Forensics Revisited

@ Pete123. When I speculate that Madeleine may have hurt herself earlier by falling off the sofa that, for me, could have happened say on Wed night or sometime on Thursday after tea.
 It's not (IMO) beyond the bounds of possibility that what was taken to be an uncomplicated fall could have had a more serious effect which was missed. Imagine Madeleine had banged her head, had a bloody nose, but seemed fine otherwise. Her parents are happy that she has no signs of serious trauma. They head out as usual, leaving their children asleep to be checked periodically, and later discover Madeleine has died during, say, a fit, as a result of her banging her head.
As doctors, this would play very badly with the public in terms of professional competence and negligence.
 I'm not at all saying this definitely happened, but for me it's another possibility. Like you, I too believe that within their web of lies there are some nuggets of truth.
 I remember Gerry's refusal to comment when asked if Madeleine had ever injured herself in the apartment; Kate's expressed concern over her children "falling and hitting their heads"; Kate's description of Madeleine's alleged pallor and lethargy on that Thursday after tea - and, well, it sets me thinking!
Re. the dogs. I could understand a false positive from Eddie once, but for him to give so many false positive alerts and ONLY regarding items connected to the McCanns (the apartment, clothing, the car, cuddlecat) stretches credulity. Some of Eddie's alerts were confirmed by Keela ie- behind the sofa, the car key-fob, the Renault itself, so it appears Eddie was on form!!

Whoa there - let's get back on track before this subject re-routes somewhere in a parallel universe.

You're looking for evidence to support a negative Pete123?  No wonder you can't find it.

Where do I begin.

The Warners Ocean Club childcare service did not include a baby listening service.  That is the reason the group feigned to create their own listening service.

You say 'you never considered the possibility that Tannerman might be an alibi for Richard.'  Who is Richard?

You say everyone is welcome to prove you wrong, and you hope they do. That will narrow down the theories until we only have one left.  You haven't presented a theory, only negative what ifs.

You say .... 'Maybe I think more blinkered than most, but until I (maybe not the majority) can accept something as a fact I can not take it as one.'   Eh - what on earth are you talking about?

As I previously suggested, take time-out to read the most reliable sources of information, primarily the PJ files, before venturing on commentary - there's a 100% fact for you to ponder !

How about you continue to only accept theories that you agree with, then shout down all other possibilities. Then you will continue to be a moderator on a site which is no nearer to the answer I want to get to. The truth. So maybe I give lots of possibilities, that nobody has any evidence to contradict. Maybe one of them might be right. You shunned my theory that Gerry might have something to do with MI5. You are free to show me where I am wrong. Or he may have been being followed by MI5/MI6 at the time. Can you disprove that? Can you show me evidence that cadaver dogs barking are 100% court admissable evidence on their own? I can show you it's only admissable, in the UK, if supported by physical evidence. 

I'm bored now. Richard is Richard o' brien. He was one of the Tapas 9.

maybe you should be looking up the facts.



over and out.

Russell.Russell O'Brien

You might find this of interest Pete123..

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

A very notable case, this is just one example.  Although not the law of averages, it is possible for a court of law in the UK to convict on circumstantial evidence alone - note the marked similarities between the dogs evidence in the McCann case and that of Suzanne Pilley

Did you get around to reading the link provided earlier by the forum owner? 

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

This should give you a better understanding of the purpose of CMoMM and the extent of work contributed voluntarily by a host of experts from various professions that enhance the skills of criminology and forum members past and present.

Hats off that's what I say - and that's a positive !

NB:  O'Brien's given name is Russell, not Richard.

Pete123 wrote:How about you continue to only accept theories that you agree with, then shout down all other possibilities. Then you will continue to be a moderator on a site which is no nearer to the answer I want to get to. The truth. So maybe I give lots of possibilities, that nobody has any evidence to contradict.

That's just plain ridiculous - it's not possible to provide evidence to prove a negative element.  You might as well ask me to provide evidence that pigs fly, anyone with an ounce of savvy will know that to be impossible, unless motorized but how do you prove it not possible?  Throw the pig in the air and see what happens?   Apart from the very fact pig haven't got wings or any other attribute to make flight a possibility

Nor is it a case of my accepting only theories that I agree with, that's not how it works.  Theory has to be based on fact, evidence, intelligence and documented well sourced information - not pie in the sky thinking.

UK forensic science slammed by inquiry

Failures in the forensic services threaten to compromise the UK criminal-justice system, a parliamentary report warns.

• Daniel Cressey
  

25 July 2013

UK government failures over forensic science are leading to fragmentation, research gaps and possibly even miscarriages of justice, according to a parliamentary inquiry on the subject.

Crimes including rape and murder may be going unsolved because of such issues, the House of Commons science and technology select committee heard from leading forensic scientists.

And the opposite is also likely, says Andrew Miller, the committee's chairman, warning of "the risk of people being convicted improperly because of the weakness of the system”.

Controversy has raged over forensic science in the United Kingdom since it was announced in 2010 that the government-owned Forensic Science Service (FSS) would be closed. The select committee held an investigation into the issue in 2011, but their latest report revisiting the subject airs the most strident criticism to date.

