Forensic Science Service Results - HELP WANTED

[fabgod]

Or, worse, not being brought to trial at all.

We see that too often here too.

DNA and forensics are a double edged sword. If there don't appear to be definitive results, like this case, it can make LE less keen to prosecute - juries now expect forensics and hesitate to find guilt without it. The CSI effect.

Factor in some fancy lawyers, and a vanished body, and it's game over.

:banghead:

ETA - I've actually seen it suggested that the entire holiday was planned...and went to plan.

I know its easy to make a conspiracy fit, but in this case, its almost as if we have been fed the pieces, sort of forcing the belief that there is something fundamentally flawed right from the off.
If it was a film, you would walk out halfway through becasue it was so unbelievable!

 

[Cappuccino]

Truth can be stranger than fiction.

It works the other way around too though - innocent people can be convicted, especially when they don't have the money to hire a lawyer and are dependent on public defenders. They get less attention, because obviously they don't have the money or power to get the same attention. But if you read Sapphire's link, you'll see that for every OJ Simpson there's and Earl Washingon Jr. and for every Casey Anthony there's a Linda Chamberlain.

 

[fabgod]

Truth can be stranger than fiction.

It works the other way around too though - innocent people can be convicted, especially when they don't have the money to hire a lawyer and are dependent on public defenders. They get less attention, because obviously they don't have the money or power to get the same attention. But if you read Sapphire's link, you'll see that for every OJ Simpson there's and Earl Washingon Jr. and for every Casey Anthony there's a Linda Chamberlain.

Amazed is about all I can say on that link!
I know the US is a huge country and I suppose without seeming or meaning to be flippant, 17 deaths is not a large percentage for a Nation with so many people, that doesnt help the poor people that lost their lives though.

One error is too many, especially if you are that one error, but its a terrible situation to be in, found guilty of a crime that you didnt commit and being jailed for it, It just doesn't bear thinking about!

This then leads to the question, how do you liminate errors? I suppose there is no foolproof way, DNA testing has only relatively recently been developed and is still I guess, in its infancy as far as how much more developed it will become,
but part of the problem surely is in the pressures that are being pplaced on LE and the Police over here in the UK for example, where everything has tobe so politically correct and human rights have almost gone to the extreme.

I know the intention is to eliminate erros in condeming innocents but there doesnt really seem to be a complete solution, to me anyway.

Tahnks very enlightening.

 

[Cappuccino]

I don't think DNA is going to save things, fabgood. Its great when its there, but DNA is only present in approx. 10% of crimes, and only 4.5% of murders.

It would be more important IMO to concentrate on improving police practice across the board, and equalising justice for those at the lower end of the economic scale by funding and training public defenders better. Being rich shouldn't have ever given the likes of OJ Simpson a free pass, but being a homeless guy with a below 70 IQ shouldn't have ever convicted Earl Washington and landed him on Death Row either.

Anyway, I don't want to get off topic. Wrt Madeleine's case specifically, I think its obvious that the parents have to be looked at first in the case of any missing child. That shouldn't equate into developing tunnel vision about the parents, even long after LE has dropped them as suspects.

 

[fabgod]

You are right, sad to say but there will most likely always be errors in any system but improving the standard would undoubtedly help, It should be a level playing field for everybody, but, as we know too well, money talks and money is power in this world.

Back to Madeleine, the more I look into what I thought I already knew, the more twisted it becomes, there doesnt seem to be any clear indication of blame or link that can be classed as solid anywhere I look.
Obviously, the PJ and the UK police will have far more to work with and as an outsider with only bits to work with, I acknowledge that there is very little chance of being able to form any real opinion on the case.
With regard to the parents, my instinct leds me to think that there is something that is hidden, many things regarding their peculiar (to me) actions would fit more logically if there was knowledge for example of a kidnap.
I know there is nothing at all to lead to that conclusion, but the way that certain people have acted, the statements that they (the parents)and the UK police have made just seem to me, to lead to an almost unjustified portrayal of their innocence.
Certainly the evidence I have seen just from the timelines is that thier timings are very very poor, the sighting from Jane Tanner is almost forced into fitting, even though just a casual look at those timings would seem to leave a virtual miracle for an abductor to have walked away with the child at the times specified.

For a UK police force to have a link to what were suspects in the case, seems to be odd, its a little like saying Casey Anthony has a link to her "swimming pools for kids" fundraising site on the Florida PD website, it just doesnt seem, to the average man in the street who takes more than a passing interest in the case, to add up.

I know the arguido status was dropped but I have looked at the reports from the PJ and the inference to me at least, does seem to state that that Arguido ststus was dropped because of lack of evidence and not no evidence.
rightly or wrongly I feel that the PJ do still believe that the McCanns were involved, I cannot beleieve that they could have covered up a death so quickly and coldly anf then involved others that have apparently covered up and stayed silent, but something feels amiss, i just don't know what

 

[Cappuccino]

What feels amiss, fabgod, is that you don't know the answer. And an argument from lack of knowledge will always be flawed, no matter how convincing it sounds without full knowledge.

