Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[brit1981]

What does it matter if they are IVF conceived or not? You do not think the EU has different laws for human experimentation depending on how the person was conceived, do you?

 

[fabgod]

I still dont understand why and abductor who had been "watching" the apartment for a length of time and the comings and goings of the family and friends, would make the choice to take the eldest child.

If it was for sexual purposes (god forbid), then the likelihood would be that the abductor would be interested in a girl of Madeleienes age (if he/she took Madeleine for the point of this scenario)
We are now over 5 years further on, the probability is very much that a child taken at 3 years old, would have long ceased to have an interest for that abductor.

Add to that the fact that she i probably one of the most well known children in the world, there is almost certainty that she would have been killed long before now, it wouldnt make sense to take the risk of keeping her alive.

Back to the, "why take the eldest"
If the abductor wanted the child for their own, then it makes absolutely no sense to take the eldest, the logical move would have been to take the youngest child who could barely communicate according to the parents, would be easier to mould and was far less likely to be able to show verbal evidence of abduction to strangers she may have come into contact with.

If, Madeleine was taken, it would seem that there would have to be another reason why, something that made Madeleine the only option of the three children that were left in the apartment.

 

[orora]

Some of those basic underlying questions should be asked.
Sexual motives have an expected sequence of associated events. statistically speaking. example-
http://thealphabetkiller.com/portrai...uction-murder/

Quote:
There was typically no indication of foul play at first, according to the study, only a report that a child was unaccounted for. In 56.2 percent of the cases studied, parents waited more than two hours before calling the police. Yet 76.2 percent of the children studied were dead within three hours of being taken. Nearly half, within one hour. So the mindset that causes parents to hesitate before calling the police must change radically. Only one in five parents called police immediately. Time is of the essence when a parent first notices their child is missing. It’s better to err on the side of caution by filing a missing persons report right away than to face every parent’s worst nightmare. In cases of child abduction, the first hour is the most critical.

Iunderstand there is still a location of interest in the immediate vicinity? I understand cadaver dogs have hit on some spots of interest? Has all that been explored to an acceptable conclusion? Madeleine would fit into this classification of expectations imo. Otherwise as said above, more questions arise that aren't so easily answered.

 

[fabgod]

Yes there is a possible area of interest, that has been put forward by a South African by the name of Stephen Birch, whether he is credible or not, we dont know. but the Portuguese and UK police forces have not acted on his suggestions as far as we know.

Kate McCann seemingly questioned who he was? which seems an odd thing to do to my mind, surely as a parent of a missing child, one would wnat to explore every and any possibility to find the answers they are supposedly seeking?

Re the Dog alerts, yes, the Cadaver dog and Blod dog alerted in the apartment from where Madeleine was reported missing in various locations and also on clothes and a rented hire car that was rented after Madeleine had been missing for a while.
There was also forensic samples taken from various locations that were reported at the time as having been significant but later were claimed to have been not been definitive to progress the case in any way.

 

[brit1981]

the cadaver dog was actually a victim recovery dog (his handler coined the term enhanced victim recovery dog I believe). It alerts to all bodily fluids as well as to the scent from cadavers. According to its handler it woudl certainly alert to dried blood. Unfortunetly one of the previosu occupents had a few weeks previously had a very bad cut which bled for forty-five minutes, so there is no way to tell if the alert was for this or not. the alerts in the car also pointed to bodily fluids as these were found in the car. The dog alerted to the card fob, which was found to have a dried bodily fluid most likely belonging to Gerry McCann. the cra boot was found to have a bodily fluid (s), belonging to three to five people. They could nto identify any one individuel's DNA from this sample. they could say that 15 of the components were shared by madeleine. However, they could nto say whether these components were donated from 1, 2 , 3, 4 or 5 people, and these components woudl also be found in the DNA of kate and Gerry and to a lesser extent madeleines other relatives. So whilst madeleine cannot be excluded as a donor, the components could equally have been donated by kate Gerry, her siblings, grandparents, aunt etc all of whom were seen to use the car.

As for Birch, according to the media and kate the police had already spoken to her and Gerry about him, so if they have said he is just another nutter as it were, I assume Kate and Gerry are trusting scotland yard (who have also looked at his scans).