Released today, the committee’s report lists a series of failures, including mishandling of the final closure of the FSS in March 2012, a lack of coherent archiving for materials from investigations, police laboratories not reaching quality standards and a continued failure to address chronic problems in funding for forensic-science research.

Since the closure of the FSS, its forensic work has been conducted by private companies or in-house by police forces themselves.

“There are serious problems on the horizon if we don’t get to grips with some of these issues,” says Miller. “The loser will be the criminal-justice system.”

Some of the inquiry’s most damning criticisms are reserved for Jeremy Browne, the minister of state for crime prevention, who had “little understanding of the subject” when he gave evidence to the inquiry, according to the report. The authors write: “[Browne] responded to most of our questions with inexact analogies, rhetorical questions and politically divisive or vague comments”.

Mind the research gap

The report points out that it is extremely difficult for UK researchers to obtain funding for forensic work — a complaint aired often in the past. The committee calls for the nation’s research councils, which distribute most government funding for science, to make forensics a priority. The lack of a coherent strategy for research hampers the development of new technologies and techniques, as well as the adoption of new technologies developed elsewhere, the committee warns.

“The research councils themselves need to bite the bullet and focus on what they can do to help,” says Miller.

Martin Evison, director of the Northumbria University Centre for Forensic Science in Newcastle, UK, and one of the witnesses to the inquiry, says that there is a certain amount of polemic around the subject in the United Kingdom, owing to unhappiness over the fate of the FSS. But he agrees that it has been always a struggle to get research funding for forensic science from the conventional sources, which creates problems for the justice system.

“The public needs to be aware that policy-makers rather neglect forensic science and medicine,” he says. “But we have to remember that in a democratic society, the liberty of the individual is the thing on which the whole society rests. If we neglect the things that protect our liberty, we do so at our peril.”

In a statement, the Home Office said it was “bringing together the police and industry experts to keep the UK at the cutting edge of forensic and biometric technology” and would ensure police forces “have access to the best possible forensics services”.

Nature has requested comment from the research councils but had not heard back at the time of press.

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

Verbal Report by Martin Grime Relating to the Searches Carried out with the Dogs in the Ocean Club Apartments
　
Transcription/Translation
　
Apartment 5 A

Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house the only two places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom, in this corner where he was barking.

What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But strong indication and I would say its positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief.

Moving onto the other rooms once he's found what he thinks he's looking for in this room, and we go into the bathroom and come into this bedroom he loses his interest because he's actually found the source that he was looking for, until we come over here and I think you've got it on video that when he first came in he was quite interested in the sofa but he didn't have access to the back of the sofa and when he's gone behind the sofa what I saw was that approximately in the centre of the wall where the window is, just along the tile area between the tiles and the wall, he's been scenting there a lot stronger than he has anywhere else and the when he's gone out there the second time he has decided yes that's what I'm looking for and that's when he has given me the bark indication.

What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that. The only times I've ever known him bark since I've got him as a small puppy a) for his dinner and that's just excitement and that's one of the training methods we use to teach to bark when we want him to and when he actually finds something, he won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or something like that, so again I would say that's a positive indication.

The second dog that we've seen work today is the crime scene dog Keela. She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that's historically very old and she will find anybody's blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows.

The fact that there is other scientific methods being used may stop you recovering any DNA but if you try we'll see what happens. But she is very, very good and when she indicates there is always blood there.

Apartment B

We've searched this apartment with the victim recovery dog and he has shown no interest in the flat for what he he trained to find at all so we finished.

Apartment 5 D

We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found.

Apartment H5

We searched this apartment and the dog hasn't shown any interest in this particular apartment, apart from around the table, where there was a tennis ball which is how we reward the dog for finding things, as soon as we removed the tennis ball the interest was gone. And so it was a negative search.


Apartment 4 G

We searched the apartment using the victim recovery dog. No response. Negative search.


Outside perimeter of apartments

We've searched the outer perimeter, there is some interest here but it will take some further examination to see what's going on.

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

CADAVER AND HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOGS
SEARCH ASSET PROFILES


LICENSING AND ACCREDITATION
U.K., A.C.P.O. licensed and accredited cadaver dogs are trained and licensed
on the basis of the relevant section of the Police Dog Training and Care
manual. This involves the training of G.P. (General Purpose) dogs to alert to
the presence of surface deposition and sub-surface deposition to
approximately 2 feet. The dogs are deployed on long lines to search an area
in large numbers.

The U.K. has also approximately six Police dog teams that have been trained
exclusively on decomposing pig remains not for human consumption as
specialist dogs to work off the leash to locate human remains in a wider
variety of scenarios. Pig is used as it has been proven in training and
operationally over the last 20 years to be a reliable analogue for human
remains detecting training for dogs. The possession of human remains for the
purpose of training dogs in the U.K. is not acceptable at this point in time.

Licensing is derived from anecdotal cases and is scenario based conducted
over a period of a week, twice annually, it is conducted utilising independent
A.C.P.O. authorised assessors. Continuation training is conducted on a dialy
basis and includes simple scent discrimination testing to large scale scenario
based exercises.

Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are
independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals
as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are
tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these
dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if
required.

All operational deployments are video recorded including a control sample
find when appropriate.

Vol IX p. 2479

TRAINING
The dog, a scavenger, uses its olfactory system to locate food sources,
identify its young, other pack members, enemies and predators over large
distances. It can track its prey identifying a direction of travel. This entails the
dog being able to discriminate the time difference between footsteps using the
sense of smell. The reward of food and protection / close comfort provides the
basis for a system to be adopted where the dog shows a willingness to
respond in response to the reward. We are thereby able to 'train' the dog
using conditioned responses to stimuli. Repetition and reward then ensure
efficiency. Positive and negative reinforcement then shape the required
behaviour in their role. Within the role of these dogs they are utilising basis
survival instinct but have undergone behaviour shaping to alert the handler to
their finding as opposed to consummation. Pavlov's theory is used in the
case of the E.V.R.D. system of alert. He has been 'conditioned' to give a
verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead body scent'. The presence of
tangible material is not required to produce the response merely the scent
itself. Pseudo scent is an artificially chemically produced product that its
manufacturers claim to resemble 'dead body scent'. Although some cadaver
dog trainers have had limited success with its use in training, when tested on
my dogs they showed no interest and it is not used as a training aid for them.

In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated
assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.
These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I
introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the
animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet
cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from
scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of
human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train'
the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be
possible in the future.

CADAVER SCENT

The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.
Vol. IX p. 2480

EVRD

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material.

The E.R.V.D. has successfully in training and in operational casework located
Human cadaders, whether in the whole or parts thereof, deposited surface or
sub-surface to a depth of approximately 1 metre shortly after death (though
precise times are not determinable) to the advanced stages of decomposition
and putrefaction through the skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if
large quantities of accelerant have been involved. The dog has successfully in
training and in operational casework located a human cadavers in water either
from the bank siade or when deployed in a boat.

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where
there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious
material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. This may be
achieved by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent
samples being taken by remote means on sterile gauze pads. The gauze
pads are then 'screened' in a line - up formation with the inclusion of a number
of control samples and blank sterile pads.

The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to
identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in
bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce
the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable
environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where
controls may be included to increase assurity.

Vol IX p. 2481

FALSE ALERTS

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.

STU MACHINE

I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent
pads taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a Scent Transference
Unit. Operational use of the STU is in a developmental and evaluative stage
used in conjunction with selective FBI casework. The unis is in a two-part
design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in
at to the front and exhausts through the rear. There is no 're-circulation' of air
within the unit. The second part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A
sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated, the STU draws air
through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the
rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be forensically stored for
use within scent discrimination exercises.

The STU is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is
apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to
search a given area where the STU is secreted. Any response by the dog
would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination
procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device
when completed. Use of the STU is considered when subject vehicles,
property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from
contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best
practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.

EVRD OPERATIONAL CASEWORK EXAMPLES

Northern Ireland, UK
A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The
search of suspects 'burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any
evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger
foot well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample
was taken and when analysed revealed the victims' DNA. The enquiry then
concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of
the woman in a river bank deposition site. Further searches identified a
Vol. IX p. 2482

location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offenders
empty next door dwelling house. When interviewed the suspect admitted that
the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams
were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact
position.

Wiltshire, UK
A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her
ex-boy friend had taken her to his house. A search by the EVRD of the house
resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed
as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was
searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirtit level, and
shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD
then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had
been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a
grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then
used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its
original state.

Devon, UK
A female was abducted and her whereabouts were unknown. The suspect
was a bus driver. An initial search by the E.V.R.D. alerted at a location near
to a sighting of the suspect in suspicious circumstances. A forensic search at
the alert location revealed a small button off of the girls clothing in long grass.
The offender confessed to the murder and confirmed her body had been
initially temporarily placed at the dog's alert location.

Cornwall, UK
A woman was reported missing by her partner. A search of the suspects
house by the EVRD was conducted who indicated on the living room carpet.
No forensic evidence was recovered. Subsequently a diary written by the
suspect was alert indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts that the
offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead, the diary had in fact
been written by the suspect having handled the body. This was confirmed by
the offender in interview.

New Mexico, U.S.A.
A witness reported having seen two men walk off into brush land carrying a
spade and a corpse. The area was searched with the EVRD with no
indications being forthcoming. Other assets were utilised and the body was
found: buried at a depth of 8 feet, under the water table, 3 feet of cement and
5 feet of earth replaced on top the corpse that was wrapped in cling film.
There being no scent available to the dog to receive there was no forthcoming
Vol IX p. 2483

CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate
exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen
motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human
blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have
been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several
washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of
blood on property up to thirty-six years old.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ.
Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities. Blood that is
subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to
drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.

She is trained specifically using human blood obtained through the
haematology department at Sheffield Northern General Hospital. The blood
undergoes strict screening for disease and contamination prior to use. The
samples are from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds and are from both male
and female sources.

