Re: The Express 29/10/14 Untested human hairs provide new hope in police hunt for DNA clues

by biggles 30.10.14 10:04

Joss wrote:
biggles wrote:The sedation, plus Kate's 'what do you mean you woke up?' comment, has rather sinister implications imo. I don't believe M would have accidentally eaten sleeping pills. Rather, she was being routinely sedated for the purposes of abuse and happened to wake up early during one such occasion. The dose was increased next time but unfortunately she didnt wake up
Are you referring to Kate asking Madeleine that? Was that the crying episode when Madeleine asked her mother why she didn't come when her and Sean were crying the night before?

I believe this was something Kate had said in an interview, and yes it was something she was recalling as having said to Madeleine. I read it on this forum although I'm not sure of the authenticity of the quote

by Joss 30.10.14 10:07

joyce1938 wrote:Thanks for your reply josse, you might be right on this ,joyce1938

You're welcome Joyce, and i guess if its not ok. mods can let us know. :flower:

by ChippyM 30.10.14 11:20

'Untested' hairs are to be 're-tested' .....and the Express 'journalist' doesn't notice the problem there!?

Some hairs that were tested didn't give conclusive results earlier so that must equal a stranger was in the apartment of course that can be the ONLY explanation. Someone is working very hard to keep this non-story in the papers to continue the abductor myth.

by Joss 30.10.14 11:52

biggles wrote:
Joss wrote:
biggles wrote:The sedation, plus Kate's 'what do you mean you woke up?' comment, has rather sinister implications imo. I don't believe M would have accidentally eaten sleeping pills. Rather, she was being routinely sedated for the purposes of abuse and happened to wake up early during one such occasion. The dose was increased next time but unfortunately she didnt wake up
Are you referring to Kate asking Madeleine that? Was that the crying episode when Madeleine asked her mother why she didn't come when her and Sean were crying the night before?

I believe this was something Kate had said in an interview, and yes it was something she was recalling as having said to Madeleine. I read it on this forum although I'm not sure of the authenticity of the quote

Thankyou for your reply.

by Joss 30.10.14 11:57

ChippyM wrote:'Untested' hairs are to be 're-tested' .....and the Express 'journalist' doesn't notice the problem there!?

Some hairs that were tested didn't give conclusive results earlier so that must equal a stranger was in the apartment of course that can be the ONLY explanation. Someone is working very hard to keep this non-story in the papers to continue the abductor myth.

It certainly seems that way, and i think this whole case has been about exonerating the parents of any guilt in what happened to Madeleine from the very start. Poor Madeleine.

by XTC 30.10.14 23:55

Hobs wrote:
XTC wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Do you think the MSM know what is coming perhaps behind the scenes of newspapers etc they know what is coming and so have no fear of
litigation? Or am I being hopelessly optimistic
noddy100

That's an interesting view of things.

From The Express article;

“We talked about non-identified material that was collected in Madeleine’s apartment.

“I can’t say for sure new DNA tests that didn’t yield a conclusive result in 2007 could now yield an objective result.

“But technology nowadays allows us to go further than years ago in areas like genetic markers.

One of the non identified people is the person they are seeking to find namely: Madeleine McCann.

This may be in 5a and/or the Scenic or perhaps elsewhere?

The FSS struggled to even match the hair colouring of Madeleine if I remember correctly so as far as the hair studying goes
then why not. The more DNA markers you can test against the better I imagine. Madeleine was not blonde by the way.

They now have ( or should have?) a film print and analysis of Madeleine's Nuclear DNA. Plenty of markers there to try and match
collected samples against should they wish to do so and not just the hair.

432 human hairs and 98 unknown and 19 partial matches.

Can we assume from these figures that the INML/PJ/FSS/LP/ OG know who these ' known ' hairs belong to?

Can they be excluded?

The 98 plus 19 partial matched hairs are therefore unknown?

They could be people who are not on a DNA database or those who didn't give DNA samples by mouth swab.

That's a lot of people to test for.

In my humble opinion this is what can happen when you are soley searching for potential abductors and not the abducted person.

There is a whole world to aim at when really your search should concentrate on the small world of PdL and where the events were
alleged to have taken place.