 

[SapphireSteel]

the cadaver dog was actually a victim recovery dog (his handler coined the term enhanced victim recovery dog I believe). It alerts to all bodily fluids as well as to the scent from cadavers. According to its handler it woudl certainly alert to dried blood. Unfortunetly one of the previosu occupents had a few weeks previously had a very bad cut which bled for forty-five minutes, so there is no way to tell if the alert was for this or not. the alerts in the car also pointed to bodily fluids as these were found in the car. The dog alerted to the card fob, which was found to have a dried bodily fluid most likely belonging to Gerry McCann. the cra boot was found to have a bodily fluid (s), belonging to three to five people. They could nto identify any one individuel's DNA from this sample. they could say that 15 of the components were shared by madeleine. However, they could nto say whether these components were donated from 1, 2 , 3, 4 or 5 people, and these components woudl also be found in the DNA of kate and Gerry and to a lesser extent madeleines other relatives. So whilst madeleine cannot be excluded as a donor, the components could equally have been donated by kate Gerry, her siblings, grandparents, aunt etc all of whom were seen to use the car.

As for Birch, according to the media and kate the police had already spoken to her and Gerry about him, so if they have said he is just another nutter as it were, I assume Kate and Gerry are trusting scotland yard (who have also looked at his scans).

None of this accounts for the odor in the car boot.

Witnesses state the car was left standing with the boot open for hours, which would be consistent with an attempt to air the smell out.

The most important part of the DNA results are BBM...why refer to them as
"proof" against it being her blood, when it is acknowleged that Madeleine COULD NOT be excluded?

 

[brit1981]

No witness has said that, it was an internet rumour. No-one including the police has ever stated there was an odour in the car that indicated a body had been there.

 

[SapphireSteel]

None of this accounts for the odor in the car boot.

Witnesses state the car was left standing with the boot open for hours, which would be consistent with an attempt to air the smell out.

The most important part of the DNA results are BBM...why refer to them as
"proof" against it being her blood, when it is acknowleged that Madeleine COULD NOT be excluded?

There was a question in there?

 

[brit1981]

It would be very unlikely given that the DNA could have come from up to five people yet only consisted of 37 components. The different number of permentations of who could have donated the fifteen components that Madeleine also shared would run into the hundreds, whereas there is only one permentation for Madeleine being a donor. The 15 components could have come from Kate and Gerry, her grandparents, her siblings and aunts etc, non-relatives may have donated one or two of the compoents. Those who are saying that getting 15 of her components is like getting 15 out of 19 in a test sadly do not understand the very basics of genetic inheritence. Any material containing the dna of close relatives of a person will contain the components of that person. It would be impossible to get a mixed sample of dna from the mccanns that did not contain madeleine's components.
Again there was no odour of decompositon found in the car.

And are you going to answer my question regarding the claims you have made about the FSS being a private company with no legal right to examine DNA, and links to the McCanns?

 

[fabgod]

the cadaver dog was actually a victim recovery dog (his handler coined the term enhanced victim recovery dog I believe). It alerts to all bodily fluids as well as to the scent from cadavers. According to its handler it woudl certainly alert to dried blood. Unfortunetly one of the previosu occupents had a few weeks previously had a very bad cut which bled for forty-five minutes, so there is no way to tell if the alert was for this or not. the alerts in the car also pointed to bodily fluids as these were found in the car. The dog alerted to the card fob, which was found to have a dried bodily fluid most likely belonging to Gerry McCann. the cra boot was found to have a bodily fluid (s), belonging to three to five people. They could nto identify any one individuel's DNA from this sample. they could say that 15 of the components were shared by madeleine. However, they could nto say whether these components were donated from 1, 2 , 3, 4 or 5 people, and these components woudl also be found in the DNA of kate and Gerry and to a lesser extent madeleines other relatives. So whilst madeleine cannot be excluded as a donor, the components could equally have been donated by kate Gerry, her siblings, grandparents, aunt etc all of whom were seen to use the car.

As for Birch, according to the media and kate the police had already spoken to her and Gerry about him, so if they have said he is just another nutter as it were, I assume Kate and Gerry are trusting scotland yard (who have also looked at his scans).

Regarding the evrd dog and its alerts to Dried blood, the dog alerted to the blood in the apartment that it is being speculated came from a person who "bled heavily" for 45 minutes during a previous tenancy.

My question is this,
It would be presumably very simple to have tested the blood that was found against this persons blood/dna wouldn't it?
I dont know if this was done, maybe somebody can point me in the direction

With regard to the cut that bled heavily, it does seem strange that someone who had cut themselves shaving would bleed on the floor and on the curtains, woud they not have been trying to apply pressure or whatever?

 

[brit1981]

Regarding the evrd dog and its alerts to Dried blood, the dog alerted to the blood in the apartment that it is being speculated came from a person who "bled heavily" for 45 minutes during a previous tenancy.

My question is this,
It would be presumably very simple to have tested the blood that was found against this persons blood/dna wouldn't it?
I dont know if this was done, maybe somebody can point me in the direction

With regard to the cut that bled heavily, it does seem strange that someone who had cut themselves shaving would bleed on the floor and on the curtains, woud they not have been trying to apply pressure or whatever?