Keela's training and licensing is based around the level of 1 positive screening
sample introduced into 200 control articles or 1 positive sample introduced
during 6 hours searching in relation to crime scenes or vehicles.

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

Carta Rogatoria-Home OfficeIV.pdf
FSS - Forensic Science Service Ltd
REPORT OF EXAMINATION

This is the report of the results for the disappearance of Madeleine compiled by John McCann BSc ROBERT LOWE Cbiol MIBiol RFP

Forensic Science Service Ltd
Birmingham Laboratory, Priory House, Gooch
Street North, Birmingham, B5 6QQ
Tel 0121 607 6973
e-mail: john .......

This report consists of three pages and relates the work carried out in the following case;

Reference:

Reference FSS: 300 655 190 / 401 020 769

Reference Customer: Task Operational

Date: May 22, 2008

The information provided in this report is the result of examination work done in the case referenced above.
The findings and results of the examination were recorded and retained in accordance with the manual described as 'Disclosure' (Revelation): Evidence of experts and material not used. The information contained in this report is not intended to be used as evidence, and it is agreed that if this report or any information contained therein will be used as defence evidence it will be necessary for me to provide a statement under s9 or s10 CJA 1967

Dear Sir

The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of several information searches conducted using the National DNA Database and the use of a control database.

The LCN DNA profile previously obtained from the following submitted data were subjected to a single search of the National DNA Database.

286A/2007/CRL1A & B
286A/2007/CRL4A & B
286A/2007/CRL9A & B
286A72007/CRL16A & B

Numerous similarities were returned by the National DNA Database for the DNA profile obtained from 286A/2007/CRL4A & B; however, I used additional information within the results that was not included in the search parameters to eliminate all except two of these similarities. The two similarities that remained were recorded with the bar code 90264515 & 90374723. These are samples of DNA profiles obtained using the old system of SGM which examines six areas of DNA. The new system
SGM plus examines these six areas plus four other areas. If these two profiles were updated, in my opinion they would also be eliminated as possible donors of DNA, given the result obtained from 286A/2007/CRL4A & B.

Numerous similarities were sent [returned] by the National DNA Database for the DNA obtained from 286A/2007/CRL9A & B, however, I used additional information in results that was not included in the search parameters to eliminate those similarities.

Numerous similarities were sent [returned] by the National DNA Database for the DNA profile obtained from 286A/2007/CRL16A & B, however, I used additional information in the results that was not included in the search parameters to eliminate those similarities.

For information only, a database of voluntary samples was constructed for the purpose of control information. In accordance with available records, the database comprised samples from 286 volunteers, four of which were rejected. The DNA profiles from volunteers were compared with the following samples:

286A/2007/CRL1A & B
286A/2007/CRL4A & B
286A/2007/CRL9A & B
286A/72007/CRL16A & B

The voluntary samples were also compared with 'crime stain 1', a DNA profile obtained by Portuguese scientists using their DNA profile system. The profile was recovered from suspected semen on a blanket in the apartment 5.

From the available records, I conclude that 281 voluntary samples were eliminated as contributors of DNA to the list of search profiles above, since its profile does not match the profile sought; consequently, the DNA can not have originated from them.

I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with Charlie Gordon (bar code 51156964). I believe that Charlie Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.

If more information is needed in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

John Lowe

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

I have a few questions, if I am covering old ground I apologise.
Ive wondered, what happened to Madelienes little pink case, there should have been a wealth of DNA, did she have very few clothes ? why did Gerry return to the UK for a pillowcase, what about the pillocase on the bed she was alledgedly abducted from ? 
Thankyou.

Ellen52 wrote:I have a few questions, if I am covering old ground I apologise.
Ive wondered, what happened to Madelienes little pink case, there should have been a wealth of DNA, did she have very few clothes ? why did Gerry return to the UK for a pillowcase, what about the pillocase on the bed she was alledgedly abducted from ? 
Thankyou.

All of this is very odd.
After 5 nights and 6 days the apartment should've been full of DNA.
Her bed,shirts,trousers,sunhats,shoes,underwear and who's hairbrush was sent to FSS?
It says in the report that this hairbrush was believed to been used by Madeleine.
But the McCann's handed over a hairbrush to Krugel and it was returned to them 10 YEARS later.
So the McCann's handed over a faked hairbrush to the police and gave the real one to Krugel?
Perhaps none of the hair brushes had been used by her.
Confusion is good.

Interesting point in my view.

I've snipped particular paragraphs from the PJ's report on their forensic dogs inspection of the crime scene and surrounding environs..

In this concrete situation, the objective would be for the dogs to carry out a discontinuous search, in other words, to sniff the girl's clothes and immediately search near to the apartments, checking to see if there was any change in the behaviour of the dogs.

At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.

It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behaviour described above was registered. It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odour from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odour of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been.

On 8th May during the morning four teams returned to search all the areas around Vila, following some indications from local people who had frequently gone to the GNR Command post saying they had seen something suspicious related to the disappearance but no sign of her presence was ever found.

On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.

All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.

After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.

During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs.