None of us know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but what we do know is this - parents or other adults involved in a child's life have to be the first suspects in any case of a missing/murdered child under the age of 12. Experience tells us that.

When those parents and other adults have been looked at as suspects by the police and eliminated as suspects by the police, (who have fuller information than we do), its best to move on and stop wasting our time over analysing their every move and their every word. Research has shown that the accounts given in the immediate aftermath of a missing child is notoriously inconsistent from those closest to the child. In fact, eyewitness evidence generally is very unreliable.

If there is no evidence, that we know of, that Madeleine's parents did anything to her then the most sensible thing to do is take the default position that they didn't do anything. At least that way, people will still regard her as missing and still keep looking for her.

 

[fabgod]

What feels amiss, fabgod, is that you don't know the answer. And an argument from lack of knowledge will always be flawed, no matter how convincing it sounds without full knowledge.

None of us know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but what we do know is this - parents or other adults involved in a child's life have to be the first suspects in any case of a missing/murdered child under the age of 12. Experience tells us that.

When those parents and other adults have been looked at as suspects by the police and eliminated as suspects by the police, (who have fuller information than we do), its best to move on and stop wasting our time over analysing their every move and their every word. Research has shown that the accounts given in the immediate aftermath of a missing child is notoriously inconsistent from those closest to the child. In fact, eyewitness evidence generally is very unreliable.

If there is no evidence, that we know of, that Madeleine's parents did anything to her then the most sensible thing to do is take the default position that they didn't do anything. At least that way, people will still regard her as missing and still keep looking for her.

I mentioned it earlier, from what i understand the Portuguese didnt clear the arguidos Murat included, they shelved the case and released the three arguidos due to lack of evidence.
I know that is open to interpretation both ways but, having read the reports to the Portuguese chiefs, it is clear that the thinking in Portugal at least was at the time of shelving the case, still of involvement but without sufficient (if any) proof to continue with regards to getting a conviction.

 

[brit1981]

fabgod,
the mccanns are not suspects in the case anymore so why would the police not have a link to site for searching for madeleine. The three aguidos all had their aguido status dropped, and the final report says there was no evidence against them or to suggets their involvement.

I think a big part in miscarriage sof justice woudl be more control over what people write pre-trial. casey anthony was convicted by the media, not by the evidence against her or by the jury. But because the actual verdict did not match what people who only knew about the case via the media had decided it should be it is upheld as a miscarriage of justice. The same with the mccanns and the chamberlains, the media (and in the mccanns case certain inrternet groups) decided they were guilty.

I also think experts used should be scrutinized more. In the UK roy meadows gave evidence as a witness, but on a subject he knew nothing about (he was a paediatrician and gave evidence on statistics depsite having no knowledge of these and a misunderstanding of the paper he was quoting). The judge should have stopped this, and the defence should have torn him to tiny pieces. There was another case where a jury was told a boy died of salt overdose and he either took all the salt himself or his parents force fed him. The parents were convicted, but on appeal it turne dout he had a condition which meant his salt levels were naturally unbalanced, but this was not presented to the jury. The expert who gave testimony in the appeal actually read about the case and contacted the defence himself.
there is a need for barristers and advocates to be more scientifically aware so they can challenge expert witnesses more.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Thats the thing police forces and the judicary dont deal in circumstancial evidence, rumour and the like - well at least the ones in this country - they deal in hard evidence , forensics , witneseses ,

That is why after the Mccanns were rightly investigated they were never even charged of any crime and are free citizens.

Until hard evidence does appear to the contrary they remain free citizens in the eyes of the law . and in a modern democratic nation that is exactly how things should be - I am sure if you ever found your self in the wrong side of the law you would want to be treated fairly and within the due process of the law.

This is a misconception made by honest people.

Those of us who have been party to investigations know that circumstantial evidence is where is starts. You look at the CIRCUMSTANCE first (if you have no witnesses), and work your way out. Hard evidence is what you are looking for, but circumstance tells you where to look.

Forensics is a new science. Fifty years ago convictions were common based on circumstantial evidence ALONE. Now juries are perceived to be that much more demanding and knowledgeable (the CSI effect) and it is the prosecutors, not the police, who choose whether to press charges. They will not do so unless there is compelling forensics, for fear of being accused of wasting public money. That's the rub.

The Police will know who did it, how they did it, why they did it, (aka. circumstantial evidence) but unless they have it backed up to the hilt with science as well nowdays, they can't charge anyone.

Forensics is a double edged sword...but I can assure you that circumstantial evidence builds the skeleton of an investigation and is not to be dismissed.

We have acres of it, in the McCann case...all pointing one direction. Fifty years ago, they would have been hung.

