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

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

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

deleted

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?

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

[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.]

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!

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

hogwash wrote:

  Me likey!

Verdi wrote:

hogwash wrote:

  Me likey!

Do you accept it is possible Maddie was never in the car

This topic has strayed - the thread title is do we think Lowe thinks there was a match because she was in the car or that it was a chance match.  I therefore take it that mike7777 has plumped for `chance match`.

Richard IV wrote:This topic has strayed - the thread title is do we think Lowe thinks there was a match because she was in the car or that it was a chance match.  I therefore take it that mike7777 has plumped for `chance match`.

I think chance was a poor choice of words

mike7777 wrote:

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

mike7777,

Many members today, including myself, have spent time and patience responding to your comments.

I am not sure of you agenda as I see no apparent effort to acknowledge what this thread was about other than to claim you disagree, even when you have been carefully shown important details to the contrary.

This leads me to wonder whether your reason for being here is to seriously search for the truth, or to play games and have everyone speding their precious time answering you.

I was fully aware of that possibility from the start but chose to respond for many hours for one reason...

We have had nearly 5,000 views on this thread, more than 1100 of those in the last 4 hours and though you may not appreciate the time and effort of members in here, I'm sure there were many viewers that were able to see some information they were not aware of.

If you were here to seriously discuss the issue then I suggest you should at least make some serious effort to input with an informed opinion.


If you are here mainly to challenge for the sake of challenging, then we will no longer tolerate any game playing and it will be closed to your posts.

This forum is for the details and facts of the case and not to promote an opinion based on lack of knowledge, and possibly lack of respect.

We need to maintain respect for the members here.

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

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

mike7777,

Many members today, including myself, have spent time and patience responding to your comments.

I am not sure of you agenda as I see no apparent effort to acknowledge what this thread was about other than to claim you disagree, even when you have been carefully shown important details to the contrary.

This leads me to wonder whether your reason for being here is to seriously search for the truth, or to play games and have everyone speding their precious time answering you.

I was fully aware of that possibility from the start but chose to respond for many hours for one reason...

We have had nearly 5,000 views on this thread, more than 1100 of those in the last 4 hours and though you may not appreciate the time and effort of members in here, I'm sure there were many viewers that were able to see some information they were not aware of.

If you were here to seriously discuss the issue then I suggest you should at least make some serious effort to input with an informed opinion.


If you are here mainly to challenge for the sake of challenging, then we will no longer tolerate any game playing and it will be closed to your posts.

This forum is for the details and facts of the case and not to promote an opinion based on lack of knowledge, and possibly lack of respect.

We need to maintain respect for the members here.

I'm her to search for the truth based on the evidence....could you point to any of my posts that have shown disrespect for other posters views...perhaps you could explain to me what relevance Harry Belafonte has to the discussion

HiDeHo wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

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

mike7777,

Many members today, including myself, have spent time and patience responding to your comments.

I am not sure of you agenda as I see no apparent effort to acknowledge what this thread was about other than to claim you disagree, even when you have been carefully shown important details to the contrary.

This leads me to wonder whether your reason for being here is to seriously search for the truth, or to play games and have everyone speding their precious time answering you.

I was fully aware of that possibility from the start but chose to respond for many hours for one reason...

We have had nearly 5,000 views on this thread, more than 1100 of those in the last 4 hours and though you may not appreciate the time and effort of members in here, I'm sure there were many viewers that were able to see some information they were not aware of.

If you were here to seriously discuss the issue then I suggest you should at least make some serious effort to input with an informed opinion.


If you are here mainly to challenge for the sake of challenging, then we will no longer tolerate any game playing and it will be closed to your posts.

This forum is for the details and facts of the case and not to promote an opinion based on lack of knowledge, and possibly lack of respect.

We need to maintain respect for the members here.

What we have established is that maddie may have been in the car....but she may not have been in the car.  I would also say that as the alerts are NOT evidence then there is no evidence that any blood apart from Gerry's was found in the car...please correct anything you do not agree with

Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

BlueBag wrote:Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob...in the car........IF any blood was present it could have been from one person

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob...in the car........IF any blood was present it could have been from one person

Gerry's blood?

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob...in the car........IF any blood was present it could have been from one person

Gerry's blood?

yes....Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob in the car

You have twisted this:

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

How incomplete?

And did it exclude Madeleine?

Also that particular DNA found on the key fob wasn't necessarily from blood.

"The sample has not been sent for further testing".... hmmm.....

BlueBag wrote:You have twisted this:

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

How incomplete?

And did it exclude Madeleine?

Also that particular DNA found on the key fob wasn't necessarily from blood.

"The sample has not been sent for further testing".... hmmm.....

do you feel the FSS have been inept

mike7777... 

What is recognisable in your posts is that you seem to insist on making 3 main  claims...

1) We don't know that Maddie was in the car
2) Alerts should be confirmed by forensics
3)No evidence that it was blood in the car (except Gerry's)

1) We don't know that Maddie was in the car


We don't KNOW that Maddie was in the car.  The point of the thread is that it CANNOT BE EXCLUDED that Maddie was in the car.


2) Alerts should be confirmed by forensics


In a court of law it would be usually to have a conclusive match (though not always as shown in the Bianca Jones trial video (posted) where Martin Grime's dog alerts WERE considered key evidence in the case.)





HOWEVER, an investigation has not yet entered the trial phase and there is a level of possibility/probabilty even when 100% match is not found.  It is up to the investigation to decide whether a 75% match is a possibility or whether it needs to be 80%, 90% or 99% match and that would dependant on many other factors.

