Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

by Guest 22.11.15 13:27

It was incredibly evasive.

It was a masterpiece in evasiveness.

The context of the blood dog alert was one of the evasions.

by mike7777 22.11.15 13:39

BlueBag wrote:It was incredibly evasive.

It was a masterpiece in evasiveness.

The context of the blood dog alert was one of the evasions.

I don't find it evasive at all

by Dr What 22.11.15 13:44

I have posted previously on this forum that my daughter trains dogs.

She, and all her colleagues, trust the abilities of these dogs.They all believe that there was blood in that car.

The whole issue about the DNA testing and whether it was a match to Madeleine's, I'll leave to others to debate.

But where those dogs alerted, both to blood and cadaver odour, I believe there was blood and a dead body.

I think the McCanns and their assistants had never bargained for this development in the investigation and certainly not for it to become public knowledge.

In itself, it is not enough for a prosecution to be bought.However, I think the McCanns will always be judged in the court of public opinion in the light of these findings.They are very vulnerable whenever the dogs findings are discussed.

by mike7777 22.11.15 13:54

Dr What wrote:I have posted previously on this forum that my daughter trains dogs.

She, and all her colleagues, trust the abilities of these dogs.They all believe that there was blood in that car.

The whole issue about the DNA testing and whether it was a match to Madeleine's, I'll leave to others to debate.

But where those dogs alerted, both to blood and cadaver odour, I believe there was blood and a dead body.

I think the McCanns and their assistants had never bargained for this development in the investigation and certainly not for it to become public knowledge.

In itself, it is not enough for a prosecution to be bought.However, I think the McCanns will always be judged in the court of public opinion in the light of these findings.They are very vulnerable whenever the dogs findings are discussed.

there was blood in the car belonging to Gerry....you and your daughter can believe what you choose....people believe different things but that does not make them true. I don't believe for one minute there ever was a body in that car....but that's just my beleif

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 13:56

mike7777 wrote:
Verdi wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
Richard IV wrote:It was a BLOOD dog that alerted, so it was BLOOD.

the alerts have to have forensic confirmation to be of value according to Grime so in the real world the alert has no value
In a court of law as stand alone evidence no, it would have little value BUT as intelligence in a criminal investigation it's a minefield!

Had a positive result emanated from the FSS analysis of the samples harvested, i.e. a positive match to MBM's DNA, that would be evidence in itself. Do you think that could be the reason why such conflicting reports initially came out of the FSS and why the final report was so evasive? Remember, it's not only this isolated sample analysis that proved inconclusive, if I remember correctly the same applied to almost every sample analyzed by the FSS laboratories appertaining to the investigation into MBM's disappearance.

(snipped)

as I have already said the presence of Maddie's DNA in the car would prove nothing...(snipped)

You are correct that the presence of DNA in the car would mean nothing. It is likely that a lot of Maddie's DNA could be found on the articles transported in the car.

Thats why the PJ brought in a BLOOD dog. Keela ONLY alerts to blood.

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

Maddie's BLOOD in the car would be VERY important.

See 1.00 for Martin Grime's testimony in the trial

Martin Grime's CADAVER dog is KEY EVIDENCE for GUILTY VERDICT in Bianca Jones trial.

by MRNOODLES 22.11.15 13:59

mike7777 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:It was incredibly evasive.

It was a masterpiece in evasiveness.

The context of the blood dog alert was one of the evasions.

I don't find it evasive at all

FWIW imo i found it evasive in the way you played dumb over "be of value" or "be of legal value". but that's just me...

by mike7777 22.11.15 14:01

HiDeHo wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
Verdi wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
Richard IV wrote:It was a BLOOD dog that alerted, so it was BLOOD.

the alerts have to have forensic confirmation to be of value according to Grime so in the real world the alert has no value
In a court of law as stand alone evidence no, it would have little value BUT as intelligence in a criminal investigation it's a minefield!

Had a positive result emanated from the FSS analysis of the samples harvested, i.e. a positive match to MBM's DNA, that would be evidence in itself. Do you think that could be the reason why such conflicting reports initially came out of the FSS and why the final report was so evasive? Remember, it's not only this isolated sample analysis that proved inconclusive, if I remember correctly the same applied to almost every sample analyzed by the FSS laboratories appertaining to the investigation into MBM's disappearance.

(snipped)

as I have already said the presence of Maddie's DNA in the car would prove nothing...(snipped)

You are correct that the presence of DNA in the car would mean nothing. It is likely that a lot of Maddie's DNA could be found on the articles transported in the car.

Thats why the PJ brought in a BLOOD dog. Keela ONLY alerts to blood.

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

Maddie's BLOOD in the car would be VERY important.

See 1.00 for Martin Grime's testimony in the trial

Martin Grime's CADAVER dog is KEY EVIDENCE for GUILTY VERDICT in Bianca Jones trial.

martin Grime was asked in his rogatory if the alert to cuddle cat was confirmation of cadaver odour...he was evasive and did not give a straight answer. he was also asked the same question about another of the alerts by eddie and again did not give a straight answer. What he did say that to be confirmed the alerts must be confirmed by forensics

by mike7777 22.11.15 14:02

MRNOODLES wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:It was incredibly evasive.

It was a masterpiece in evasiveness.

The context of the blood dog alert was one of the evasions.

I don't find it evasive at all
FWIW imo i found it evasive in the way you played dumb over "be of value" or "be of legal value". but that's just me...

then I will answer the question again as you seem to have missed it...what's the difference...the alerts either have value or not

by Dr What 22.11.15 14:14

Mike7777.....you do seem rather excitable.

I did not say that I believed that there was a body in the car.What I said was that I trust what the people who work in this field tell me, and that is there was blood in that car.

You say it was Gerry's blood.I am not sure how you KNOW that, but that is your prerogative.

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 14:18

mike7777 wrote:martin Grime was asked in his rogatory if the alert to cuddle cat was confirmation of cadaver odour...he was evasive and did not give a straight answer. he was also asked the same question about another of the alerts by eddie and again did not give a straight answer. What he did say that to be confirmed the alerts must be confirmed by forensics

One can see with their own eyes that Eddie alerted to Cuddlecat.

Eddie ignores the cupboard until Cuddlecat is put inside without his knowledge... only THEN does he alert.

Individual alerts can be questioned forever, as has happened in the groups and forums for the last 8 years, but how does one explain 17 alerts to things ONLY associated with the McCanns?

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

by mike7777 22.11.15 14:21

HiDeHo wrote:One can see with their own eyes that Eddie alerted to Cuddlecat.

Eddie ignores the cupboard until Cuddlecat is put inside without his knowledge... only THEN does he alert.

Individual alerts can be questioned forever, as has happened in the groups and forums for the last 8 years, but how does one explain 17 alerts to things ONLY associated with the McCanns?

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

Eddie originally did not alert to cuddlecat. Not only that but according to the PJ and as evidenced in the files eddie repeatedly ignored things before being led back repeatedly by Grime

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 14:31

mike7777 wrote:

Eddie originally did not alert to cuddlecat. Not only that but according to the PJ and as evidenced in the files eddie repeatedly ignored things before being led back repeatedly by Grime

Eddie had been rewarded with a soft toy and thats why he picked it up and threw it...

That is the reason that Cuddlecat was taken an put out of his view...

He had no interest in the cupboard UNTIL Cuddlecat was put in there without his knowledge.

There is no 'timeframe' that a dog has to alert, but when they DO alert it is because they recognise the scent they were trained to alert to.

They can't be forced to alert.

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 15:12

It's a FACT that the dogs WERE successful in this case.

BOTH Keela and Eddie alerted in the same place. - Successful

Forensics were retrieved from the blood spots that Keela alerted to - Successful

As John Lowe said..... there was a MATCH to Madeleine's DNA in the car

One member of HDH puts it very clearly, referencing the report by John Lowe FSS...

Re the DNA sample found in the car ; ....

The report states - "What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine – because Madeleine has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car, or whether Madeleine merely appears to match the result by chance."…

Lets look at this statement – firstly, when scientists refer to a ' match ' they mean that the DNA found in the evidence sample was anaylised and 'matched' a particular individuals reference sample. Thats not 3 or 5 different peoples reference samples, that is one persons reference sample. In this case the reference sample just happened to belong to Madeleine Mccann.

So they question , was it genuine -because she ( Madeleine) deposited it there. Or did Madeleine's DNA ' match' get there by chance.

In order for anyone to consider if it was genuine or not, it had to have been considered a ' match' , otherwise there would be no point in considering whether or not it was genuine, – .

How this 'match' got there is the question !!

To suggest 3 to 5 other people not only incredibly share MM's DNA profile but just so happened to be in the very same vehicle is just beyond belief !

To suggest 3 to 5 other peoples DNA magically mixed together and Just so happened to make up the same DNA sequence/ profile as MM, the very person missing, is just stretching the imagination a little too far imo.....

The report also states :

“ Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann;”

It has to be questioned what the writer is saying here, departing from what principle?- The principle fact, that the result contained all confirmed matching markers corresponding to the sequence of those in Madeleine McCann’s profile sample?

Food for thought : .. quote - “it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. “

“Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item;”

Quote from the report ; - “For example, the probability of two first cousins having the same profile is of the order of one to one hundred million (1 to 100-million).”

and finally : .... Mixed samples can be very complex, but if when analysing a sample a major source or profile of a contributor emerges and is identified, then that persons profile can be seen and treated as a single source profile …… WHY did they departed from this principal ?

by mike7777 22.11.15 15:36

HiDeHo wrote:It's a FACT that the dogs WERE successful in this case.

BOTH Keela and Eddie alerted in the same place. - Successful

Forensics were retrieved from the blood spots that Keela alerted to - Successful

As John Lowe said..... there was a MATCH to Madeleine's DNA in the car

One member of HDH puts it very clearly, referencing the report by John Lowe FSS...

Re the DNA sample found in the car ; ....

The report states - "What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine – because Madeleine has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car, or whether Madeleine merely appears to match the result by chance."…

Lets look at this statement – firstly, when scientists refer to a ' match ' they mean that the DNA found in the evidence sample was anaylised and 'matched' a particular individuals reference sample. Thats not 3 or 5 different peoples reference samples, that is one persons reference sample. In this case the reference sample just happened to belong to Madeleine Mccann.

So they question , was it genuine -because she ( Madeleine) deposited it there. Or did Madeleine's DNA ' match' get there by chance.

In order for anyone to consider if it was genuine or not, it had to have been considered a ' match' , otherwise there would be no point in considering whether or not it was genuine, – .

How this 'match' got there is the question !!

To suggest 3 to 5 other people not only incredibly share MM's DNA profile but just so happened to be in the very same vehicle is just beyond belief !

To suggest 3 to 5 other peoples DNA magically mixed together and Just so happened to make up the same DNA sequence/ profile as MM, the very person missing, is just stretching the imagination a little too far imo.....

The report also states :

“ Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann;”

It has to be questioned what the writer is saying here, departing from what principle?- The principle fact, that the result contained all confirmed matching markers corresponding to the sequence of those in Madeleine McCann’s profile sample?

Food for thought : .. quote - “it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. “

“Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item;”

Quote from the report ; - “For example, the probability of two first cousins having the same profile is of the order of one to one hundred million (1 to 100-million).”

and finally : .... Mixed samples can be very complex, but if when analysing a sample a major source or profile of a contributor emerges and is identified, then that persons profile can be seen and treated as a single source profile …… WHY did they departed from this principal ?

This statement simply doesn't make any scientific sense...he has made one assumption highlighted in red...

What Lowe said was that they found 15 markers that were part of Maddie's profile...these 15 markers however came from a soup of DNA that 3 poeple had contributed too...there was no way of knowing whether only one person had contributed all 15 markers ...there could have been a partial contribution from all three...that's why they could not say whether the dna belonged to Madddie...person s who could have contributed to the soup were Maddies family...all who would share some of the markers

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 16:19

What John Lowe told us is that there is a MATCH to Maddie but it is not possible to decide whether it existed because she was IN the car or whether it was a chance match.

This means that noone can state that Maddie WASN'T in the car...

She is NOT excluded and therefore, the suggestion from the investigation that she died and the parents hid her body and simulated an abduction MAY BE CORRECT.