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

It's by no means difinitive evidence but wouldn't you think if Madeleine McCann was around and about during the whole of the week 28th April through to 3rd May 2007, that the sniffer dogs would have picked up her scent somewhere other than apartment 5a and the short route between apartment 5a and the Ocean Club leisure area?

2282 FSS Document regarding sample destruction 2007.08.21(English)
09- Processo 09 IX Page 2282 also Outros Apensos VolI Page 97
09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2282

Date 2007.08.21

Letter from the FSS

Destruction of Samples

Investigating officer. Stuart Prior

A - Perishable samples.

Certain samples constitute a potential health risk. With the concurrence of the Home Office, it has been decided that such samples will not be submitted to the courts unless specifically requested by the Defence. (This is an extension of the procedures for the disposal of blood samples previously agreed by the Lord Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

The laboratory has examined one or more of the samples listed below. They will not be returned to you but will be destroyed in due course unless we are requested by the Defence to preserve them. You should notify the Defence solicitors in accordance with Home Office circulars 40/73 and 74/82 which allow a period of 21 days in which notice in writing must be given, by the defendant or his legal representative to the laboratory to prevent the samples being destroyed.

- Blood samples.
- Saliva samples.
- Swabs from body orifices.
- Other swabs bearing potentially hazardous material.
- Vomit, faeces, urine, etc.

The above list includes perishable personal samples, the destruction of which is required by Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984).

B - Non-Perishable samples

The destruction of other, non-perishable personal samples is required by Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. These include:

- Control head hair samples.
- Control pubic hair samples.
- Finger nail samples.
- Casts- e.g of teeth or feet.

Except as below those non-perishable personal samples are returned to you as parts of exhibits for production at court, etc. The laboratory is not responsible for their destruction.

The part of these samples which were removed for examination, will be retained by the laboratory for the period of time as specified in the MOU for Retained Materials (3, 7 or 30 years) from the date of this notice to allow access to other legitimate parties. After this period, in the absence of written instruction to the contrary, the retained samples will be destroyed and a record made of their destruction.

Signed.

Dated 21st August 2007.

NickE wrote:

Ellen52 wrote:I have a few questions, if I am covering old ground I apologise.
Ive wondered, what happened to Madelienes little pink case, there should have been a wealth of DNA, did she have very few clothes ? why did Gerry return to the UK for a pillowcase, what about the pillocase on the bed she was alledgedly abducted from ? 
Thankyou.

All of this is very odd.
After 5 nights and 6 days the apartment should've been full of DNA.
Her bed,shirts,trousers,sunhats,shoes,underwear and who's hairbrush was sent to FSS?
It says in the report that this hairbrush was believed to been used by Madeleine.
But the McCann's handed over a hairbrush to Krugel and it was returned to them 10 YEARS later.
So the McCann's handed over a faked hairbrush to the police and gave the real one to Krugel?
Perhaps none of the hair brushes had been used by her.
Confusion is good.

We have read a number of times in newspapers that Maddie's bedroom has not been altered since she went missing.
There must have been a lot of her DNA present in her bedroom.   Surely, someone, even now, would be able to get something from her clothes?    Surely, Maddie's little sister would not have been permitted to wear every item of Maddie's clothing or shoes?

Verdi wrote:Interesting point in my view.  

I've snipped particular paragraphs from the PJ's report on their forensic dogs inspection of the crime scene and surrounding environs..

In this concrete situation, the objective would be for the dogs to carry out a discontinuous search, in other words, to sniff the girl's clothes and immediately search near to the apartments, checking to see if there was any change in the behaviour of the dogs.

At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.

It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behaviour described above was registered. It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odour from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odour of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been.

On 8th May during the morning four teams returned to search all the areas around Vila, following some indications from local people who had frequently gone to the GNR Command post saying they had seen something suspicious related to the disappearance but no sign of her presence was ever found.

On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.

All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.

After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.

During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs.

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

It's by no means difinitive evidence but wouldn't you think if Madeleine McCann was around and about during the whole of the week 28th April through to 3rd May 2007, that the sniffer dogs would have picked up her scent somewhere other than apartment 5a and the short route between apartment 5a and the Ocean Club leisure area?

This is snipped from "The Catholic Newsagency" in 2007.

I wonder where they got this information from?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

I've no idea where they may have got the information from.

Whatever, this is the equivalent to a press report - factually inaccurate.

Clarence Mitchell has connections with the church, it was he who arranged the McCanns trip to the Vatican, aided and abetted by the disgraced now departed Cardinal Cormac Murphy-OConnor.

When I see some positive indication that Father Pacheco did say and do what the UK press reported, then I might just might start to take notice. Until then I take a back seat.

Verdi wrote:Clarence Mitchell has connections with the church, it was he who arranged the McCanns trip to the Vatican, aided and abetted by the disgraced now departed Cardinal Cormac Murphy-OConnor. 

Not doubting your accuracy, but I am well aware of the 'Pope trip' and how media were tricked into fawning over it as some unique, rather than routine, event. Do you mean that Clarence expedited the clerical (so to speak) phase before being granted that audience, or something I have not been aware of hitherto?

