The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register please do NOT use your email address as a username because everyone will be able to see it!


Forensics Revisited

Page 7 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 30.06.18 21:46

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).
..................

If the twins had been drugged, wouldn't it have come to light when their reference samples were being analyzed for a DNA profile?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 9214
Reputation : 3977
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Hobs on 01.07.18 0:19

@Verdi wrote:Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).
..................

If the twins had been drugged, wouldn't it have come to light when their reference samples were being analyzed for a DNA profile?  

No.
They would have been sequencing their DNA not looking for traces of drugs.
The tests would be different.

Testing the twins for sedation would require at least some idea of the types of drugs that could be used for sedation so they would know what to test for and with what chemical.
They would be looking at the commonly used and easily available as a start  such as childrens cough mixtures or phenergan, paracetemol or other OTC medications which would have a sedative affect, travel sickness pills etc.
Since they were almost all doctors , they would also be thinking about  what doctors would have access to both as OTC adult medications which could have a sedative affect, more so on a child and also that which would be prescription only.

The latter would probably require  access to prescriptions signed by the mccanns or the other doctors for patients, how much, what strength and when.
They would be looking at self medication which is frowned on by the GMC and also what if anything the mccanns and chums had been prescribed, dosage and the reason.

More so they would be looking at kate as she was a p/t locum gp.

They would also be looking at the medical histories of the children (or at least trying to) to see what illnesses if any they had had, their vaccination records, any health issues such as Maddie's coloboma and anything that was related to that, autism or other disability (Maddie being born almost perfect)
They would be looking at any and all GP visits which could perhaps provide a motive or lack of visits which could also provide a motive.
Hospital visits whether as an accident or in relation to medical history which, had Maddie been found  sooner rather than later, could provide evidence if she was found to have physical injuries such as fractures, cuts, scarring etc.
If, for example, Maddie had been found with  healed and/or healing fractures, scarring and/or healing cuts, bruises or other injuries that could not have happened between the time she was abducted and the time she was found, then they would be looking at medical records to see if Maddie had been treated at a hospital.
If, for example she had had an old healed fracture of the arm but had not gone to hospital for treatment, then questions would be asked as to why she had not been treated at a hospital, had she been treated by her parents and if so, why had she not been taken to hospital. This would lead to questions about abuse and neglect and lead to charges as well as losing custody of the twins and also their medical licenses.

The mccanns knew that the twins had been sedated and with what and how much.
The expected reaction would be to demand the children be taken to hospital, checked for signs of sedation and drugs and also for signs  of physical injury/sexual abuse.
The parents would not have known if the children had been sedated and with what, if they had be injured by the abductor before abducting Maddie.
This would have been the expected even though they were doctors, they would not have the equipment to test for whatever had been given.

Since the mccanns did not have the children taken to hospital for tests, it showed they knew the children had not been assaulted physically and also knew with what they had been sedated with, how much and what effects it would have.
They also refused to allow them to be examined since it would show sedation and also if they had been sedating them regularly, it would show up in their hair samples.
Long time sedation would result in prosecution, loss of custody of the twins and also loss of their license to practice and thus their jobs, also leading to losing their reputations, house, friends and possibly family and social status.

That they had their hair cut after a few months, both the twins and the parents and that the mccanns felt it important enough to include in their blog/statements makes it sensitive to them.
Also kate's description of having their hair tested, having chunks of it cut out it complete tosh.
They only need a few strands which would be taken from  underneath in all probability so as to not be obvious not the chunks as described by kate, even though these tests were at the behest of the mccanns.
I also wonder what remit the testers were given, what drugs they were to test for (not whatever the mccanns had used either on the twins or themselves)
The tests were done well after whatever the twins had been given would not show up and if long term sedation had been used at some point then stopped, after their haircuts so the drugs would no longer be present and show up.