:banghead:

 

[BritsKate]

Page 40 of this link has a great description of circumstantial vs. direct evidence - including highlighting the fact that Ian Huntley and Steve Wright were both convicted based on circumstantial evidence.

http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199609383/9780199609383_ch02.pdf

 

[fabgod]

Its odd really how things come around,
I have just been looking into the background criminal history of a couple of Paedophiles that have been "brought into the ring" like so many others in the Madeleine case.
They were tried and convicted of murder in 2010 in Scotland, there was no body, no hard evidence, just the surviving sons testimony and hearsay that they had claimed to have committed the murder.
Now dont get me wrong, their past history of crime shows they are clearly evil men and fully deserve to be locked away, I just thought it was fitting to make the correlation between the post and this case.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Its odd really how things come around,
I have just been looking into the background criminal history of a couple of Paedophiles that have been "brought into the ring" like so many others in the Madeleine case.
They were tried and convicted of murder in 2010 in Scotland, there was no body, no hard evidence, just the surviving sons testimony and hearsay that they had claimed to have committed the murder.
Now dont get me wrong, their past history of crime shows they are clearly evil men and fully deserve to be locked away, I just thought it was fitting to make the correlation between the post and this case.

A few IQ points and $20 mill makes all the difference.

:saythat:

 

[brit1981]

Forensic evidence is not just DNA evidence, but things like accounts, analysis of handwriting, CCTV are all forensic evidence. So this sort of evidence has been around for over a century (obviously not things like CCTV, but forensic accounting, forensic look at bodies, murder weapons, handwriting etc).
iIn the EU pure circimstantial evidence is not enough, there must be other evidence, but this does not have to be scientific evidence. For instance levi bellfield was convicted of Milly Dowler's murder, but there was no scientific evidence. But the fact he lived in the house where she had disappeared from in front of, had a car matching the description scene, had witness testimony as to his behaviour and disposal of bed linen, and knowledge of where her body was found etc was deemed enough, so there was a mixture of circumstatial evidence and witness testimony. Sadly there is the CSI effect where people hear forensics and assume people mean scientific evidence like DNA.

In the McCann case there is not one shred of evidence against them, nothing forensic like DNA/toxicology/accounts/call records/ cctv/location via mobile, no witnesses statements, nothing evenly purely circumstantial. There is a reason why those with access to all the information have declared that they are not involved.

 

[BritsKate]

Forensics has been around a lot longer than a century. The first recorded autopsy was in the very early 14th century with accounts of medicolegal exploration into the detection of causes of death going back even further. (See the Washing Away of Wrongs, written 1247 or 1248)

I don't believe it fair to claim there is not 'one shred of evidence' against the McCann's when in reality we don't know that there is evidence against anyone. In reality, five years after this crime, we don't know that they have any suspects. No one has been convicted. It remains an unsolved mystery and as such the parents will remain publicly suspect.

I personally will give much more credence to those with access to all the information when they are able to tell me who was involved.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Forensic evidence is not just DNA evidence, but things like accounts, analysis of handwriting, CCTV are all forensic evidence. So this sort of evidence has been around for over a century (obviously not things like CCTV, but forensic accounting, forensic look at bodies, murder weapons, handwriting etc).
iIn the EU pure circimstantial evidence is not enough, there must be other evidence, but this does not have to be scientific evidence. For instance levi bellfield was convicted of Milly Dowler's murder, but there was no scientific evidence. But the fact he lived in the house where she had disappeared from in front of, had a car matching the description scene, had witness testimony as to his behaviour and disposal of bed linen, and knowledge of where her body was found etc was deemed enough, so there was a mixture of circumstatial evidence and witness testimony. Sadly there is the CSI effect where people hear forensics and assume people mean scientific evidence like DNA.

In the McCann case there is not one shred of evidence against them, nothing forensic like DNA/toxicology/accounts/call records/ cctv/location via mobile, no witnesses statements, nothing evenly purely circumstantial. There is a reason why those with access to all the information have declared that they are not involved.

I must have missed this declaration.

Can you please provide a link?

TIA

 

[brit1981]

I have provided a link several times. Look at the final PJ report, and andy redwoods statement which he has given both to newspapers and spoken about on various television programmes. The PJ report states there is no evidence the parents wer einvolved, redwood has stated madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.

Do you have the links to your claism about the FSS yet?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I have provided a link several times. Look at the final PJ report, and andy redwoods statement which he has given both to newspapers and spoken about on various television programmes. The PJ report states there is no evidence the parents wer einvolved, redwood has stated madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.

Do you have the links to your claism about the FSS yet?

I have not seen it.

Could you please repost

TIA

 

[brit1981]

Ok hang on

 

[brit1981]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ this is where the final report can be found

Also if you try looking on the bbc site, the panarama programme - the last hope, a tv programme called daybreak you will see several interviews with redwood where he states this. He also says they have new information, as well as having found nearly two hundred missed leads. I wonder if these missed leads would be enough to open up the case, or because they are not new they would not be enough to reopen the case.

 

[SapphireSteel]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ this is where the final report can be found

Also if you try looking on the bbc site, the panarama programme - the last hope, a tv programme called daybreak you will see several interviews with redwood where he states this. He also says they have new information, as well as having found nearly two hundred missed leads. I wonder if these missed leads would be enough to open up the case, or because they are not new they would not be enough to reopen the case.

Sorry can you please copy and paste the relevant phrase/quote? I could read these articles/sites all day and still not know exactly what you are basing your statements on.

Tia