Either way, he played a blinder.

wills wrote:Cadaver odour was detected in the shrubbery below apartment 5a. This (along with many other things) baffles me. I understand that a body would have to be in a certain place for at least 90 minutes before an odour could be detected.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]source [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 28.10.13 1:24.  How could a dead body lay in a flower bed for that amount of time without it being seen? Is it possible that cadaver odour from clothing or effects that had been in close contact with a body could transmit the odour to another region. To put it plainly, would it be feasable to have a dead person's clothing, bundled up and hidden in the garden for about 90 minutes waiting to be disposed of?

I understand that it takes a minimum of 1.25 hours and an average of 2-3 hours before cadaver scent develops on a body, however once developed the odour is easily transferred by touch and is readily detectable airborne (it is a scent after all) by trained sniffer dogs from initial contact surfaces and points of transference. These points of transference may have only been in contact momentarily with the cadaver or someone or something that has touched the cadaver.

crispbee2000 wrote:

wills wrote:Cadaver odour was detected in the shrubbery below apartment 5a. This (along with many other things) baffles me. I understand that a body would have to be in a certain place for at least 90 minutes before an odour could be detected.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]source [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 28.10.13 1:24.  How could a dead body lay in a flower bed for that amount of time without it being seen? Is it possible that cadaver odour from clothing or effects that had been in close contact with a body could transmit the odour to another region. To put it plainly, would it be feasable to have a dead person's clothing, bundled up and hidden in the garden for about 90 minutes waiting to be disposed of?

I understand that it takes a minimum of 1.25 hours and an average of 2-3 hours before cadaver scent develops on a body, however once developed the odour is easily transferred by touch and is readily detectable airborne (it is a scent after all) by trained sniffer dogs from initial contact surfaces and points of transference. These points of transference may have only been in contact momentarily with the cadaver or someone or something that has touched the cadaver.

All of this supposition depends on whether it is to be believed that Madeleine McCann went missing on Thursday 3rd May.

The dogs alerted to clothes belonging to Kate McCann but not Gerry's clothes is that right ?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your post has been moved here ROSA as it has no direct relevance to the particular thread you selected for publication.

Mod

PRELIMINARY RESULTS.

PREPARATION FOR THE INTERROGATIONS.

Analyses of the residues collected following the visit by the dogs is entrusted to the English Forensic Science Service laboratory. To avoid any leaks of information, Stuart Prior, a senior officer with Leicestershire police, is responsible for liaison between the laboratory and José Freitas of Scotland Yard. The latter, who is with us, in Portimão, is passing on any relevant reports.

We confidently wait for the evaluation reports from FSS. A few days after the samples are sent, we are informed that the DNA of the blood found in the boot of the McCanns' car shows a significant match - 50% - with Gerald's, which means that it is definitely the blood of one of his children. We telephone the public minister to pass on this initial result and wait for the follow-up to the analyses and definite conclusions But the laboratory takes its time.

At the beginning of September, shortly before the McCann couple are placed under investigation, Superintendent Stuart Prior travels to Portimão to present the first of the two preliminary reports from the laboratory and to discuss the progress of the investigation.

At a meeting in our office, with the Portuguese and the English investigation team, Stuart expresses his disappointment over the test results. This is where the saga of the FSS reports begins. We read the part of the report dealing with the traces of blood lifted from the floor of apartment 5A, from behind the sofa and in the boot of the McCanns' car and we don’t agree with Stuart’s disappointment. We talk about blood traces because the CSI dog is trained to find only that bodily fluid. The reports that support that decision are clear: the CSI dog was used to detect human blood. Low Copy Number, the technique used to determine the DNA of the samples, does not identify the nature of the bodily fluid they are derived from. But we know it's definitely traces of blood and not other bodily fluids since the CSI dog is trained to detect only human blood.

In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!.

As for the second case, after an explanation about the DNA components in Madeleine's genetic profile, it concludes that 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine's profile are present in the sample examined. Only 4 short of 100% reliability. The FSS specialists qualify the results as, "complex," and state that these 15 markers are not enough to conclude with certainty that it's definitely Madeleine's DNA profile, especially as Low Copy Number picked out a total of 37 in the sample. That means that at least three individuals contributed to this result.

But there was more in this first preliminary report. In the same report, the scientist went further and explained that in the profiles of many of the lab experts, elements from the DNA profile of Madeleine are present. This means that a major part of the DNA profile of any given person can be built by three donors. That is understandable. Two questions arose immediately. The first one: what good is a DNA profile in terms of criminal evidence, if it can be the combination of three or more donors? Another question was simple: why did the DNA profile from those three donors contribute to Madeleine’s DNA profile and not to that of any other person, like the scientist who carried out the test? But the surprises from the preliminary reports were not to end there.

On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine's DNA profile.

As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed.

Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue:either this LCN technique is not reliable or it's simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine's DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance.

At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: "With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England." I look at my colleagues and see that they are as stupified as I am. In fact, in Portugal, it's not so easy to arrest someone. We explain to Stuart that the McCanns interrogations would not result in detention. According to Portuguese law, the crimes of concealment of a corpse and simulating an abduction are not liable to remanding in custody.