The dog indications require corroborative back up by further forensic evidence. The finding of this evidence is more important
than the finding of an alleged abductor. The abductor is only an allegation whereas the dogs are an indication ( indicating to something
that should be investigated further ) and because that avenue has not been explored further and dispensed with then it remains that
there is no proof of an abductor forensically. That is, someone who shouldn't have been in 5a was in 5a.

Back to Madeleine - a person who most certainly should have been in 5a - but not the Scenic.

As far as I'm aware no trace of Madeleine has been found in 5a. We've had control samples from the parents matched to the pillowcase
brought from Rothley and even a bloodspot in a cardboard frame ( Nuclear DNA?) received on the 12/10/07 at the FSS.

As good a set of markers to test forensic collections against as you could find. Yet, despite all these assets not a trace of Madeleine
has been found where she should have been and a trace has been found where she shouldn't have been underpinned by the dogs.

If DI Redwood wants to test anything he could do no better than to use any newfound forensic skills to find out where Madeleine WAS first
and then he might get a clue where Madeleine went and as she was being removed she might have left a forensic trail elsewhwere.

Finding the alleged abductor first and working backwards towards where Madeleine was is never going to work. Simply because your
alleged abductor has to be forensically linked to 5a and Madeleine herself.

SY's theory appears to be find the abductor(s) and then attempt to find some of Madeleine's DNA from something in their possssion and try and match any
DNA found in 5a with the abductor as well - say on curtains or hair etc. That is a very long shot indeed in my opinion.

No Madeleine in 5a means there cannot be an abductor in 5a. She couldn't have been in there to be removed.

They have to establish the fact that she was in 5a to be taken first in my opinion.

They have the finest control samples to test against.

They have plenty of readouts from the FSS and INML as to all forensic evidence collected and the DNA within it ( mixed or otherwise)

Nothing wrong with testing the hairs against these control samples if they can?

Basically a total review of all the forensic collections might be useful.

It may reveal somethings that they had not initially considered.

Perhaps the Express may have considered a few things too?

All opinion though.
They should have been able to obtain DNA samples from the clothing Maddie was wearing the day she was allegedly abducted, clothing she had worn on previous days such as underwear, swimsuit, shoes, slippers etc.
There should also have been her DNA on the bedding from the bed she allegedly slept in (though i would have tested all the bedding in the apartment)The hairbrush ( they would have obtained plenty of hairs and could match them up to the parents, the twins, Maddie, the bead that kate gently removed from Maddie's hair, towels, toothbrush ( yes i know their was only one allegedly, again they should be able to see whose DNA was on it and eliminate it and
Cuddlecat.

when they presented something for the dogs to sniff and then track her, why did they give them a towel which could contain anyones DNA and would explain the dogs tracking to the supermarket ( if they scented one or both the mccanns or someone else and since the donor would be live they could track them to the supermarket. Why not give them something that would likely contain only or mostly Maddie's scent?

Why was there so little trace of Maddie and even the twins in the apartment?
The apartment should have been swamped with DNA from all the children since they tend to leak at both ends and there would be saliva, sweat, tears, snot, urine, faeces, hairs and so on.
The place should have been covered in toddler fingerprints nose prints and anything else toddlers do.

Instead we have an apartment that looked way too clean and tidy considering there were three toddlers in there for a week.

It isn't just what is there that shouldn't be that arouses suspicion.
It is also what isn't there that should be that arouses suspicion.

The latter can indicate a thorough, if not forensic clean up.
This then begs the question, if the parents / children do not have OCD regarding cleanliness, why would the apartment be almost forensically clean, even to the living room curtains being washed?

This only makes sense if the apartment had been cleaned to conceal a crime or evidence of a crime, in thi case the death of Madeleine.

Why then would they need to conceal Maddie's death even to disposing of her body thus preventing an autopsy?

An accident wouldn't warrant such a cover up , since they happen all the time on vacations, as we see in the papers almost daily.

An overdose could be explained away as Maddie found the tablets and ate them thinking they were candy, something the mccanns would be familiar with.