I do wonder at the hairs found in the hire car, if there was corpse banding on them?
If so, how would they explain the presence of hairs from a corpse in the hire car and, even if there was only 15/19 markers relating to Maddie, with 4 markers too degraded to identify, why a dead body with links to the mccanns  was present in the hire car weeks after Maddie went missing?

Can't blame that on dealing with corpses in the days before going on vacation or it belonging to one of the family who came over from the UK to help.
A zombie would be rather noticeable.

Would they try and claim the evidence had been planted?
It would mean acknowledging Maddie was dead for a start thus the end of the fund.
It would also mean who planted the evidence since they would have to have found Maddie's remains or had access to them after she died (the killer)
Couldn't be the police since they would have announced it and Maddie would be given a dignified burial so it had to be the killer trying to implicate the mccanns.
Why though would they take the risk of planting evidence in the hire car when there were so many police/reporters/searchers around and why would the mccanns not  complain about the smell in the car, keep the trunk open each night and come up with excuses for what was found?

It leads then straight to the mccanns, they had the opportunity, the means and the motive and would also explain their language and behavior regarding the car, the smell and the evidence found.
Why come up for explanations and excuses for something you did not do?

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.
avatar
Hobs
Researcher/Analyst

Posts : 904
Reputation : 590
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 54
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 01.07.18 1:35

My point is, if the twins were out for the count as claimed by the McCanns and sources close to the family and supposedly witnessed by GNR officers - why weren't they tested?

It's late so this is entirely off the top of my head - when were the twins DNA profiles established, by whom and by what method. I don't recall any mention of buccal samples being taken along with the rest of the group by the PJ forensics when conducting their initial investigation of the crime scene, yet the twins appear in the July 2007 FSS report..



I understand that the twins DNA profile was possibly required to determine Madeleine's DNA said to be from the Rothley pillowcase but again, why were they not tested for drug ingestion - it was still within the time frame for hair/fingernail testing.

If thoughts of sedation were considered, as mentioned by Gonçalo Amaral and the McCanns in connection with the phantom abductor - why weren't the twins tested?

I've yet to be convinced.

Excuse any errors, not only is it late but by connection is painfully slow and posting is difficult. I blame the world cup and the weather.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 9214
Reputation : 3977
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 01.07.18 13:34


____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 9214
Reputation : 3977
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Doug D on 01.07.18 16:29

Lesley Denton’s reports dated 18th July:


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/01_volume_I_o_apenso_I_Page_101_small1.jpg


 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/01_volume_I_o_apenso_I_Page_102_small1.jpg
 
with her signed ‘destruction’ letter dated 19th July:
 


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/01_volume_I_o_apenso_I_Page_103_small1.jpg
 
‘Same’ unsigned destruction letter dated 21st August 2007, although the 'order reference', whatever that may be, has changed from Denton's letters and presumably this letter relates to the 'new' set of samples collected after Eddie & Keela went in to 5A on 3rd August and then the Renault on 6th and then in the early hours of 7th August
 


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2282.jpg
 
Then Lowe’s report dated 6th September from examination dated 7th August:
 
This report summarises the results of DNA profiling tests conducted on a number of samples submitted to the Birmingham laboratory of the Forensic Science Service(R) from the Leicestershire Constabulary on behalf of the Pol - ia Judiciaria and Laboratorio De Policia Cientifica on 7th August 2007 ………………
 
JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol NliBiol RFP 
Date:
6 September 2007 
Processos Vol X Pages 2659 - 2660
 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
 
…………………………….
 
The ‘destruction letters’ talk about destroying the perishable samples unless notification is received within 21 days, but reading the ‘Memorandum of Understanding for Retained Materials’:
 
[url=http://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/FoI publication/Disclosure Logs/Crime FOI/2012/199 12 Att 01 of 1 Forensic Exhibit Retention Guidance.pdf]http://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/FoI%20publication/Disclosure%20Logs/Crime%20%20FOI/2012/199%2012%20Att%2001%20of%201%20Forensic%20Exhibit%20Retention%20Guidance.pdf[/url]

it states that


‘any DNA extracts recovered from them will be retained frozen by the FSP in line with this guidance’


and


‘case material’ for serious crime should be retained for 30 years,
 
so whilst the perishable samples may have been destroyed, the extracts should still be knocking around. Without a good system for retaining these sorts of samples and materials, cold case reviews could not happen. 
 