WHAT THE LABORATORY REPORTS BRING TO LIGHT

The preliminary results from FSS were enlightening in a way, and confirmed the information given by the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and the CSI dog.

- The CSI dog, Keela, signaled the presence of human blood where Eddie, the EVRD dog, marked the presence of cadaver odour - on the floor tiles behind the sofa in the lounge, on the key and in the boot of the Renault Scenic that was used by the McCanns from May 27th onwards.

- the bodily fluids, according to the FSS, contain markers from Madeleine's DNA profile.

These elements do not constitute concrete proof but simply clues to be added to those we already possess. In itself, the definition of a DNA profile from LCN is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation. In his report, the English scientist says that he cannot give answers to the following questions: when was the DNA deposited? In what way? What bodily fluid does the DNA come from? Has a crime been committed?

The scientific evidence is not enough and it has to be accompanied by other types of material, documented and testimonial evidence. It is only in this way that the entire puzzle can be reconstructed and certainties can be achieved, for the material truth to be established.

The FSS has still not provided the result of the technical analysis of the hair found in the boot of the car. Once more, Stuart has to contact the laboratory. Nothing has been done. We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine's, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. But the FSS does not seem to want to part with the hair. They claim that using a colour comparison test they can establish if the hair belongs to Madeleine and in a second stage, identify the DNA profile. None of that will happen. We never find out if the hair was Madeleine's or her parents' or her brother's or her sister's, even though the laboratory has the DNA profiles of each member of the family.

Let's remember: it is totally logical to find Madeleine's DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance.

FINGERPRINTS ON THE WINDOW

One afternoon, we drive to apartment 5A at the Ocean Club. I am accompanied by Guilhermino Encarnação, the indefatigable Polícia Judiciária Director from Faro, who is following every step of the investigation, with daily trips to Portimão. José Freitas of Scotland Yard is accompanied by Stuart Prior, to whom we explain the theory of an accident. According to Encarnação, the child's death must have resulted from a fall behind the sofa, where the dogs marked the odours of cadaver and blood. The theory is simple and based on evidence in our possession. The parents would have pushed the sofa away from the window as a safety precaution because the window opened easily and it was situated, remember, three metres above the outside pavement. When Gerald went to the apartment at around 9pm to check on his children, used the toilet and then left, Madeleine might have woken up. Hearing her father's voice coming from the street outside, she may have tried to reach the window by climbing on the sofa and could have fallen behind it. Stuart indicates that he understands and agrees with the possibility. He takes this opportunity to ask if any fingerprints were found on that window or on any others, particularly on the one in Madeleine's bedroom.

Initially, we don't understand why he is asking this question, since he has seen our report. He should know that fingerprints were discovered with the lophoscopic* analysis carried out on the night of May 3rd and the following day. The results are in the report. Why is he asking about them now? We respond evasively, "Nothing conclusive."

However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.

The technicians who examined the apartment did not place any great importance on the identification of the fingerprints. In fact, in the absence of obvious signs of assault or of a crime - like signs of a struggle, traces of blood or the presence of a corpse -, the technicians proceed to the kind of examination that is carried out in a burglary case. They forget that fingerprints discovered in a particular place, even if they belong to an occupant of the premises, can be of fundamental importance for the progress of the investigation and constitute valuable evidence, even material proof.

The window in question is the one that Kate Healy states she found open to the left, with the curtains fluttering, when she discovered that her daughter was missing. On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's. The position of the fingerprints indicate that the window had been opened to the left, as Kate Healy stated: "the window was fully open to the left." There is no doubt that somebody opened that window on the evening of May 3rd and the only fingerprints found on it were those of Kate Healy. The manager of the Ocean Club's crèche, who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised, remarked that, "the window was partially open to the left," confirming Kate's earlier statement.

We prefer not to discuss this with Stuart Prior: we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to prevent their detention. His concern on that subject is obvious.

Two pieces of information reach us, which we interpret as diversionary tactics with the obvious purpose of diverting suspicion from the McCanns. The first concerns the couple's active involvement in a campaign to set up an international alert system for missing children. The Policia Judiciaria is approached indirectly through the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão and the Directorate in Faro to participate and support the launch of the campaign. We tell the messenger that we are not the appropriate recipients of this enquiry, that the request should be sent to a higher authority, the National Director of the PJ or the Portuguese government.

The second piece of information comes to us from further afield: Beirut, capital of The Lebanon. Imagine this: an Arab shiekh possessed a video of an orgy by other shiekhs on which Madeleine was allegedly recognisable. He would be prepared to hand over this recording to the British Ambassador in exchange for a sum of money to be sent to his lawyer. Once again, we are stupified.

- Can you believe it? A sheikh ready to denounce his mates for a few sous...Arab royalty is so strapped for cash?

- I don't understand: haven't all of our English colleagues who have been working with us already concluded that Madeleine may have died in the apartment?

- What more does Stuart need?

- I don't know what he needs. In any case, it was him who told us he had arrested people in England for a lot less.