This does not mean NO evidence, it means there is no PROOF she was in the car but its POSSIBLE.

It is your prerogative to have the opinion she wasn't in the car but it does not mean you are correct.

by mike7777 22.11.15 16:28

HiDeHo wrote:What John Lowe told us is that there is a MATCH to Maddie but it is not possible to decide whether it existed because she was IN the car or whether it was a chance match.

This means that noone can state that Maddie WASN'T in the car...

She is NOT excluded and therefore, the suggestion from the investigation that she died and the parents hid her body and simulated an abduction MAY BE CORRECT.

This does not mean NO evidence, it means there is no PROOF she was in the car but its POSSIBLE.

It is your prerogative to have the opinion she wasn't in the car but it does not mean you are correct.

I agree...we do not know if maddie had been in the car......so everything is speculation. I understand exactly what lowe said...

by Guest 22.11.15 16:37

mike7777 wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:What John Lowe told us is that there is a MATCH to Maddie but it is not possible to decide whether it existed because she was IN the car or whether it was a chance match.

This means that noone can state that Maddie WASN'T in the car...

She is NOT excluded and therefore, the suggestion from the investigation that she died and the parents hid her body and simulated an abduction MAY BE CORRECT.

This does not mean NO evidence, it means there is no PROOF she was in the car but its POSSIBLE.

It is your prerogative to have the opinion she wasn't in the car but it does not mean you are correct.

I agree...we do not know if maddie had been in the car......so everything is speculation. I understand exactly what lowe said...

The language used for "chance match" was an extraordinary obfuscation and ignored the context of the DNA find, which was that a BLOOD dog indicated it.

by mike7777 22.11.15 16:44

BlueBag wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:What John Lowe told us is that there is a MATCH to Maddie but it is not possible to decide whether it existed because she was IN the car or whether it was a chance match.

This means that noone can state that Maddie WASN'T in the car...

She is NOT excluded and therefore, the suggestion from the investigation that she died and the parents hid her body and simulated an abduction MAY BE CORRECT.

This does not mean NO evidence, it means there is no PROOF she was in the car but its POSSIBLE.

It is your prerogative to have the opinion she wasn't in the car but it does not mean you are correct.

I agree...we do not know if maddie had been in the car......so everything is speculation. I understand exactly what lowe said...
The language used for "chance match" was an extraordinary obfuscation and ignored the context of the DNA find, which was that a BLOOD dog indicated it.

the cellular material could not be confirmed as blood by the lab

by Guest 22.11.15 16:47

mike7777 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:What John Lowe told us is that there is a MATCH to Maddie but it is not possible to decide whether it existed because she was IN the car or whether it was a chance match.

This means that noone can state that Maddie WASN'T in the car...

She is NOT excluded and therefore, the suggestion from the investigation that she died and the parents hid her body and simulated an abduction MAY BE CORRECT.

This does not mean NO evidence, it means there is no PROOF she was in the car but its POSSIBLE.

It is your prerogative to have the opinion she wasn't in the car but it does not mean you are correct.

I agree...we do not know if maddie had been in the car......so everything is speculation. I understand exactly what lowe said...
The language used for "chance match" was an extraordinary obfuscation and ignored the context of the DNA find, which was that a BLOOD dog indicated it.

the cellular material could not be confirmed as blood by the lab

The BLOOD dog indicated it and it was indeed DNA material.

Work it out.

You'll be telling us to "ask the dogs" next.

by mike7777 22.11.15 16:51

BlueBag wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:What John Lowe told us is that there is a MATCH to Maddie but it is not possible to decide whether it existed because she was IN the car or whether it was a chance match.

This means that noone can state that Maddie WASN'T in the car...

She is NOT excluded and therefore, the suggestion from the investigation that she died and the parents hid her body and simulated an abduction MAY BE CORRECT.

This does not mean NO evidence, it means there is no PROOF she was in the car but its POSSIBLE.

It is your prerogative to have the opinion she wasn't in the car but it does not mean you are correct.

I agree...we do not know if maddie had been in the car......so everything is speculation. I understand exactly what lowe said...
The language used for "chance match" was an extraordinary obfuscation and ignored the context of the DNA find, which was that a BLOOD dog indicated it.

the cellular material could not be confirmed as blood by the lab
The BLOOD dog indicated it and it was indeed DNA material.