This leads me to wonder if they were forced to cover up her death and disposal since allowing an autopsy would reveal a cause of death that could not be easily explained away as an accident.
Was there perhaps evidence of prior physical abuse such as bruises, cuts and grazes, fractures which had healed, old scars, signs on sexual abuse perhaps?
Would their refusal to allow the medical records reveal perhaps frequent UTI's, regular trips to the GP or hospital, signs of medical health problems associated with coloboma or perhaps other health problems such as autism
Were there no visits to the GP?
Visits that were expected such as vaccinations or scheduled visits expected with health issues such as monitoring her coloboma and any associated health problems which never took place ( perhaps indicating they self medicated/prescribed)

Instead of seeing the expected would they instead be seeing the unexpected?

Perhaps even there were doubts about who was the father?
Looks alone don't guarantee she was gerry's since donors are chosen that look like which ever parent(s) so the child will look like part of the family and not stick out like a sore thumb)
Maybe gerry thought he was and it turns out he wasn't and they didn't tell him.
Maybe kate wasn't the bio mom and donor eggs were used ?

It may in part explain why she never bonded with Maddie.

IVF children do tend to have a higher risk of health issues.

IVF is also considered a sin in the catholic church

The medical records could be revealing in what is learned about health issues, parentage and so on.

Bank records could also reveal perhaps they were having financial difficulties ( it would explain the mortgage payments)

Both could provide a motive.

What is clear is that all of thgem need to be hauled in for questioning under caution, all at the same time in different stations (making sure their phones are out of reach to prevent surreptitious texting) and then statements compared in real time and discrepancies pursued and investigated.

Hello Hobs and thanks for your reply.

There's a lot in your reply to ponder for sure.

On the Textusa blog there is a reference to 5a being forensically cleaned after May the 3rd. I thought that it was sealed off at around 2.30pm on the early morning of May the 4th?

I have read that Controlled Risks Group were around early on but surely they couldn't have barged past the Portuguese police standing guard at 5a with a cleaning crew as some on the blogs suggest.

I'm certainly not saying that is your view but the cleaning of 5a after is not reasonable in my opinion. Before the removal though it could be.

But frantic or organised cleaning between 6.30pm and 8.30pm or later did not remove all forensic traces in 5a as hairs and other cellular material from other people ( past and present ) would not have been found.

My only criticism of the PJ is that once 5a was sealed off they should have removed and analysed every item in the childrens bedroom including the floor tiles and curtains but particularly the bedding in the cots and the two single beds. The one near the window may have
given up a few clues whether their was an abductor or no abductor. the window sill inside and out revealed nothing I think.

As I said in the previous post the control samples are provenanced and await a match to Madeleine. SY appear to want to find a match to
an abductor or abductors by the process of finding someone in 5a who shouldn't have been in there. To do that you have to know who should have been in there in the past or before 2.30am on the night of May the 4th when it was sealed off and eliminate them.

One theory could be that the cleaning was carried out earlier and then innocently people in a panicky search would re-contaminate 5a with their forensic material. If that's a possibility then Madeleine couldn't re-contaminate 5a as she wasn't there?

Yet Eddie and Keela both indicated to what they are trained to indicate to many weeks later. Some traces remained there as the blood dog
Keela indicates to blood. Eddie indicates to cadaver scent. Despite the alleged cleaning some remained. We now have the curtains - although which rooms curtains SY want to analyse is a bit vague as they are media reports.

I agree with you that all the DNA possibilities to find Madeleine were not explored first before the mad dash to Rothley but it would have been
useful ( or indicative ) to test Madeleine's toothbrush against the control sample eventually too as that would be a clue to the fact that she was in 5a and used the toothbrush. Incidentally would the parents share a toothbrush?

Socks and sandals are a good skin cell source as well I think.

I'm rambling a bit so for me it remains fairly simple question for all the investigators in Portugal or the UK:

Can you be sure that Madeleine was in 5a that night and can you prove that fact objectively by present day scientific methods rather than subjective witness statements?

You could possibly find Madeleine in the curtains or anyone else for that matter but unless the finds are something unusual then at least you could place the young girl in the place where she was meant to be.

The question is whether SY will try to re-analyse ALL the evidence and not just some of the evidence?

They don't appear to me to have a great track record with investigating all of the ALLS so far.

All opinion though.

p.s.