After the interrogations, I had the opportunity to ask an English colleague about the outcome of the story. Did that video exist? What was on it? He responded that it had come to him in February or March 2007, well before Madeleine's disappearance...It would be interesting to know who, deliberately and with the sole object of scuppering the investigation, went and unearthed a video from before Madeleine's disappearance, to make people believe she was still alive...

THE McCANNS' INTERROGATIONS.
THE NERVOUS ENGLISH POLICE.

As the date for the interrogations approached, Stuart became more and more nervous and he was a constant presence. He wanted to be kept up to date on the smallest details. We explain to him what is going to happen, notably the sending of a rogatory letter to the English authorities to request specialist dog team examinations of the homes of the McCanns and their holiday friends, in Great Britain, to check if any object or piece of clothing retained any cadaver odour or blood. We ask Stuart to request that these examinations be carried out by the specialist dog team that we already know, with the same EVRD and CSI dogs, Eddie and Keela and with Stuart's agreement, we send him the letter.

We don't know what clothes the McCann couple and their friends were wearing on the evening of May 3rd. At the start of the investigation, we had requested all photos and videos from that day and from the other days, but all we received were daytime photos; it was as if in the evenings and during the now famous "Tapas," dinners, no photos had been taken despite the fact that some of the diners had cameras with them. The lack of night time photos was something we have never understood. Within the rogatory letter, we ask the English authorities to seize photos and videos taken throughout the holiday at the Ocean Club.

In the McCanns' home, we would like to check a medical monitoring chart recording Madeleine's problems with sleeping. This chart had been mentioned by Kate and according to her mother, it was only used until April 2006, when Madeleine regained a regular sleep pattern and slept right through every night without interruption. We also wish to pick up the diary that Kate started to keep from May 3rd. Finally, we would like to question the group of friends again, to confront them about their contradictions concerning their system for checking the children during the evening dinners at the Ocean Club.

At the same time, we hope to obtain a response to our request to the British authorities, made through the liaison officer in Portugal on the first day of the investigation, for information on the McCann family and their friends. Given the fact that we have, so far, received no response to this enquiry, we will make the request for the desired information through the rogatory letter. We ask Stuart about this matter and he says that, "they are in the process of gathering that information."

However, a preliminary response comes to us about the McCanns' financial situation: astonishingly, there are no records of the McCanns holding any credit or debit cards.

- That's quite simply not possible!

- They don't have credit cards? However, we know that they hold at least two: one which they used to pay for the flights, and a second which was used for the hire of the Renault Scénic.

- The English need to sort themselves out. We need the McCanns' financial statements from the start of their holiday in Portugal.

It's obvious we're going to have a hard time getting the required details: with such information, it would not be difficult to follow the McCanns' trail, to know about their expenses, their movements, and to draw conclusions from what came up. Meanwhile, Stuart makes another request. He says it would be a good idea to send two rogatory letters: one for the friends and another for the McCann couple. We don't understand this one.

FRAUD OR ABUSE OF TRUST?

During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.

If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.

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

Martin Grime's report - 23rd August 2007

CADAVER SCENT

The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.
Vol. IX p. 2480

EVRD

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material.

The E.R.V.D. has successfully in training and in operational casework located
Human cadaders, whether in the whole or parts thereof, deposited surface or
sub-surface to a depth of approximately 1 metre shortly after death (though
precise times are not determinable) to the advanced stages of decomposition
and putrefaction through the skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if
large quantities of accelerant have been involved. The dog has successfully in
training and in operational casework located a human cadavers in water either
from the bank siade or when deployed in a boat.

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where
there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious
material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. This may be
achieved by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent
samples being taken by remote means on sterile gauze pads. The gauze
pads are then 'screened' in a line - up formation with the inclusion of a number
of control samples and blank sterile pads.

The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to
identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in
bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce
the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable
environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where
controls may be included to increase assurity.

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

Is it Medically possible that the three possible donors problem could be solved by the following theory?

1. Sperm donor DNA Natural Father or other
2. Egg donor DNA if host Mother has problems
3. Host mother DNA where 1 and 2 were carried until birth

The Horas24 paper insinuated that their sources had revealed  that the UK Police had visited a Sperm donor to rule him out of a paternal kidnap theory. The McCanns denied this and threatened to sue once their Arguido status was lifted. Horas24 declared they stood by their sources and to ‘bring it on’. To date this appears not to have followed up?

The FSS parenthood statement did reveal the 99.998% match to a sample hair provided, but the end comment from the Scientist that the hair could also have been from Amelie was never discussed.

Thoughts please....?

Having read the Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva GNR Dog handler search 9 May 07 Ref: PJ files

Who was in Apartment 5J and left rotting meat and veg in the fridge?

Why or how did this occur? 

Was it left after the previous occupation or by the present occupants?

Could this have been an attempt to cover any possibility of cadaver odour in the fridge?

Wasn’t a fridge changed out somewhere in the complex during the times of the holiday? 

This would explain Eddie and Keela not finding any other trace odour in the 5J or OC area.

With hindsight was the Fridge then secured and DNA tested? 

The PJ Files Maintenance records 1 May 07 only refer to the roll shutters and washing machine instructions in 5A that week.