Forensic Science Service Results - HELP WANTED

[brit1981]

How can a link be provided to show something does not exist? Look through the files, the information you have stated is not there.

Can you provide any evidence that the following is true...

The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine

The mccanns refusal to engage in a reconstruction

The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort) The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a - can you provide evidence that the dogs alerted to cadaver and not dried blood or other bodily fluids?

Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA - can you provide evidence that this DNA was not Gerry or Kates as they as well as other family member have the exact same elements

Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found - what personal audience, and what evidence the mccanns arranmnged it?

The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up" - what evidence that the mccanns sedated their children, that calpol is a sedative, and that there were no medications found

Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child - what evidence is there that kate did not call for madeleine

Jane Tanners changing story

The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort

The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for - do you have evidence this was the mccanns and the time it was done

The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching

The refusal to be interviewed

Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found

The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team

The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency -can you show evidence that the fund has less transparency than the only other option which was keeping the money in their own account

The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds -can you show evidence that the mccanns had the option to make the fund a charity despite this being against the law

The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR

The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots

The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines

The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes

The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later

The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false

The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed

Sky news were likewise informed, before LE

The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later

Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one

The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder

The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK

Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement

Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty

Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May

Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.

Oner cannot states soemthing like calpol is a sedative, and then claim it is an opinion only. Either calpol is a sedative or it is not, either the mccanns sedated their children or they did not. Circumstantial evidence does nto consist of people saying "in my opinion this happened", either it is a fact or it is not. Calpol is not a sedative that is a fact not an opinion.
So far you have not provided any primary sources that these claims are at all true - I mean doyou really have evidence that the Uk was prepared to break the law and allow the fund to become a charity. that is a very serious accusation you are making.

 

[fabgod]

You have not provided one workable link for any of your accusations or statements, and reading through this rebuttal only confirms my opinion that you actually know very little about the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

I could post responses all day but it is like rain in the desert...it just evaporates leaving no trace.

Every statement anyone makes is immediately dismissed as "lies" yet as no one knows what happened to Madeleine, this is opinion only.

There is absolutely no point to discussing anything at all with a party who believes everything to be "lies" apart from their own theory.

Great post SapphireSteel
My thoughts exactly

 

[brit1981]

No if something is untrue it is untrue. It is untrue that calpol was used as a sedative ( the fact that calpol is not a sedative is rather a big clue), it is untrue that there is any evidence jane tanner changed her story, it is untrue that the fund could have been made a charity etc. When someone presents things as circumstatial evidence then it is fair enough to point out which pieces of their evidence are not true. Claiming that the mccanns sedated their children is not evidence if it is not true anyone could make up anything and then declare it as circumstatial evidence if that were the case.
If people really belive the mccanns are guilty of somethign to do with their child's disappearence why make up things about them, why not just point to actual evidence?

 

[Salem]

Here is a link to the CalPol thread. Calpol - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Some of the questions may have already been answered.

When I catch up, I will be moving this discussion to the proper thread. Those of you discussing CalPol might want to migrate over there now because it is off topic for the Forensic results.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[brit1981]

Know this initial post is four years old, but it is relevant to question in my opinion, as this sort of infomation is still getting quoted. The lowe report can be found here http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm and this is why I get my evidence as it were.
My input is in bold...

I should be grateful if anyone could please look over this point from our proposed booklet: "What happened to Madeleine McCann: 30 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted". Is what we say (a) correct and (b) reasonably comprehensible?

It deals with the forensic findings of the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham.

Or if anyone could please piont me to a good source where their findings are discussed, I'd be grateful also:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

30 Reasons

Reason (x). The forensic evidence of the DNA of blood found in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment, and in the boot of the McCanns' hired car, analysed by the Forensic Science Service here in England

ANSWER:
First of all no material found was ever identified as blood.