The ‘non-perishable’ hair samples ‘are returned to you’ (is this D.S. Prior or the PJ?), other than the parts ‘which were removed for examination’ and again these ‘removed parts’ should be retained for 30 years.
 
This is all based on UK law, but as they were working at the request of the PJ, should they not have been acting on Portuguese instructions in any event?

eta:

According to the bewk, hair samples specifically for drug testing were taken on 24th September. One has to ask why, when samples had already been taken of the twins hair which should have still been available.

Doug D

Posts : 2607
Reputation : 922
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by FH on 05.07.18 15:06

I have 100% confidence in the dogs and I am 100% sure from the parents behaviour that  they know exactly what happened to their little girl. The fact they haven't been charged , despite all the evidence makes me think there could easily be a high level cover up.  

I do have a question about cadaverine, or whatever volatile compounds the dogs are trained to pick up.  Is cadaverine an indicator of a corpse, or of dead tissue? Does anyone know how much dead tissue is needed for cadaverine to develop?  If say,  I sliced the top off my thumb and that skin tissue was left to decay -  I am assuming that would produce cadaverine, but I am not dead, just missing the top of my thumb.   Would  only skin be enough, or does it need muscle tissue, organ tissue.... I guess what I am asking is  could the dog detect the scent of  death, without there being a whole dead body, just a bit of dead tissue?

FH

Posts : 120
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-04-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 05.07.18 15:30

@FH wrote:I have 100% confidence in the dogs and I am 100% sure from the parents behaviour that  they know exactly what happened to their little girl. The fact they haven't been charged , despite all the evidence makes me think there could easily be a high level cover up.  

I do have a question about cadaverine, or whatever volatile compounds the dogs are trained to pick up.  Is cadaverine an indicator of a corpse, or of dead tissue? Does anyone know how much dead tissue is needed for cadaverine to develop?  If say,  I sliced the top off my thumb and that skin tissue was left to decay -  I am assuming that would produce cadaverine, but I am not dead, just missing the top of my thumb.   Would  only skin be enough, or does it need muscle tissue, organ tissue.... I guess what I am asking is  could the dog detect the scent of  death, without there being a whole dead body, just a bit of dead tissue?

An excellent question if I might say!

I'm no expert but I think you'll find trained dogs react to the scent of the decaying process of a corpse, which produces many compounds apart from cadavarine/putrifaction.  An example might be to question whether or not if you chopped the end off your finger (don't try this at home folk) and left it around for a few hours or days, would you be able to detect the scent of death - the answer to that I believe would be no.  If I'm wrong, no doubt someone will spring forth to correct me.

Meanwhile, this article makes interesting reading on the subject and might explain (in lay terms) better than I ever can, also a nice little plug for our canine friends  I can't vouch for scientific authenticity but the author would appear to be professional..

Dogs Can Detect Dead Bodies Better than Any Machine

Kiona Smith-Strickland

If you’re a detective who needs to find a corpse, there are lots of ways to look: you can comb the woods in a line search or hunt for hidden graves with ground-penetrating radar. In most cases, though, the most versatile and reliable method has four legs and a wet nose.

No machine can reliably identify the odor of decomposition, but properly trained Human Remains Detection (HRD) dogs can.

However, scientists aren’t sure exactly which chemicals make up the scent that HRD dogs recognize. A decomposing human body releases 478 different chemical compounds, and researchers are still trying to figure out which ones really matter to HRD dogs. Learning the answer could help improve canine training, which could help find crime victims and missing persons.