I don't know what sleeping tablets taste like but paracetomol is bitter as are aspirins. Children like us adults would not eat
something that tasted foul I think. Other over the counter or under the counter stuff might have a nicer taste. Personally
I like the taste of Benelyn but if I drank a whole bottle I'm not sure what would happen. Whichever way if you needed to sedate children
in hospital or at home whatever you used it would have to either have no taste or taste very pleasant I think.

by missbeetle 31.10.14 0:40

Clonazepam tablets - both the white 2mg and the orange 0.5mg - have no taste to them - both are chewable...

...personal experience only and not to be taken as medical advice!

by woodforthetrees 31.10.14 8:53

I read an article somewhere (and i cannot for the life of me find it!) that at the time, it was not possible to determine whether the hairs were from a living, or deceased person.

Advances in testing in certain parts of Europe can now determine this, which is one of the reasons Amaral has been wanting the hairs re-tested.

If the hairs in the boot of the car show to be from a deceased person, the only explanation then from the Mcs could be "someone stored her for a few weeks, then broke into our apartment again, took our Renault Scenic keys, stole our car with the body in and disposed of her, then returned the car all to stitch us up under the watchful eyes of the media"

At that point, the game would be well and truly over

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 10:45

woodforthetrees wrote:. . .
If the hairs in the boot of the car show to be from a deceased person, the only explanation then from the Mcs could be "someone stored her for a few weeks, then broke into our apartment again, took our Renault Scenic keys, stole our car with the body in and disposed of her, then returned the car all to stitch us up under the watchful eyes of the media"
.. .

Sounds reasonable to me !
About as reasonable as entering simultaneously through the front door AND the patio door
The shutters being smashed, jammied AND undamaged
The curtains being wide open AND tight closed
The curtains "whooshing" AND being ticked down between the bed and the wall
As seeing two tiny children through the tight mesh walls of travel cots and noting that they were breathing, AND not bothering to see if the third child was even THERE, let alone breathing
As being a qualified paediatric anaesthetist AND not bothering to do any of the normal clinical checks on two comatose children

It all fits perfectly - if you live in a parallel McUniverse, with a McLegal system, and the investigation is being done by McPolice

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

by The....truth 31.10.14 10:49

Aka.....McPlod

by woodforthetrees 31.10.14 13:21

I agree PeterMac, though so far they've managed to worm their way out of various inconsistencies, implausible scenarios and situations as we well know.

However, if they can identify that the hairs in the boot of the car are from a deceased person, even if they aren't a 100% DNA match to Madeleines and 'could be made up from DNA from the parents/other children' as suggested, the one, simple question they would need to try and worm out of is this....

"So, just to clarify.... If you are alive Gerry, Kate is alive and the twins are alive, that rules the hair out as being from you lot, then which member of the McCann family, who, as we know, has McCann DNA in the boot of the car (indisputable) is deceased if it's not Madeleine?"

**Awkward silence*

IMO of course.

by Stillthinking 31.10.14 13:38

woodforthetrees wrote:I read an article somewhere (and i cannot for the life of me find it!) that at the time, it was not possible to determine whether the hairs were from a living, or deceased person.

Advances in testing in certain parts of Europe can now determine this, which is one of the reasons Amaral has been wanting the hairs re-tested.

If the hairs in the boot of the car show to be from a deceased person, the only explanation then from the Mcs could be "someone stored her for a few weeks, then broke into our apartment again, took our Renault Scenic keys, stole our car with the body in and disposed of her, then returned the car all to stitch us up under the watchful eyes of the media"

At that point, the game would be well and truly over

I read that too but I thought the main problem wasn't that it couldn't be done back then but that it couldn't be done if the hairs had no roots... and that the hairs they wanted testing had no roots. Not sure if progress has been made in that area.

by Guest 31.10.14 13:45

Stillthinking wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:I read an article somewhere (and i cannot for the life of me find it!) that at the time, it was not possible to determine whether the hairs were from a living, or deceased person.

Advances in testing in certain parts of Europe can now determine this, which is one of the reasons Amaral has been wanting the hairs re-tested.

If the hairs in the boot of the car show to be from a deceased person, the only explanation then from the Mcs could be "someone stored her for a few weeks, then broke into our apartment again, took our Renault Scenic keys, stole our car with the body in and disposed of her, then returned the car all to stitch us up under the watchful eyes of the media"

At that point, the game would be well and truly over

I read that too but I thought the main problem wasn't that it couldn't be done back then but that it couldn't be done if the hairs had no roots... and that the hairs they wanted testing had no roots. Not sure if progress has been made in that area.

Surely they wouldn't be retesting if there was no advancement of the process,can't help but think there is some correlation between this and the dig/search with the dogs earlier in the year.

by Stillthinking 31.10.14 14:26

WMD wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:I read an article somewhere (and i cannot for the life of me find it!) that at the time, it was not possible to determine whether the hairs were from a living, or deceased person.

Advances in testing in certain parts of Europe can now determine this, which is one of the reasons Amaral has been wanting the hairs re-tested.

If the hairs in the boot of the car show to be from a deceased person, the only explanation then from the Mcs could be "someone stored her for a few weeks, then broke into our apartment again, took our Renault Scenic keys, stole our car with the body in and disposed of her, then returned the car all to stitch us up under the watchful eyes of the media"

At that point, the game would be well and truly over

I read that too but I thought the main problem wasn't that it couldn't be done back then but that it couldn't be done if the hairs had no roots... and that the hairs they wanted testing had no roots. Not sure if progress has been made in that area.
Surely they wouldn't be retesting if there was no advancement of the process,can't help but think there is some correlation between this and the dig/search with the dogs earlier in the year.

It depends if the advancements made were in just DNA testing of hair or specifically in identifying whether a rootless hair came from a dead body or not. From what I'd read it was referring to some hairs they had collected, where DNA testing had not been able to be completed fully, ie not being able to identify who it came from at all. rather than whether it came from a dead or live person.

by woodforthetrees 31.10.14 14:42

It depends if the advancements made were in just DNA testing of hair or specifically in identifying whether a rootless hair came from a dead body or not. From what I'd read it was referring to some hairs they had collected, where DNA testing had not been able to be completed fully, ie not being able to identify who it came from at all. rather than whether it came from a dead or live person.

They are not going to openly, publically state every test they are doing on the hairs, if at all. The media are just speculating (usually in a pro Mccann/abductor theory manner) that there could be a mystery person, but i think Amaral is correct when has specifically stated that advances in hair DNA testing would help lead to more answers about the McCanns guilt and this is the true reason for the testing.

I'm sure somewhere else i read stated that hair testing no longer requires the root as well.

The only benefit to testing any of these mystery 'non McCann hairs' for DNA profiles is to eliminate anyone they currently suspect, or add weight to a patsy they have in mind, however, i would say that with it being a hire car, the chances of convicting anyone outside of the McCann family just because some of their hair was found in the boot would be near impossible as they could just say they were a passenger at some point, sold/threw away something that a person hiring the car might've put in the boot, the wind might have blown hair in when the boot was left open etc etc, it's limitless.

My hunch is on them either trying to get a 100% match to Madeleines' DNA on the hairs with no root that they couldn't test previously, or confirming that the hairs were from cadaver.

by Stillthinking 31.10.14 14:57

woodforthetrees wrote:

It depends if the advancements made were in just DNA testing of hair or specifically in identifying whether a rootless hair came from a dead body or not. From what I'd read it was referring to some hairs they had collected, where DNA testing had not been able to be completed fully, ie not being able to identify who it came from at all. rather than whether it came from a dead or live person.

They are not going to openly, publically state every test they are doing on the hairs, if at all. The media are just speculating (usually in a pro Mccann/abductor theory manner) that there could be a mystery person, but i think Amaral is correct when has specifically stated that advances in hair DNA testing would help lead to more answers about the McCanns guilt and this is the true reason for the testing.

I'm sure somewhere else i read stated that hair testing no longer requires the root as well.

The only benefit to testing any of these mystery 'non McCann hairs' for DNA profiles is to eliminate anyone they currently suspect, or add weight to a patsy they have in mind, however, i would say that with it being a hire car, the chances of convicting anyone outside of the McCann family just because some of their hair was found in the boot would be near impossible as they could just say they were a passenger at some point, sold/threw away something that a person hiring the car might've put in the boot, the wind might have blown hair in when the boot was left open etc etc, it's limitless.

My hunch is on them either trying to get a 100% match to Madeleines' DNA on the hairs with no root that they couldn't test previously, or confirming that the hairs were from cadaver.

The only one that would cause problems for the McCanns would be Madeleine's hair that's proven to be from a dead body or at the very least hair that is from a dead body that is proven to come from a female related to Kate. Without either of those things, hair that is Madeleine's could easily be explained away as having come from items belonging to /used by/worn by her.

by Guest 31.10.14 15:13

woodforthetrees wrote:

They are not going to openly, publically state every test they are doing on the hairs, if at all. The media are just speculating (usually in a pro Mccann/abductor theory manner) that there could be a mystery person,

The media unless speculating only report what has happened not what is going to.

by woodforthetrees 31.10.14 15:21

The only one that would cause problems for the McCanns would be Madeleine's hair that's proven to be from a dead body or at the very least hair that is from a dead body that is proven to come from a female related to Kate. Without either of those things, hair that is Madeleine's could easily be explained away as having come from items belonging to /used by/worn by her.

Unless of coure the 90 odd hairs they failed to get a 'complete DNA match' from are now re-tested and say 80% of them can now be confirmed as Madeleines'.

That too would allow a few more probing questions like "Why are so many of Madeleines hairs in the boot of the car when she has been missing for 20 days, if she hasn't been in the car?"

I agree though, confirming even one of those hairs comes from cadaver means a big change in the investigation.

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 15:54

woodforthetrees wrote:
I agree though, confirming even one of those hairs comes from a cadaver means a big change in the investigation.

Mitchell would no doubt spin it that they were helping a couple with a recently deceased relative, taking them to the cemetery out of Christan Charity !

But they forgot, until now.

by canada12 31.10.14 16:04

PeterMac wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
I agree though, confirming even one of those hairs comes from a cadaver means a big change in the investigation.
Mitchell would no doubt spin it that they were helping a couple with a recently deceased relative, taking them to the cemetery out of Christan Charity !

But they forgot, until now.

No no no! If there are any cadaver hairs anywhere, they obviously came from the six (or was it five? I've lost count) dead patients that Kate attended to in her favourite trousers with Cuddlecat!

by nglfi 31.10.14 16:37

If hair from Madeleine's cadaver was found in the scenic, could the pair possibly argue that since the abductor had allowed her dead body to lie in situ in the apartment for a time, that the cadaver hairs got into the scenic by transfer? It's a ridiculous argument that no one would buy but I can still see them saying it!!

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 16:40

Have they got Cuddlecat's DNA ?

by ultimaThule 31.10.14 16:50

PeterMac wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
I agree though, confirming even one of those hairs comes from a cadaver means a big change in the investigation.
Mitchell would no doubt spin it that they were helping a couple with a recently deceased relative, taking them to the cemetery out of Christan Charity !

But they forgot, until now.

Either that, or Mitchell's spin could extend to the car having previously been used by an undertaker whose hearse had broken down, a hairdresser whose services are called on by relatives to make their dear departeds look presentable, a pathologist who is not in the habit of showering before leaving work or, of course, transference from Kate's McCadaver tartan trews.

That said, should any of the hairs be shown to come from a cadaver there will be no change in Op Grange's investigation as it has been a murder inquiry since cJuly of last year. , .

.

by ultimaThule 31.10.14 17:01

PeterMac wrote:Have they got Cuddlecat's DNA ?

Which Cuddlecat are you referring to, PeterM? The one which allegedly carried the last vestiges of Madeleine's scent and which was doused in Ariel, or one of those which rolled off the assembly line in anticpation of another 'good marketing' ploy that was binned because even the most crass and insensitive of strategists was made to understand that it would give parents the shivers to gift their children with a replica of a toy beloved by a young child who was taken by paedophiles to a 'hellish lair' somewhere in the 'lawless hills'?

by plebgate 31.10.14 21:46

Stillthinking wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

It depends if the advancements made were in just DNA testing of hair or specifically in identifying whether a rootless hair came from a dead body or not. From what I'd read it was referring to some hairs they had collected, where DNA testing had not been able to be completed fully, ie not being able to identify who it came from at all. rather than whether it came from a dead or live person.