There have been claims and counter-claims about the significance of the forensic evidence obtained by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in Birmingham on samples of blood or body fluids found in the McCanns’ apartment and in the boot of the car they hired. The Doctors McCann and their spokesmen have claimed that the FSS results did not confirm that it was Madeleine’s dead body in the apartment and in the car.

So let us look carefully at what the FSS found.

In Apartment 5A, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’ both clearly marked precisely the same location - behind the sofa in the living room (which had been moved by the McCanns from its original location).
There is no evidence that the mccanns moved the sofa. The tiles where Keela scented the blood were carefully removed and sent to FSS. The blood found by Keela was by then degraded, quite possibly s the result of cleaning agents having been used, and the FSS lab was able to check only 5 markers. Each one of those 5 markers exactly matched Madeleine's DNA.

First no material was ever identified as blood, no material such as cleaning products were found in the area so causes of the materials degradation are pure speculation. This is what the FSS report actually said "An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area."
So in actual fact whilst the FSS does confirm these components were shared by madeleine, it is also says that the indications are these components came from more than one person, inc other mccanns. Componenets are not unique to an individuel. All the other samples culd not be attributed to anypone in the mccann family and in some cases could have been from more than one person.

As for the Renault Scenic, registration no. 59-DA-27, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’, both clearly marked the same car and the same location within the car. The blood found there by Keela (beneath the carpeting in the boot) was also degraded. But the FSS lab was able, on its first analysis, to check 15 markers. All of these 15 markers matched Madeleine's DNA.

first. Both eddie and keela only alerted to the card fobb, this contained material identified as being that of gerry mccann. Eddie did not alert elsewhere in the car.
No material found in the car was identified as being blood.

A second result showed the same 15 markers, but among a total of 37. An individual only has 19 ‘markers’. That means that the sample from the car had been contaminated by DNA from another individual. However, with 15 markers all matching Madeleine’s DNA, that would still give analysts 99.9% confidence that the samples were from Madeleine.

First basic genetics is that a person has twenty makers not just nineteen. Madeleine had twenty markers, but two of these were the same since her parents both donated an identical marker to her. In fact what the FSS report says is that they found DNA from three to five people which contained 37 different markers. Of these markers fifteen were shared by madeleine and also her parents, and other relatives including her siblings would have shared many of her markers too. This means that it is impossible to conclud ein anyway shape or form whether the markers came from madeleine or any other of the mccanns, and it was not possible to even ascertain where the fifteen markers shared by madeleine had even been donated by one person. The 99.9% claim is untrue.

The DNA of the degraded blood was found not to match with the DNA of the twins, Sean and Amelie.

Untrue, the report at no point excludes either of the twins as one of the three to five donors, and at no point was a dna sequence found so no individuel coudl be identified. At no point does the fss confirm what the material was.

The law differs from country to country as to how many out of an individual’s 19 DNA ‘markers’ are needed to prove that any DNA sample comes from that individual. Many countries accept 15 markers as sufficient proof. Under Portuguese law, however, the courts require all 19 markers to be confirmed.

I find it surprising that any country takes all 19 markers as proof given that each person has twenty, I wonder where the notion that Portugal requires all 19 came from. But no matter how many markers are taken as proof is irelevant when it cannot be confirmed who those markers belonged to. There is nothing to say those markers did not come from kate and gerry, or the twins, or other family members. There is not one shred of evidence that those markers came from one perosn let alone madeleine. The only way anyone could say the likely hood was those markers belonged to madeleine wa sif they could demonstrate that those particular marker sin the mixed sample came form one individuel, but they could not so for all we know the 15 markers coudl have come form three individuels each donating 5.

This was ‘Low Copy Number’ DNA and so all 19 markers could not be obtained.

What does that have to do with LCN. The analysis found 37 markers, only 15 of which coudl ahve belonged to madeleine, it was not a case of LCN preventing the other 4 different markers being identified. And it is important that those 15 coudl easily have come from any combination of the mccanns.