According to grimes they both alert to miniscule amounts of blood and bodily fluids even historic amounts (he says that keela had alerted to blood from 1960!). They did test all cellular material found, and some was so small that the results were inconclusive, others came back from being outside of the mccanns, and some was positively identified as belonging to other occupants. Also if they do alert to such tiny amounts it is easy to get blood in odd places if you have had a bad cut, you get tiny drops on your hand you do not notice etc If you managed to cut yourself so badly you bled for forty five minutes (how the hell did he manage that) you are a bit more likely to panic go into the living room, get your partner to help stem the blood etc. I know I would not just stand in the bathroom for forty five minutes.

But the dogs cannot be used as proof, they are just used to try to find proof, and in this case they did not. Eddie is not a cadaver dog as some claim he was a victim recovery dog (his handler calls him an enhanced victim recovery dog, but I think he coined the term himself and is nto a title given by the police), he was not supposed to be used to identify where bodies had been.

In the jersey case he made false alerts.
In the prout case he did alert in the house, but missed the body when they searched the grounds.
according to the south yorkshire police he had only ever found one body when he worked alone
in the shannon mathews case a vrd was used and alerted - shannon was found alive.
recently vrd were used to search Tia sharpe's home with no results on the first search. When they went back two days later the dog only alerted near the loft hatch (she was in the loft), but the police could also smell decomposition at this point. Although she does not seem likely to have died in the loft, the dogs did not alert anywhere else i.e in the other places the body must have been.

When you have cases of dogs not alerting to bodies, and dogs alerting when the victim is alive one can see why the police are not keen to use them as evidence in themselves.

One thing I do not understand is that grimes says these dogs alert to miniscule amount of bodily fluids even historic ones, yet the dogs did not alert anywhere else. I find it hard to believe there has been nowhere else in PDL where someone bled in the last ten years, or where other bodily fluids have been, not even that since 1960 no-one had died in public in the village - no accidents, no sudden heart attacks etc?

 

[fabgod]

According to grimes they both alert to miniscule amounts of blood and bodily fluids even historic amounts (he says that keela had alerted to blood from 1960!). They did test all cellular material found, and some was so small that the results were inconclusive, others came back from being outside of the mccanns, and some was positively identified as belonging to other occupants. Also if they do alert to such tiny amounts it is easy to get blood in odd places if you have had a bad cut, you get tiny drops on your hand you do not notice etc If you managed to cut yourself so badly you bled for forty five minutes (how the hell did he manage that) you are a bit more likely to panic go into the living room, get your partner to help stem the blood etc. I know I would not just stand in the bathroom for forty five minutes.

But the dogs cannot be used as proof, they are just used to try to find proof, and in this case they did not. Eddie is not a cadaver dog as some claim he was a victim recovery dog (his handler calls him an enhanced victim recovery dog, but I think he coined the term himself and is nto a title given by the police), he was not supposed to be used to identify where bodies had been.

In the jersey case he made false alerts.
In the prout case he did alert in the house, but missed the body when they searched the grounds.
according to the south yorkshire police he had only ever found one body when he worked alone
in the shannon mathews case a vrd was used and alerted - shannon was found alive.
recently vrd were used to search Tia sharpe's home with no results on the first search. When they went back two days later the dog only alerted near the loft hatch (she was in the loft), but the police could also smell decomposition at this point. Although she does not seem likely to have died in the loft, the dogs did not alert anywhere else i.e in the other places the body must have been.

When you have cases of dogs not alerting to bodies, and dogs alerting when the victim is alive one can see why the police are not keen to use them as evidence in themselves.

One thing I do not understand is that grimes says these dogs alert to miniscule amount of bodily fluids even historic ones, yet the dogs did not alert anywhere else. I find it hard to believe there has been nowhere else in PDL where someone bled in the last ten years, or where other bodily fluids have been, not even that since 1960 no-one had died in public in the village - no accidents, no sudden heart attacks etc?

The guy said he cut himself shaving, he didnt slash his throat for Gods sake lol!
A nick from a blade or a stanley knife bleeds for a long time, it doesnt necessarily bleed profusely.

Why all the criticism of Martin Grimes and the work that Dogs do?
If someone in your family was missing, would you not want the help of tracker dogs, blood dogs,EVRD dogs?

I bet you would, in fact I guarantee you would.
The Dogs do the job that they are trained for that is a fact, have a read around Websleuths about the good work that they and their Handlers do, I think it is very disresectful to try to belittle their work and discredit animals and people who are doing their utmost to find people and or bring closure to families.

You keep mentioning the Jersey scandal, I suggest you have a good read of what went on in Jersey, the politics behind it, the victim reports etc before jumping to a conclusion that the Dog alerted to coconut shell.