Was there one alert with a 55% match or were there 17 alerts with 80% of the missing child's markers found in a compilation of three or four people's markers?

Did a cadaver dog alert to areas of interest when a child is missing?

There is a point where possibility changes to probability.

I am obviously not a forensic person but I'm sure corroborating evidence does not rely only on  100% proof

BOTH dogs alerted to the same spot and forensics were retrieved so we know the dogs were successful and it's up to the investigation to decide what corroborates the findings.

The point of this thread was to show that John Lowe acknowledges it is a match to Maddie's DNA and he asked the question whether it was because she was in the car or because it was a chance match of a mixture of other people that deposited their DNA with a mixture of 15 markers matching Madeleine





3)No evidence that it was blood in the car (except Gerry's blood on key fob)

What is interesting about this comment, that you were insistent on continually claiming, is that it is one of the most common 'defences' used against the possibility of Maddie being in the car.

We are always hearing claims that any DNA found in the car can be accounted for.  DNA can be found on many bodily fluids that could be transferred from any of Maddie's belongings that were in the car.  THAT has been, as mentioned before, the MAIN insistence for anyone defending the possibility of Maddie being in the car and therefore defending the parents for not being complicit in their daughter's removal of her body.

If it were to be established that Maddie's BLOOD was in the car that was rented weeks after her disappearance then that would be VERY troubling for Kate and Gerry and anyone defending them.   That is why the PJ brought in a BLOOD dog.

It is OBVIOUS why ANY suggestion that Maddie's BLOOD is in the car needs to be curtailed as soon and effectively as possible.

May I ask if that was the MAIN reason you joined this forum today ONLY to discredit the possibility it was blood?

Regardless of proof that it WAS blood, you continued to claim it wasn't.

I'm sorry if that set off alarm bells for me but I'm sure you can understand why, given the history of 'pros' continually trying to discredit the finding of blood.

The claim is ALWAYS that FSS cannot distinguish which bodily fluid is attributed to the samples tested.  That is true.  John Lowe makes it very clear.  It is not their responsibility to find out whether  it was retrieved by a blood dog.

What PROVES the samples are blood is Keela.  She does not alert to anything other than blood and to suggest that she was 'wrong' undermines a  highly respected and specialised dog trainer who has recently been working (successfully) with the FBI.  Martin Grime's dogs are reliable despite claims to the contrary.

When Keela alerts, she alerts to BLOOD.  Nothing else.







In summary, it is absolutely your prerogative to have your own opinions, despite the proof that has been carefully shown to you, but it is NOT acceptable to attempt to influence other members and viewers by the age old method of 'suggestion'.  (ie. if you say it often enough then people will believe it)

Here on CMOMM we want people to feel free make their own opinions based on the facts from the case and not be urged to believe an opinion that is not based on fact, but based on an agenda to remove the ONE piece of 'evidence' in the case that is most damaging if found to be true.

BLOOD was found in the back of the car and  John Lowe ACKNOWLEDGES it is a MATCH to Maddie, as he claims, it is just not known if it exists because she was IN THE CAR or because it is a mixture of a few people that deposited their DNA, with the equivalent of 15 (of Maddies 19) markers in ONE blood spot in the back of the car.

I apologise if reviewing your posts pointed in the direction of the agenda as suggested above.

If required, I can post all your comments in sequence to show there was little effort to discuss, only to make the points listed above and to discredit the findings.

Also, I did not suggest you were disrespectful towards any members, but an effort to affect people's perception and ignore member's attempts to correct you is disrespectful of their time.

If I am wrong in my thoughts then please explain to me why your 'discussion' was based primarily on the points I have highlighted and in 45 posts you INSIST it was not blood more than 15 times, even after you had been corrected several times!

That is not what most would consider a 'discussion'.

If I am wrong I will apologise.

Thank you for refreshing my memory re the McCanns minging Renault carboot, HdH    

Also for this stark reminder:

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

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

mike7777 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Gerry's blood?

How did you work that one out?

The DNA matched Madeleine OR was a combination of Kate and Gerry's who would contribute 50% each.

Seeing as the DNA was alerted to by a BLOOD dog and was DNA from BLOOD then the combination is highly unlikely.

Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob...in the car........IF any blood was present it could have been from one person

Gerry's blood?

yes....Gerry's blood was found on the keyfob in the car

I don't insist it wasn't blood...I'm saying there is no evidence it is blood as Grime has told us that the alerts themselves have no evidential reliability.
Again...Maddie may have been in the car or she may not have...we do not know. The dna is from 3 people or even 5 according to Lowe and according to Lowe there is no way of knowing if the markers came from the DNA of Maddie.

I read the forum and saw this thread and wished to comment on it....

pennylane wrote:Thank you for refreshing my memory re the McCanns minging Renault carboot, HdH    

Also for this stark reminder:

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

How can Amaral tell what type of fluid it was when the FSS were unable to determine it's type

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


There IS evidence that vestiges of blood were located in the luggage compartment of the Renault Scenic - KEELA!  You have again failed to address this issue, so clearly laid out by HiDeHo today so I will take the liberty of re-posting..

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

So if not blood detected by Keela the trained dog, what do you think it was - rice pudding?  Or are you of the same school of thought as propagated by the McCann faction - that the odours sprang from rotting meat, shrimps, dirty nappies, Madeleine's sandals etc? 

Although not confirmed by material evidence or the forensic scientists, the probability of MBM's body having been in the Renault Scenic out weighs any lame explanations and/or excuses so far put forward.  Either MBM had been in the car or it was a chance match? Talk about hedging your bets!