The FSS were able to confirm that the results of the analysis were ‘indicative’ that the blood found was Madeleine’s.

No it was not. It could not confirm what the material was. And it could not confirm that the material belonged to anyone, let alone madeleine. It could nto even confirm how many people contributed to the 15 markers.

We might, without exaggeration, that these DNA results were ‘highly indicative’ that it was Madeleine’s blood that was found. But the FSS felt unable to say that these DNA results, on their own, were ‘conclusive’.

The key point to be made is this. The FSS results, on their own, do not provide absolute proof that the blood in the apartment and in the hired car was Madeleine’s. But the strongly indicative results, with all 5 markers being Madeleine’s in one sample and all 15 in another, must be taken together with all the other evidence in this case. And we can say without fear of successful contradiction that it is another piece of evidence in the case that points very strongly in the direction of Madeleine being dead in her holiday apartment on 3rd May 2007, the day she ‘disappeared’.

No you cannot. First of all no material was ever identified as blood. Second not one piece of dna was ever identified as being that of madeleines, or likely that of madeleine. All we can see is that in a hire car used by kate, gerry, the twins, grandparents, and other relatives, as well as carrying belongins of madeleines which had her material on, a dna sample of three to five people was found and in that sample fifteen compoents were found which would be found int he dna of kate, gerry, the grandparents, other relatives as well as madeleine. Not exactly surprising that the mccansn dna was found in their car. As for the material in the flat, this could belong to numerous people, not just madeleine. There is also the fact that none of this material points to having come from a corpse either, especially given the only place eddie alerted to in the car was the card fobb which was confirmed as containing the bodily fluid of gerry who is alive.
ENDS

 

[SapphireSteel]

I agree it points very strongly towards a deceased Maddie. I don't know much about all these tests, but I am very curious why the FSS changed their minds about the DNA samples. They led PLE to believe they had strong samples, PLE makes the McCanns suspects and the the FSs backs off their original position. What happened?

Salem

Political interference...exactly the same as Mary Lacey in Jonbenet's case when she used rubbish DNA to "exonerate" the Ramseys. It's called "spin".

The powers that be in Portugal, the UK and the USA all wished this mess to just go away...and gosh, it did.

:furious:

Two credible, attractive, educated members of the medical establishment with contacts in high places.

Certain people in power to whom they had direct access (looking at you Gordon) were also sucked in by the same blind, knee-jerk belief as we see on this forum.

They can't possibly be involved. My idea of the universe just won't allow me to contemplate the possibility, if I do everything I know and trust and rely on as an "authority figure" in my life will be threatened.

What's really scary is the realisation that the UK is being run by people who have the same blind faith in the class system and "people like us" as their predecessors did 100 years ago.

Back then, the "criminal classes" commited the crimes, not respectable and respected members of their own upper-middle class.

I can guarantee this evidence would be enough to secure conviction if the McCann had been overweight, spotty, cigarette smoking welfare bludgers from Scunthorpe.

History will judge this mess, and the players.

:banghead:

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

my replies in bold

Political interference...exactly the same as Mary Lacey in Jonbenet's case when she used rubbish DNA to "exonerate" the Ramseys. It's called "spin".
How is there any evidence of political interference or spin in the mccann case. It is basic genetics. I mean when someone claims that people only have nineteen markers they lose credibility because it comes across as if they have read the lowe report seen them tlak about madeleine's nineteen different markers and assumed she only had nineteen amrkers and this is the same for everyone. The fact is not one shred of DNA evidence exists, and anyone who has a modern high school education would be able to point out that a person's parents will have every single one of their markers.The powers that be in Portugal, the UK and the USA all wished this mess to just go away...and gosh, it did.

Do you have any evidence that "the powers that be" in three countries had any involvement in a cover-up or making this go away. It doe sseem at odds with the givernment of the UK ordering a review of the case, which is very unusual when they coudl have just let it be if they had wished.
:furious:

Two credible, attractive, educated members of the medical establishment with contacts in high places.

