first Brunt report of a fine spray of blood consistent with a broken thorax, or words to that effect, had my own views of what might have happened, in view of the claim from Kate and Gerry McCann that a gang of paedophiles was involved in Maddie's disappearance.

I will not be writing what those thoughts have been.

Were they ever to be found out to be the actual facts of the case, and this remains to be discovered, then I am in no doubt that allowing Madeleine's body to be subjected to an autopsy would be the last thing that would be permitted.

by Doug D 21.10.14 17:30

Thursday 3^rd May………… woke in the children’s bedroom……….

P.63

‘The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on M’s pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn’t recall seeing it the night before…………..’

by Nina 21.10.14 17:54

Gaggzy wrote:
bobbin wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24443142

Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014 Mar;10(1):69-75. doi: 10.1007/s12024-013-9515-6. Epub 2014 Jan 18.
Sensitivity and specificity of presumptive tests for blood, saliva and semen.
Vennemann M, Scott G, Curran L, Bittner F, Tobe SS.
Author information

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Despite their wide use, the limits of presumptive tests can be poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the specificity and sensitivity of conventional, as well as innovative, presumptive tests for blood, semen and saliva.
METHODS:

We investigated Kastle-Meyer (KM) and leucomalachite green (LMG) tests for blood with regard to their sensitivity and specificity in the presence of oxidizing (hypochlorite) and anti-oxidizing (ascorbic acid) agents. The suitability and specificity of the red starch paper (RSP) test for saliva was assessed. Finally, the inhibitory effect of detergent on the acid phosphatase (AP) test for semen was investigated along with possible cross reactions to tea stains.
RESULTS:

Our results confirm previous findings of higher sensitivity and specificity of the KM test compared to LMG test for blood. Contrary to previous studies, no statistically significant difference was observed in the sensitivity of the tests between dry and wet stains. The novel RSP test was found to successfully detect saliva. We demonstrated that acid phosphatase (AP) testing for semen is possible on used RSP. A common multipurpose detergent had an inhibitory effect on AP tests. False positive results were obtained from tea stains. Testing different sorts of tea (black, green and herbal teas) revealed that only Camellia varieties produce positive result with the AP test, due to AP being present in the plants.
CONCLUSIONS:

From our results we conclude that specific knowledge of each test, including substances that may affect the test outcome, is imperative to ensure correct interpretation of presumptive test results.
PMID:24443142 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Now why did Kate make such a do about washing a tea stain out, obviously using some sort of detergent ?

ETA good find LombardySkeptik

Those McCann kids, eh?

Tiny tots drinking tea when the norm is warm milk.

Eating Sea Bass when the norm is Fish Fingers.

What have they progressed to now? Pate de foie gras? Baluga caviar? Veal and venison steaks?

Well - what the hell - mum and dad can afford it.

The tea stain / semen link here with reference to a missing little girl's pyjamas just adds to the horror.

Haha, strange all this non child food being eaten in the McCann household yet the video where Daddy McCann is coming home from work there is a shot in that where Amelie is flicking cauliflower around the worktop and Kate says it's the first time she'd had cauliflower cheese. Sea Bass fine but good old staple cauli cheese nah.

by j.rob 21.10.14 18:05

Kate writes a bit more about the tea stain on Madeleine's Eeyore pyjama top. And about the pyjamas.

From page 64:

At breakfast time:

"The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn't recall seeing it the night before and I had no idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup. So, at the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was. But now, of course, we can no longer make assumptions about anything that cannot be accounted for."

Page 65:

Just before lunch-time:

"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine's pyjama top on the veranda."

Page 65:

At around 6.30pm:

"Here is another of those vivid, now cherished memories: Madeleine, in her Eeyore pyjamas, sitting on my lap and cuddling in - something of which she was especially fond when she was tired."

-----------

Interesting that Kate is keen to tell the reader that she washed out the possible tea stain from Madeleine's pyjama top. And that the top was dried out on the veranda. And was dry enough to be able to be put back on by just after 6pm when Kate writes that she was drying the children after their bath. (Would that be possible given the cool weather conditions that day - although it was windy?)