Work it out.

You'll be telling us to "ask the dogs" next.

you need to understand it is not the alert that is important but the forensic analysis of what is found.

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 17:40

mike7777 wrote:

you need to understand it is not the alert that is important but the forensic analysis of what is found.

The dogs alerted and forensics were retrieved. They were therefore successful

Forensic analysis of the blood that was found in the back of the car tells us that it may have been because Madeleine was in the trunk of the car...WEEKS after she disappeared.

It is not proof, but it is for the investigation to look at all the details that point to the possibility.

17 dog alerts gave them a place to start...

by mike7777 22.11.15 18:44

HiDeHo wrote:
mike7777 wrote:

you need to understand it is not the alert that is important but the forensic analysis of what is found.

The dogs alerted and forensics were retrieved. They were therefore successful

Forensic analysis of the blood that was found in the back of the car tells us that it may have been because Madeleine was in the trunk of the car...WEEKS after she disappeared.

It is not proof, but it is for the investigation to look at all the details that point to the possibility.

17 dog alerts gave them a place to start...

as I said you need to understand it is not the alerts that are important but the forensic evidence recovered. in this case despite all the alerts the only alert confirmed was to Gerry's blood on the key fob. So unfortunately the dogs found nothing of any evidential value...according to Grime. That maybe because there was no evidence for them to find. There was certainly no blood found in the boot.

by sammi1967 22.11.15 19:08

Where does it state that there was no blood found in the boot of the car?

by mike7777 22.11.15 19:11

sammi1967 wrote:Where does it state that there was no blood found in the boot of the car?

It doesn't...it states that it was impossible to determine what cellular material it was....so no confirmation of blood...and none that it wasn't....

by sammi1967 22.11.15 19:12

Just asking as you said there was certainly no blood found in the boot

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 19:15

mike7777 wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
mike7777 wrote:

you need to understand it is not the alert that is important but the forensic analysis of what is found.

The dogs alerted and forensics were retrieved. They were therefore successful

Forensic analysis of the blood that was found in the back of the car tells us that it may have been because Madeleine was in the trunk of the car...WEEKS after she disappeared.

It is not proof, but it is for the investigation to look at all the details that point to the possibility.

17 dog alerts gave them a place to start...

as I said you need to understand it is not the alerts that are important but the forensic evidence recovered. in this case despite all the alerts the only alert confirmed was to Gerry's blood on the key fob. So unfortunately the dogs found nothing of any evidential value...according to Grime. That maybe because there was no evidence for them to find. There was certainly no blood found in the boot.

The ONLY alert was to Gerry's blood? (both the BLOOD and the CADAVER dog gave an alert to the key fob)

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

How about the BLOOD found behind the sofa?

'All of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann'

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

Also, lets not forget about the BLOOD spot with 15 of Madeleine's 19 markers found in the back of the rental car...

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

Blood WAS found in the back of the car. Keela alerted and as you can see she ONLY alerts to BLOOD...

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

by mike7777 22.11.15 19:16

sammi1967 wrote:Just asking as you said there was certainly no blood found in the boot

I'm happy to be corrected. As far as we know there was no blood found in the boot

by goodqualitywristbands 22.11.15 19:18

mike7777 wrote:
sammi1967 wrote:Just asking as you said there was certainly no blood found in the boot

I'm happy to be corrected. As far as we know there was no blood found in the boot

What did Keela alert to?

by sammi1967 22.11.15 19:21

and if Eddie alerts to cadaver and blood and Keela alerts only to blood hence why she was only ever brought in if Eddie alerted? It's not rocket science is it ? Do you also believe dogs to be 'incredibly unreliable'?

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 19:23

mike7777 wrote:
sammi1967 wrote:Just asking as you said there was certainly no blood found in the boot

I'm happy to be corrected. As far as we know there was no blood found in the boot

FSS cannot claim which body fluid of any sample. The sample was retrieved by a BLOOD dog, who does not alert to anything other than blood (see post above)

THEREFORE.... it was BLOOD that was found in the back of the car.

Latest topics