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

by nglfi on 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** on 31.10.14 16:40

Have they got Cuddlecat's DNA ?

by ultimaThule on 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 on 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 on 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** on 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 on 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 on 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 on 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 on 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.

by aquila on 02.11.14 11:54

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

Don't you think it's weird that almost everything that is understood and held sacrilege about forensics has turned up nothing?

UK FSS closed down. Mentions of contaminated 'crime scene'.

Portuguese investigation closed down.

This isn't right.

by AndyB on 02.11.14 11:59

aquila wrote:
AndyB wrote:Like I say, I don't know but maybe everything in 5a was regarded as being potentially contaminated
Don't you think it's weird that almost everything that is understood and held sacrilege about forensics has turned up nothing?

UK FSS closed down. Mentions of contaminated 'crime scene'.

Portuguese investigation closed down.

This isn't right.

I think there's lots of things that aren't right about what happened after Madeleine's disappearance but I don't think the return to Rothley for a sample of her DNA is necessarily one of them

by aquila on 02.11.14 12:03

AndyB wrote:
aquila wrote:
AndyB wrote:Like I say, I don't know but maybe everything in 5a was regarded as being potentially contaminated
Don't you think it's weird that almost everything that is understood and held sacrilege about forensics has turned up nothing?

UK FSS closed down. Mentions of contaminated 'crime scene'.

Portuguese investigation closed down.

This isn't right.
I think there's lots of things that aren't right about what happened after Madeleine's disappearance but I don't think the return to Rothley for a sample of her DNA is necessarily one of them

That's fair enough. It doesn't explain the dogs though. Summer & Swan, Jim Gamble and the UK media have tried to explain (swoosh) the dogs but it doesn't really cut the mustard.

by plebgate on 02.11.14 12:06

Why bring a pillowcase back?, surely something more personal that Maddie had recently worn would have been better? Again, shoes/coat, something that would not have been washed before holiday or put into the family laundry basket to be washed upon return?

by sallypelt on 02.11.14 12:14

plebgate wrote:Why bring a pillowcase back?, surely something more personal that Maddie had recently worn would have been better? Again, shoes/coat, something that would not have been washed before holiday or put into the family laundry basket to be washed upon return?

plebgate, there are so many "whys" to this sorry saga, it's mind-boggling. Let's look at a few examples:

WHY do the ~~paid~~ pro-McCann's vehement try to discredit the findings of the dogs? If my child had gone missing under such circumstances, I would be screaming at anyone and everyone who cared to listen, to find out who had died in that apartment. It just doesn't make sense to discredit the dogs, UNLESS someone has something to hide.

WHY don't the pros promote the Smith sightings? I never read on Twitter, any of the so-called McCann supporters, demanding that the police do all in their power to find this man.

WHY did curtains that were "open" in the earlier statements, suddenly become "whooshed" curtains, in later statements?

The list of whys is endless. Maybe others would like to add to it.

by ChippyM on 02.11.14 12:21

I think people may be getting their hopes about hairs from 5a being retested and showing they were from a dead person.

As far as I can gather hair samples aren't always the best forensic samples for yeilding useful DNA. The hair shaft itself becomes coarse as it grows and contains much less DNA material than the root, From what the Portuguese forensics guy has said I'm thinking the hairs to be retested were rootless hairs, ie. bits of broken hair etc. and initial testing didn't identify who they belonged to.

If they had hairs with roots they would have looked for the decomposition banding already in the original investigation. Any sign of decomposition would have to be very close to the root, as far as I understand there are no advances in testing that could determine death without it being a rooted hair sample......so I think they are going to try and identify the hairs that gave poor results earlier and probably don't have any new techniques to prove they came from a body.

by AndyB on 02.11.14 12:31

aquila wrote:
AndyB wrote:
aquila wrote:
AndyB wrote:Like I say, I don't know but maybe everything in 5a was regarded as being potentially contaminated
Don't you think it's weird that almost everything that is understood and held sacrilege about forensics has turned up nothing?

UK FSS closed down. Mentions of contaminated 'crime scene'.

Portuguese investigation closed down.

This isn't right.
I think there's lots of things that aren't right about what happened after Madeleine's disappearance but I don't think the return to Rothley for a sample of her DNA is necessarily one of them
That's fair enough. It doesn't explain the dogs though. Summer & Swan, Jim Gamble and the UK media have tried to explain (swoosh) the dogs but it doesn't really cut the mustard.

I appear to have given you the impression that I believe that Madeleine was abducted. I don't and I find the reactions of Eddie and Keela pretty damning.

by Guest on 02.11.14 13:07

aquila wrote:
AndyB wrote:
aquila wrote:
AndyB wrote:Like I say, I don't know but maybe everything in 5a was regarded as being potentially contaminated
Don't you think it's weird that almost everything that is understood and held sacrilege about forensics has turned up nothing?

UK FSS closed down. Mentions of contaminated 'crime scene'.

Portuguese investigation closed down.

This isn't right.
I think there's lots of things that aren't right about what happened after Madeleine's disappearance but I don't think the return to Rothley for a sample of her DNA is necessarily one of them
That's fair enough. It doesn't explain the dogs though. Summer & Swan, Jim Gamble and the UK media have tried to explain (swoosh) the dogs but it doesn't really cut the mustard.

Another pair of dogs were brought in recently at the hillside dig/search,the above mentioned mighten like it but OG must put some faith in them.

by Doug D on 02.11.14 13:37

WMD:

‘Another pair of dogs were brought in recently at the hillside dig/search……..’

Careful what you say WMD, this could be a matter of national security and cause a complete breakdown of relations between the UK & Portugal!!!!!!!!!!

FoI request:  2) Can you please provide a breakdown of the role of every officer who  went to Portugal. (ie Dog Handlers, Family liaison officers, scientific  support staff, etc)

can’t be answered on grounds of:

‘adverse effect upon International Relations’ and ‘investigations where its release would or would be  likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the  prosecution of offenders.’

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10231p10-freedom-of-information-requests-re-madeleine-mccann-the-cost-of-operation-grange-request-refused#278322

although to be fair he didn’t ask the question ‘How many dogs and for what reason?’

by Guest on 02.11.14 13:52

Doug D wrote:WMD:

‘Another pair of dogs were brought in recently at the hillside dig/search……..’

Careful what you say WMD, this could be a matter of national security and cause a complete breakdown of relations between the UK & Portugal!!!!!!!!!!

FoI request:  2) Can you please provide a breakdown of the role of every officer who  went to Portugal. (ie Dog Handlers, Family liaison officers, scientific  support staff, etc)

can’t be answered on grounds of:

‘adverse effect upon International Relations’ and ‘investigations where its release would or would be  likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the  prosecution of offenders.’

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10231p10-freedom-of-information-requests-re-madeleine-mccann-the-cost-of-operation-grange-request-refused#278322

although to be fair he didn’t ask the question ‘How many dogs and for what reason?’

Ah well lifes a bitch and all that.I can't help but think they found something when landscaping and exercising the dog's laughat

and need to either tie it in with the forensics or eliminate it.The sixth letter asking about the forensics by passed the 5th one asking for interviews.IMO of course.

by XTC on 02.11.14 21:25

plebgate wrote: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?

That process has always struck me as strange.

The control sample had to be unquestionably from Madeliene.

I know the police were under pressure so speed was of the essence but 5 doctors ( two of them Madeleine's parents - one of them who would be there when the heel stick blood was taken ) the experts at the FSS and experienced policeman and women never thought to approach the hospital where Nuclear DNA would reside. All of it pure unadulterated Madeleine.

Miles better than a toothbrush or shoes.

Big puzzle to me that.

Opinion only