Whatever the chemical signature is, it’s present through the whole process, from fresh corpses in the first few hours after death to skeletons several years old. It’s also present in several types of tissue, including blood, bone, and fat. Properly trained HRD dogs can identify the scent not just in whole bodies, but in blood spatter, bone, and even cremated remains. They can even pick up the scent left behind in the soil after a body has been removed from a grave.

The signature scent of human death is also unique to humans. Trained HRD dogs can tell the difference between human remains and animal remains.

Of course, in order to recognize and find the scent of human remains in so many contexts, HRD dogs need a lot of training, including practice finding human remains in as many forms as possible – from fresh blood to old, dry bone, and from ashes to whole bodies – so they can recognize remains on a real search, no matter what shape the body is in.

So, how do they do it?
What’s That Smell?

Two of the best known chemicals are cadaverine and putrescine, chemical compounds produced by the breakdown of amino acids during decomposition, but they tell only a fraction of the story.

A 2004 study by Arpad A. Vass at the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility—better known as the Body Farm—sampled chemicals in grave soil and in the air just above graves. Vass and his colleagues found over 400 compounds, but no measurable amounts of cadaverine or putrescine. These two compounds don’t seem to be a key part of the scent of death, after all, at least not at every stage of the process.
Faking the Scent of Death

But for years, scientists thought these chemicals were the source of the distinctive scent of human remains. There are even synthetic versions on the market, which are still used in some HRD canine training, despite a lot of debate among canine handlers.

In order to learn to find something by scent, dogs need to practice with the real scent. That’s why, for example, handlers who train drug dogs are allowed to work with actual narcotics for training. So, to learn how to find dead people, HRD dogs need to practice on – you guessed it: actual dead people, or body parts. Getting access to real body parts is, predictably, not easy. That’s why “pseudo-scents” like synthetic cadaverine and putrescine are still so popular; they’re a lot easier to come by, but science seems to indicate that they’re not actually a good substitute for the real thing.
Is It In Our Bones?

Bone may hold at least part of the answer. A 2008 study at the Body Farm compared chemical vapors given off by bones from humans, dogs, deer, and pigs, and found that each type of bone produced noticeably different ratios of certain classes of chemicals. Researchers said that these scents probably contributed to the overall scent of decomposition, but it’s not yet clear whether these same compounds could are present in, for example, blood or ash. That research followed a 2006 study of soil from the campsite of the ill-fated Donner Party, which found that phosphates may be a measurable by-product of the breakdown of human bone.

Vass and his colleagues have done a series of studies on decomposing bodies, from 2004 to 2012, and the results make up the Decompositional Odor Analysis Database. It’s safe to say that science is still trying to sniff out the answer.

Meanwhile, although the exact mechanism isn’t yet understood by humans, it’s very clear that correctly trained HRD canines can reliably find human remains, from hidden graves to disaster zones.

https://gizmodo.com/the-science-behind-dogs-that-detect-dead-bodies-1702605569

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 9214
Reputation : 3977
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Doug D on 05.07.18 20:06

Just to correct my post at #155 above.
 
On 3rd August it was only Keela (the blood dog) that was taken back to 5A.
 
Eddie and Keela were both taken there originally on 31st July and following both dogs marking behind the sofa, the floor tiles and skirting were removed on the evening of 1st and early hours of 2nd August.
 
Keela was then taken back to 5a on the evening of 3rd, (so after the tiles had been lifted and skirting removed) and he alerted as follows:
 
19.19 The dog "marked" an area of tiles in the living room, next to the window and behind the sofa.

19.20 The dog "marked" the lower part of the left white coloured curtain of the window behind the sofa.

 
and the swabs were then taken overnight on 4th/5th, in accordance with the advice given by Jonathan Smith from the NCA &/or FSS.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm

Doug D

Posts : 2607
Reputation : 922
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum