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

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 20:17

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.

by mike7777 22.11.15 20:24

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

by mike7777 22.11.15 20:27

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.

the reason the samples were to complex for interpretation was simply because one....they were so small......and two...because they were a mixture of dna from 3 or more people...nothing odd at all

by Verdi 22.11.15 20:28

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.

by mike7777 22.11.15 20:34

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.

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

by Verdi 22.11.15 20:38

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.

by mike7777 22.11.15 20:43

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

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 21:13

mike, regardless of all your comments being responded to, you continue to focus on no PROOF that Maddie was in the car...

That is not the purpose of this thread...

It is to recognise that John Lowe saw a match to Maddie but could not verify that it was because she was in the car...

In other words, it does NOT EXCLUDE Maddie from being in the car.

You can claim there is nothing to prove she WAS in the car but there is nothing to prove she wasn't...In fact there is a MATCH to her so along with 17 dog alerts and the subsequent forensics that were found, it is POSSIBLE she was in the car.

John Lowe would not have asked whether the match came from Maddie being IN the car if it wasn't a possibility.

It basically comes down to was it her DNA or was it a mixture of others.

This thread is about the forensic results showing the 15 markers of her 19 were found in the blood spot and she COULD have been in the car...not that she WAS.

It is your prerogative to believe that she wasn't in the car.

1) Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE she was in the car?

2) Do you also acknowledge that although FSS could not claim which body fluid, the fact that a BLOOD dog alerted to the spot, and knowing Keela does not alert to anything else, that it was BLOOD found in the back of the car?

by IAmNotMerylStreep 22.11.15 21:19

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

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

by pennylane 22.11.15 21:25

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. whistling

by Verdi 22.11.15 22:13

[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.

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 22:26

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 image.]

by mike7777 22.11.15 22:30

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.

I disagree...the role of the dogs is to find evidence not to find scents
you seem to want to criticise the FSS......they can only work with what they are given....apart from the keyfob the samples they were given were tiny and contained dna from several people...that was the problem

by Verdi 22.11.15 22:31

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

I make no mention of any fridge. However, it should be borne in mind that on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007, I'll wager the apartments occupied by the McCanns friends were not searched by the GNR or PJ, nor that of Jeremy Wilkins. I can't state that as fact but I'm fairly certain that it didn't happen - far more likely that a body was temporarily placed in one of their apartments or in the local church (hallowed ground?), for onward transportation at a more convenient time. Certainly a more tangible proposition that GM carrying a body about the streets of PdL around 10:00 pm.

Still, that has nothing to do with Lowes report per se.

by mike7777 22.11.15 22:34

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 image.]

you are quoting Amaral who has no experience or knowledge of cadaver dogs and who misunderstood both the alerts and the dna results. He also has a conviction for perjury

by mike7777 22.11.15 22:36

Verdi wrote:
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
I make no mention of any fridge. However, it should be borne in mind that on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007, I'll wager the apartments occupied by the McCanns friends were not searched by the GNR or PJ, nor that of Jeremy Wilkins. I can't state that as fact but I'm fairly certain that it didn't happen - far more likely that a body was temporarily placed in one of their apartments or in the local church (hallowed ground?), for onward transportation at a more convenient time. Certainly a more tangible proposition that GM carrying a body about the streets of PdL around 10:00 pm.

Still, that has nothing to do with Lowes report per se.

If the body was not kept in a fridge you would not need a cadaver dog to detect the scent in the car...your post is speculation

by mike7777 22.11.15 22:40

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.

so how did Maddie die....rolled of the sofa and suffered a catastrophic head injury according to amaral...sounds impossible

by mike7777 22.11.15 22:41

deleted

by Verdi 22.11.15 22:48

mike7777 wrote:
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.

I disagree...the role of the dogs is to find evidence not to find scents
you seem to want to criticise the FSS......they can only work with what they are given....apart from the keyfob the samples they were given were tiny and contained dna from several people...that was the problem

Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

You seem to be hell bent on ignoring every opposing observation on this subject. You are not addressing specific points made by members, you only revert to the same opinion that the dog alerts need to be confirmed by forensic evidence for it to have any value, thus ignoring the main subject matter.

Do you accept the possibility that MBM's body, alive or dead, may have been in the hired Renault Scenic at some stage?

by mike7777 22.11.15 22:50

Verdi wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
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.

I disagree...the role of the dogs is to find evidence not to find scents
you seem to want to criticise the FSS......they can only work with what they are given....apart from the keyfob the samples they were given were tiny and contained dna from several people...that was the problem
Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

You seem to be hell bent on ignoring every opposing observation on this subject. You are not addressing specific points made by members, you only revert to the same opinion that the dog alerts need to be confirmed by forensic evidence for it to have any value, thus ignoring the main subject matter.

Do you accept the possibility that MBM's body, alive or dead, may have been in the hired Renault Scenic at some stage?

I personally do not believe it was based on the evidence

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 22:57

Imike7777

t is your prerogative to believe that she wasn't in the car. That is not the question.

1) Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE she was in the car?

2) Do you also acknowledge that although FSS could not claim which body fluid, the fact that a BLOOD dog alerted to the spot, and knowing Keela does not alert to anything else, that it was BLOOD found in the back of the car?

by Verdi 22.11.15 23:00

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: you are quoting Amaral who has no experience or knowledge of cadaver dogs and who misunderstood both the alerts and the dna results.

Familiar words - now where have I read them before ....

Whilst senior officers of the law have a vast knowledge of their work, I don't expect every one of them to be conversant with absolutely every technical/specialist aspect of a criminal investigation. Their function is primarily to find the criminal, there are auxiliary agents to fill in the blanks - like the FSS. If, as you say, Dr. Amaral had no understanding of the forensic results then I, for one, would expect the experts to advise him, in this case John Lowe!

I rest my case.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by hogwash 22.11.15 23:05

by Verdi 22.11.15 23:06

mike7777 wrote:
Verdi wrote:
mike7777 wrote:
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.

I disagree...the role of the dogs is to find evidence not to find scents
you seem to want to criticise the FSS......they can only work with what they are given....apart from the keyfob the samples they were given were tiny and contained dna from several people...that was the problem
Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

You seem to be hell bent on ignoring every opposing observation on this subject. You are not addressing specific points made by members, you only revert to the same opinion that the dog alerts need to be confirmed by forensic evidence for it to have any value, thus ignoring the main subject matter.

Do you accept the possibility that MBM's body, alive or dead, may have been in the hired Renault Scenic at some stage?

I personally do not believe it was based on the evidence

What evidence - don't you mean absence of evidence?

Besides, just because there isn't any conclusive evidence to support the dog alerts doesn't mean that the body of MBM was never in the car. I was in Hi-Tech earlier today, I can't produce evidence that I was there - but I was!

by mike7777 22.11.15 23:07

HiDeHo wrote:Imike7777

t is your prerogative to believe that she wasn't in the car. That is not the question.

1) Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE she was in the car?

2) Do you also acknowledge that although FSS could not claim which body fluid, the fact that a BLOOD dog alerted to the spot, and knowing Keela does not alert to anything else, that it was BLOOD found in the back of the car?

Of course its possible that Maddie had been in the car...do you also agree its possible maddie was never in the car... As the FSS were not able to confirm it was blood then it may have been blood but there is NO evidence that it was blood

Log in for more topics