Also of note is that Kate is vague about when Madeleine could have drunk the tea. She doesn't write: "Madeleine hadn't drunk tea the night before so how could it have got there?' Or: 'I remember that Madeleine did ask for a cup of tea at tea-time the evening before, so that could account for it.'

Kate would have remembered what the children had drunk at tea-time the evening before. But she is deliberately vague. Very unlikely for a nearly four year old to have had a cup of tea at children's dinner. Not impossible, but very unlikely, imo.

by Gaggzy 21.10.14 18:32

j.rob wrote:Kate writes a bit more about the tea stain on Madeleine's Eeyore pyjama top. And about the pyjamas.

From page 64:

At breakfast time:

"The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn't recall seeing it the night before and I had no idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup. So, at the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was. But now, of course, we can no longer make assumptions about anything that cannot be accounted for."

Page 65:

Just before lunch-time:

"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine's pyjama top on the veranda."

Page 65:

At around 6.30pm:

"Here is another of those vivid, now cherished memories: Madeleine, in her Eeyore pyjamas, sitting on my lap and cuddling in - something of which she was especially fond when she was tired."

-----------

Interesting that Kate is keen to tell the reader that she washed out the possible tea stain from Madeleine's pyjama top. And that the top was dried out on the veranda. And was dry enough to be able to be put back on by just after 6pm when Kate writes that she was drying the children after their bath. (Would that be possible given the cool weather conditions that day - although it was windy?)

Also of note is that Kate is vague about when Madeleine could have drunk the tea. She doesn't write: "Madeleine hadn't drunk tea the night before so how could it have got there?' Or: 'I remember that Madeleine did ask for a cup of tea at tea-time the evening before, so that could account for it.'

Kate would have remembered what the children had drunk at tea-time the evening before. But she is deliberately vague. Very unlikely for a nearly four year old to have had a cup of tea at children's dinner. Not impossible, but very unlikely, imo.

A quote from Kate McCann which doesn't make sense seeing as they can't account for Madeleine's whereabouts, yet they make the 'assumption' that she was abducted by a predatory paedophile.

I completely agree with the final sentence of your post, j. rob.

by Stillthinking 21.10.14 19:13

j.rob wrote:
Kate would have remembered what the children had drunk at tea-time the evening before. But she is deliberately vague. Very unlikely for a nearly four year old to have had a cup of tea at children's dinner. Not impossible, but very unlikely, imo.

She wouldn't have been wearing her pyjama top at the children's high tea though.

The mention of the tea stain has always interested me though as an example of giving extra detail about something seemingly unimportant.

by Hicks 21.10.14 19:18

The explanation for the tea stain story could be quite a simple one..... "the only other unexplained detail I remember from..THAT MORNING...(May 3rd)

The story is placing Madeleine alive on the Thursday morning, and also planting the idea that an abductor had been around the night before. Two birds one stone.

Imo poor Madeleine was no longer alive on Thursday morning.

by Stillthinking 21.10.14 19:36

Not being alive before the 3rd is too much of a push for me

I saw it more as an attempt to explain either:

Why the top had been wet and hanging out to dry that day
What the stain was in case anybody had seen it whilst it was drying
What the stain was in case the top was ever found

by Hicks 21.10.14 20:05

justhinking wrote:Not being alive before the 3rd is too much of a push for me

I saw it more as an attempt to explain either:

Why the top had been wet and hanging out to dry that day
What the stain was in case anybody had seen it whilst it was drying
What the stain was in case the top was ever found

If Madeleine had died on the Thursday,early evening or later, why would anyone wonder why her top was drying outside on that day? There would be no reason to question why it had been washed.

I doubt anyone would have seen what Kate was drying outside anyway. Look at 5a and the balcony.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzrearaptd.jpg&target=tlx_picr3x0.