Shannon Matthews, you already said the dogs alert to blood, do you know she didnt bleed at some point or that anyone else in the house hadnt (according to your dried blood statement)
Tia Sharp,
Do you know for a fact that VRD dogs were used early on it the week?
Do you also know that Police could smell decomposition for a fact?
If so, why would they need a dog in a little two up two down house?
Do you know that the VRD dog didnt alert in the house?

There are a lot of statements that need to be backed up there Brit.

 

[brit1981]

Its been reported by the bbc that the dogs were used, they were shown being led into the house, and the bbc have reported what the police have said about the smell. Of course that could be inaccurate, but she was found on the friday, and they took dogs in on the wednesday looking at the footage. I guess there will be a blackout now until the trial.
And it is not criticism of the dogs, just that they are not foolproof. They have failed before, they are just a tool used to get evidence. The police do not stop searching if the dogs do not alert, nor do they use the dogs as proof that a body was there if they do alert and no body is found. And grimes has stated they alert to minicule amounts of material, so either that is incorrect, or no other person in several years has ever bled etc in PDL in the areas searched. besides as the dog alerts to all bodily fludis according to grimes, his alerts if they are correct mean nothing that bodily fluids had been present. The polcie should have done a luminol test.
I am sorry when you talk about Jersey do you think there were bodies found? Because the material eddie alerted to was found to be coconut. There were no bodies.

 

[fabgod]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19223085


One minute you are saying that press speculation is vile, even using the Tia Sharp case to back up the argument and then you are stating knowledge from the BBC when the Police have no cause of death, have never stated anything about a smell.

I dont think you are qualified to state that the dogs are or arent foolproof, (correct me if I am wrong) It is my belief that the dogs alert as they are trained to do, they do a very good job and it is in the identification and processing of the evidence where the failings are.
You seem intent on going round and round in circles, I asked you to move on and help me with a timeline, discuss what could have occurred and when, but you seem to come around to the same points about anything that questions the Mccann version of events, its pretty pointless which is a shame.

 

[Donjeta]

What I want to know is, if Madeleine couldn't be excluded as the DNA donor...

Were there components that do NOT match Madeleine?
Because if it was a hodgepodge of DNA donations from a number of relatives and a couple of strangers as well the likelihood of getting many matches to components in Madeleine's DNA is great but the likelihood of not getting anything that doesn't match Madeleine is very small.

 

[brit1981]

What I want to know is, if Madeleine couldn't be excluded as the DNA donor...

Were there components that do NOT match Madeleine?
Because if it was a hodgepodge of DNA donations from a number of relatives and a couple of strangers as well the likelihood of getting many matches to components in Madeleine's DNA is great but the likelihood of not getting anything that doesn't match Madeleine is very small.

From what I read in the report the material found in the car was one sample consisting of material from three to five people, and consisted of 37 components, fifteen of which were also shared by madeleine (she had 20 components but only 19 different components as she got the same component from each parent). So we have 15 that madeleine shared (noting that 100% of a persons's components would be found in the dna of both parents, and all four grandparents), and 22 that were not from madeleine, and it was not possible to identify which components came from the same person.

 

[fabgod]

I find this interesting from the report, strangely it has been ommitted from conversation on DNA and material from the car

A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least two people was obtained from a second area of the plastic luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(2))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage.

 

[brit1981]

I find this interesting from the report, strangely it has been ommitted from conversation on DNA and material from the car

A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least two people was obtained from a second area of the plastic luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(2))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage.

Why is that interesting. It was a hire car, the chances of it not having DNA in it are remote. All that statement says was that at some point DNA from two or more people was left in the car in a tiny amount.

If you own car was exmained the chances are it would have amounts of dna in it that were too small to interpret.

 

[fabgod]

Why is that interesting. It was a hire car, the chances of it not having DNA in it are remote. All that statement says was that at some point DNA from two or more people was left in the car in a tiny amount.

If you own car was exmained the chances are it would have amounts of dna in it that were too small to interpret.

Oh, no its not interesting then, it must have just been some random sample that the PJ forwarded for the sake of it!
Disinformation, is that the word?

 

[brit1981]

Oh, no its not interesting then, it must have just been some random sample that the PJ forwarded for the sake of it!
Disinformation, is that the word?

The Pj would have no idea who it was from when they sent it for analysis, that is rather the idea of analysis. they have to send the material in order to find out if it is relevant. In the end all anyone can say is that DNa belonging to an unknown person(s) was found in a hire car.

Why do you think it is interesting? You surely do not think the Pj only forwarded on DNA if they decided it could be relevant, and ignored other pieces of DNA and did not bother to get them examined. that is really bad if true, the Pj could have no idea if it was relevant to the case or not so could have missed vital evidence. But I do not think they did this though I think they sent off all the material they could find in the car and decided its relevance dependent on the results.