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

by Liz Eagles 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 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 Liz Eagles 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.’

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

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

by Guest 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.’

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

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 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

Latest topics