What contacts in high places. She was a part time locum GP, he is a cardiologist at a northern hospital. There is no evidence they had contacts in high places. Are you able to provide any links to your evidence or contacts in high places?
Certain people in power to whom they had direct access (looking at you Gordon) were also sucked in by the same blind, knee-jerk belief as we see on this forum.

They did not have access to gordon brown, he telephoned them ages later offering support. They did not have any previous contact with him. And if the belief they are not guilty is so blind and kneww jerk, how is it that those who belive them can provide evidence for their claims, whilst those who claim they are guilty can only at best provide links to rumours and not primary sources, or misinterpret the scientific facts (like the first post from the former secretary of the madeleine foundation)? If the belief they are guilty is based on hard facts then people should be able to back this up with evidence of these hard facts.
They can't possibly be involved. My idea of the universe just won't allow me to contemplate the possibility, if I do everything I know and trust and rely on as an "authority figure" in my life will be threatened.

Er, one of the UKs most infamous and prolific seriel killers was a GP, so people in the Uk have no problem accepting doctors being killers. But as the evidence does not support the theory that they are involved, then that is perhaps why people think they are not involved and therefore believe the PJ and scotland yard.
What's really scary is the realisation that the UK is being run by people who have the same blind faith in the class system and "people like us" as their predecessors did 100 years ago.


Back then, the "criminal classes" commited the crimes, not respectable and respected members of their own upper-middle class.

Er, the mccanns are lower middle class, not exactly high society and certainly not upper middle class. The UK class system does not work by simply getting a good career or money and then hopping up the class ladder.
No-one has been able to come up with any evidence against the mccanns, nor even a theory as to how they physically removed the body from the flat. That is why people do not think they did it

I can guarantee this evidence would be enough to secure conviction if the McCann had been overweight, spotty, cigarette smoking welfare bludgers from Scunthorpe.

No it would not even have been enough to secure charging them, because not one shred of evidence exists against them
History will judge this mess, and the players.


:banghead:

:cow:

 

[Clutchbag]

Not a shred of evidence of abduction either, not a single jot, not one iota, but plenty circumstantial against the parents, where do the scales weigh

 

[SapphireSteel]

All the McCann has to defend themselves is bluster and money.

It is a sad day indeed for "justice", when this is enough.

The outcome of criminal charges against the rich are famously different to those against the poor in the USA. Britain seems to be following their lead.

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

really - you think the fact that the attorney general said there was no evidence they had committed a crime is not in their favour, the fact soctland yard have said it was a stranger abduction is not in their favour? And since when are the mccanns rich, he is a cardiologist, she was a part time locum GP. One would really have to be at the bottom of the ladder to regard them as rich and high society, they had perfectly normal professional jobs in the north of england.

 

[Clutchbag]

really - you think the fact that the attorney general said there was no evidence they had committed a crime is not in their favour, the fact soctland yard have said it was a stranger abduction is not in their favour? And since when are the mccanns rich, he is a cardiologist, she was a part time locum GP. One would really have to be at the bottom of the ladder to regard them as rich and high society, they had perfectly normal professional jobs in the north of england.

Scotland Yard have not said in any official capacity that it was a stranger abduction. AR has said he personally believes she is alive. That is just a personal general opinion, given as soon as the review was announced. There is no way he will have read all the files before saying that.

 

[brit1981]

Actually Andy Redwood said a year after the review began that they had found leads that led them to believe there was a real possibility she was still alive. he also said a year after the review began that they now believed madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. They had several police officers going through the files for a year so i think we can assume they will have read it all by then.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I find it extraordinary that AR spoke at all.

You don't say blab half way through a review, what your opinion is going to be.

It makes you look as though you are biased, and are only going through the paces as you've already decided what you'll find.