They are not going to openly, publically state every test they are doing on the hairs, if at all. The media are just speculating (usually in a pro Mccann/abductor theory manner) that there could be a mystery person, but i think Amaral is correct when has specifically stated that advances in hair DNA testing would help lead to more answers about the McCanns guilt and this is the true reason for the testing.

I'm sure somewhere else i read stated that hair testing no longer requires the root as well.

The only benefit to testing any of these mystery 'non McCann hairs' for DNA profiles is to eliminate anyone they currently suspect, or add weight to a patsy they have in mind, however, i would say that with it being a hire car, the chances of convicting anyone outside of the McCann family just because some of their hair was found in the boot would be near impossible as they could just say they were a passenger at some point, sold/threw away something that a person hiring the car might've put in the boot, the wind might have blown hair in when the boot was left open etc etc, it's limitless.

My hunch is on them either trying to get a 100% match to Madeleines' DNA on the hairs with no root that they couldn't test previously, or confirming that the hairs were from cadaver.
The only one that would cause problems for the McCanns would be Madeleine's hair that's proven to be from a dead body or at the very least hair that is from a dead body that is proven to come from a female related to Kate. Without either of those things, hair that is Madeleine's could easily be explained away as having come from items belonging to /used by/worn by her.

re. red highlighting. Sorry but I don't get it. Why the need to go and get the pillow case from Rothley?

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 21:48

ultimaThule wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Have they got Cuddlecat's DNA ?
Which Cuddlecat are you referring to, PeterM?

I tried making a Chimera out of Cuddlecat, a rotting piglet and a sea bass wearing a soiled nappy . . . But I failed.
I am sure the Forensic science labs can do better.

by AndyB 02.11.14 11:43

plebgate wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

It depends if the advancements made were in just DNA testing of hair or specifically in identifying whether a rootless hair came from a dead body or not. From what I'd read it was referring to some hairs they had collected, where DNA testing had not been able to be completed fully, ie not being able to identify who it came from at all. rather than whether it came from a dead or live person.

They are not going to openly, publically state every test they are doing on the hairs, if at all. The media are just speculating (usually in a pro Mccann/abductor theory manner) that there could be a mystery person, but i think Amaral is correct when has specifically stated that advances in hair DNA testing would help lead to more answers about the McCanns guilt and this is the true reason for the testing.

I'm sure somewhere else i read stated that hair testing no longer requires the root as well.

The only benefit to testing any of these mystery 'non McCann hairs' for DNA profiles is to eliminate anyone they currently suspect, or add weight to a patsy they have in mind, however, i would say that with it being a hire car, the chances of convicting anyone outside of the McCann family just because some of their hair was found in the boot would be near impossible as they could just say they were a passenger at some point, sold/threw away something that a person hiring the car might've put in the boot, the wind might have blown hair in when the boot was left open etc etc, it's limitless.

My hunch is on them either trying to get a 100% match to Madeleines' DNA on the hairs with no root that they couldn't test previously, or confirming that the hairs were from cadaver.
The only one that would cause problems for the McCanns would be Madeleine's hair that's proven to be from a dead body or at the very least hair that is from a dead body that is proven to come from a female related to Kate. Without either of those things, hair that is Madeleine's could easily be explained away as having come from items belonging to /used by/worn by her.
re. red highlighting. Sorry but I don't get it. Why the need to go and get the pillow case from Rothley?

I don't know but perhaps to get a control sample. All the DNA recovered from 5a needed to be compared with DNA from everyone who was legitimately in there like the parents and cleaners etc. Samples from these people could easily be obtained via a mouth swab. This wasn't possible with Madeleine

by plebgate 02.11.14 11:47

So he had to fly all the way back to Rothley and bring a pillow case back in order to get a control sample? I have said before I don't know much about DNA samples etc., but would it not have been possible to get it from a coat or shoes (as has been said plenty of times before). Surely they couldn't have been washed and if so, why would they have needed to be washed on holiday?

by AndyB 02.11.14 11:48

Like I say, I don't know but maybe everything in 5a was regarded as being potentially contaminated

by plebgate 02.11.14 11:51

Well none of us know but how would a coat or shoes have been contaminated and what with?

These maybe questions (to my mind) are getting a bit silly now.