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

HiDeHo wrote:

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.]

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

sammi1967 wrote:As I just stated Eddie alerts to blood and cadaver ...that's the job of the cadaver dog. The blood dog only alerts to blood hence why Keela was brought in after Eddie alerted. Why is the dog evidence such a touchy subject for some? Surely rather than finding reasons to discredit them everyone should be looking to see how and why they found what they did .

sammi1967 wrote:And I think one of the biggest questions in this is why Sky News reported a 100% match to M and then backtracked . When has anything like that ever occured before in a major investigation of this kind?

mike7777 wrote:

you do realise that the cadaver dog reacts to blood as well as cadaver so the reaction to the fob confirms only blood...as the forensics did. The other samples contained dna from more than one person........the 15 markers may well have come from more than one person . Amaral completely misunderstood both the alerts and the dna evidence

mike7777 wrote:

I'm not discrediting the dogs....I am simply looking at what they found...not a lot I'm afraid. The only thing they found that was confirmed was Gerry's blood.

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

you do realise that the cadaver dog reacts to blood as well as cadaver so the reaction to the fob confirms only blood...as the forensics did. The other samples contained dna from more than one person........the 15 markers may well have come from more than one person . Amaral completely misunderstood both the alerts and the dna evidence

You are correct.  Eddie alerts to CADAVER odour AND blood

Both Eddie and Keela alerted to the key fob. Blood confirmed.

Eddie and Keela also alerted behind the sofa. Blood confirmed

Keela alerted to back of car. Blood confirmed.

Keela alerted under the tile behind the sofa.  Blood confirmed. (from a forensics officer)

Keela alerted to blood on the curtain.

Eddie alerted to ONLY cadaver odour in SEVERAL other places.

Cadaver alerts require corroboration by the investigation to confirm a body was in that location.  They are an indication.

Maybe the new tests available for hair (that was also found at the back of the car) will corroborate the cadaver alerts.

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

I'm not discrediting the dogs....I am simply looking at what they found...not a lot I'm afraid. The only thing they found that was confirmed was Gerry's blood.

 An INCORRECT statement as I have pointed out previously

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.

Thought for the day:  Did you know that the father of genetic fingerprinting, Dr. Alec Jeffreys, hails from the University of Leicester (he even had his EUREKA moment there) and is affiliated with the University of Amsterdam through earlier years in his illustrious career?

Small world!

as I have already said the presence of Maddie's DNA in the car would prove nothing...what are you suggesting re Alec Jeffreys

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

I'm not discrediting the dogs....I am simply looking at what they found...not a lot I'm afraid. The only thing they found that was confirmed was Gerry's blood.

 An INCORRECT statement as I have pointed out previously

its true...what else was confirmed forensically

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

I'm not discrediting the dogs....I am simply looking at what they found...not a lot I'm afraid. The only thing they found that was confirmed was Gerry's blood.

 An INCORRECT statement as I have pointed out previously

its true...what else was confirmed forensically

If your statement refers to ONLY conclusive evidence, then please acknowledge that.

The dogs found a lot of 'evidence' that may have been  Madeleine's blood, but it was not 100% conclusive.

Madeleine's DNA may very well be in abundance in the car and that proves nothing.  The presence of her blood WOULD be important in the investigation and the forensic report by John Lowe claims there was enough of a MATCH to Madeleine in the blood spot found by Keela meaning she COULD have been in the car.

That is not 'NO evidence' it is just not enough to CONFIRM she was in the car.

Verdi 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.

Thought for the day:  Did you know that the father of genetic fingerprinting, Dr. Alec Jeffreys, hails from the University of Leicester (he even had his EUREKA moment there) and is affiliated with the University of Amsterdam through earlier years in his illustrious career?

Small world!

as I have already said the presence of Maddie's DNA in the car would prove nothing...what are you suggesting re Alec Jeffreys

I don't believe anyone on this forum has claimed that the presence of MBM's DNA in the hired car proves anything but it would certainly be a very important pointer as regards the investigation.  Tell me, if you were a police detective, would you so readily dismiss the possibility of the body of MBM (dead or alive) having been in a car hired by her parents after her disappearance - or would you cast the thought aside in the absence of forensic corroboration?

In the past when I've questioned why UK forensic laboratories were called on to analyze sample relative to the investigation I was assured that it was because of their expertise in the field of LCN DNA - indeed so specialized were they in the field that almost every analysis resulted in 'too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.  Don't you think that to be a trifle odd?

Why do you think the Renault Scenic was later sequestered by the McCanns in order to undertake their own off the record forensic examination?

Dr. Alec Jeffreys?  I'm not suggesting anything, just stating a fact.

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.

Verdi wrote:

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.

What you need to understand is that Martin Grimes was Eddie and Keela's trainer/handler, not a forensic scientist.  It wasn't the dogs that failed, they were only doing what they're trained to do, it was the forensic laboratories that failed to produce a meaningful analysis of the samples recovered.

The dog alerts are of primary importance - they provided important intelligence indicating the possibility of MBM's presence in the Renault Scenic, without which forensics wouldn't have even been considered.  Please don't presume to minimalise the importance of trained dogs, they have no hidden agenda or can't be bought off, they are just doing what they do best.  Whether or not the FSS were able to corroborate the dog alerts through forensic evidence shouldn't be allowed to detract from the importance of said alerts.

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

I'm not discrediting the dogs....I am simply looking at what they found...not a lot I'm afraid. The only thing they found that was confirmed was Gerry's blood.

 An INCORRECT statement as I have pointed out previously

its true...what else was confirmed forensically

If your statement refers to ONLY conclusive evidence, then please acknowledge that.

The dogs found a lot of 'evidence' that may have been  Madeleine's blood, but it was not 100% conclusive.

Madeleine's DNA may very well be in abundance in the car and that proves nothing.  The presence of her blood WOULD be important in the investigation and the forensic report by John Lowe claims there was enough of a MATCH to Madeleine in the blood spot found by Keela meaning she COULD have been in the car.

That is not 'NO evidence' it is just not enough to CONFIRM she was in the car.

so to summarise there can be no confirmation maddie was ever in that car......the fact that the McCanns were watched and followed so closely makes me think she was never in the car...you can speculate...but that's all it is.....
John Lowe does not say anything about Maddie being in the car...that is your inference

Verdi wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

I'm not discrediting the dogs....I am simply looking at what they found...not a lot I'm afraid. The only thing they found that was confirmed was Gerry's blood.

 An INCORRECT statement as I have pointed out previously

its true...what else was confirmed forensically

If your statement refers to ONLY conclusive evidence, then please acknowledge that.

The dogs found a lot of 'evidence' that may have been  Madeleine's blood, but it was not 100% conclusive.

Madeleine's DNA may very well be in abundance in the car and that proves nothing.  The presence of her blood WOULD be important in the investigation and the forensic report by John Lowe claims there was enough of a MATCH to Madeleine in the blood spot found by Keela meaning she COULD have been in the car.

That is not 'NO evidence' it is just not enough to CONFIRM she was in the car.

so to summarise there can be no confirmation maddie was ever in that car......the fact that the McCanns were watched and followed so closely makes me think she was never in the car...you can speculate...but that's all it is.....
John Lowe does not say anything about Maddie being in the car...that is your inference

a)  No sooner had the McCanns hired the Renault Scenic and they jetted off on the European/North African campaign tour.  They were being watched and followed outside Portugal.

b)  Gerry McCann was not the sole named driver for the Renault Scenic.

c)  The McCanns took a trip to Huelva in Spain during a public holiday - a few hours of which haven't been accounted for.  They were not watched and followed during this trip.

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:Why did the McCann's feel the need to air the boot of the car by leaving it open?

pennylane wrote:

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:Why did the McCann's feel the need to air the boot of the car by leaving it open?

Because some grocery meat leaked and the car stunk to high heaven apparently. 

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: I have never criticised the dogs...they could only find what there was to find....very little. the alerts have no value as evidence without forensic confirmation....you seem to want to blame the FSS for not confirming the alerts...on what basis do you blame the FSS

These particular dogs don't necessarily find anything - they alert to scents.  That is their function and that is exactly what they did.  Their alerts do have value even if not corroborated by conclusive forensic evidence.


You appear to misunderstand me.  I'm perfectly aware of the fact that the dog alerts do not prove anything nor as stand alone evidence have any place in a court of law as regards conclusive evidence.  Indeed it's not the function nor purpose of this forum to prove anything, we as a whole can only determine to draw attention to the many many apparent irregularities surrounding the case and thus try to make some sense of it all.  Hopefully even to uncover the truth - albeit without the commitment of law enforcement agencies so confined only to forum land. 

I'm not apportioning blame here, I'm trying to understand why out of all the samples submitted to the FSS for analysis, the majority resulted in 'too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion' .  As I say, the FSS were reputed to be world leaders in sensitive forensic testing yet they failed to come up with a single positive result to forward the investigation.

Whatever, that shouldn't detract from the fact that Eddie and Keela alerted to a number of specific areas exclusively connected to the McCanns which can't be dispelled by the wave of a hand just because there is no forensic evidence to corroborate the alerts.  If I were part of the investigative team I would assuredly have pursued such an important lead,  I certainly wouldn't cast it aside purely because a forensic laboratory were unable to confirm the dog alerts.
 
What a pity such as a blood sample must by law be destroyed - who knows,  some other forensic laboratory may have had more success!  As it happens we will never know but speculation it is not - the dogs alerted with or without forensic evidence to support it.

mike7777 wrote:

Verdi wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

I'm not discrediting the dogs....I am simply looking at what they found...not a lot I'm afraid. The only thing they found that was confirmed was Gerry's blood.

 An INCORRECT statement as I have pointed out previously

its true...what else was confirmed forensically

If your statement refers to ONLY conclusive evidence, then please acknowledge that.

The dogs found a lot of 'evidence' that may have been  Madeleine's blood, but it was not 100% conclusive.

Madeleine's DNA may very well be in abundance in the car and that proves nothing.  The presence of her blood WOULD be important in the investigation and the forensic report by John Lowe claims there was enough of a MATCH to Madeleine in the blood spot found by Keela meaning she COULD have been in the car.

That is not 'NO evidence' it is just not enough to CONFIRM she was in the car.

so to summarise there can be no confirmation maddie was ever in that car......the fact that the McCanns were watched and followed so closely makes me think she was never in the car...you can speculate...but that's all it is.....
John Lowe does not say anything about Maddie being in the car...that is your inference

a)  No sooner had the McCanns hired the Renault Scenic and they jetted off on the European/North African campaign tour.  They were being watched and followed outside Portugal.

b)  Gerry McCann was not the sole named driver for the Renault Scenic.

c)  The McCanns took a trip to Huelva in Spain during a public holiday - a few hours of which haven't been accounted for.  They were not watched and followed during this trip.

there will always be speculation...so you think it's possible the body was somehow stored in a fridge

HiDeHo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:Why did the McCann's feel the need to air the boot of the car by leaving it open?

Because some grocery meat leaked and the car stunk to high heaven apparently. 

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