:banghead:

 

[Clutchbag]

If they really had 195 plausible leads the met wouldnt have asked the govt a few months ago whether to wrap it all up or not LOL and LOL

I really dont think anything AR said could be taken seriously sitting on the gmtv sofa as opposed to a proper news channel LOL again

it is also disingenuous for anyone to say those leads led him to believe a stranger abduction took place, the stranger comment was weeks BEFORE the story about the 195 leads hit the papers, talk about pick and mix and recreating history hahaha

As for the leads, well

http://www.anorak.co.uk/320352/made...-detective-chief-inspector-andy-redwood.html/

 

[fabgod]

Actually Andy Redwood said a year after the review began that they had found leads that led them to believe there was a real possibility she was still alive. he also said a year after the review began that they now believed madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.

They had several police officers going through the files for a year so i think we can assume they will have read it all by then

.

According to the reports, Operation Grange Detectives had gone through a quarter of the 40,000 pieces of information, so I think contrary to your suggestion, that iit is safe to say that in fact they had worked through a quarter or 10,000 pieces of information, unless you can post actual evidence of your claim?

Andy Redwood sad "he" believed, a personal statement not an official statement by The Metropolitan Police.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...nding-of-madeleine-mccann-review-8078769.html

 

[fabgod]

If Scotland Yard really thought that Madeleine was alive, he made the statement over 6 months ago, there has been no apparent movement in the case, she certainly doesn't seem to have been located, so where is the urgency in finding her?
To say he believed there was a real chance of her being alive Andy Redwood, one would presume, would have some real grounds for that thought, so, is Madeleine with a family that are caring for her well and she is in no danger of harm?
Is she with family in another part of the world, being cared for?
because if she was in the hands of say a paedophile gang, then surely the Metropolitan Police would not make a statement about her being alive and not know anything about her whereabouts, it wouldnt make any sense in that it would be putting her situation under more pressure.
IMO it was a misguided comment that does little to help the situation at all

 

[SapphireSteel]

AR's blathering is farcical.

Are they claiming to be only one quarter way through? Yet still he's able to spout about a criminal act by a stranger, even though he only knows a quarter of the intelligence?

Is he psychic too?

Such a glaring faux pas is inexcusable in one of his position, trying to convince the public they are unbiased and impartial.

Clearly, Andy Redmond is neither!

:maddening:

 

[brit1981]

Andy redwood has not demonstrated bias. We have no idea what all the files say, so we cannot accuse him of bias. There is no reason to presume that he has not discovered enough to rule out those know to madeleine. It does not take a lot to rule someone out of an investigation. For instance it might be they looked at the witness statements and realised it was impossible for the mccanns to have hidden a body that evening. We just do not know enough to claim he is wrong. he has access to the full and professionally translated files we do not, so we have no grounds for laiming he is wrong.

And surley if people think it is wrong to look at what andy redwood said a year after the review because the review is not complete, it must also be wrong to listen to amaral who was only on the case for a few months and was in charge when a huge amount of false leaks were made by the police.

 

[gord]

if the SY review finds anything more is yet to be seen - the chaces that they are unlikely to find that smoking gun piece of evidence - but to slag off the process before he has actually completed the review and presented his findings is non sensical ??

If he has a budget to reexamine all the available evidence then great - everyone should welcome that regardless of view points - thsi is what everyone claioms they want - to find the truth and the more eyes looking is better than nothing

It might also urge the portugese LE to give 100% cooperation as well - though I think behind the scenes they are . I think they learnt form the days when everything was being linked to the press and we had missleading rumour and falsehoods on a daily basis

 

[SapphireSteel]

if the SY review finds anything more is yet to be seen - the chaces that they are unlikely to find that smoking gun piece of evidence - but to slag off the process before he has actually completed the review and presented his findings is non sensical ??

If he has a budget to reexamine all the available evidence then great - everyone should welcome that regardless of view points - thsi is what everyone claioms they want - to find the truth and the more eyes looking is better than nothing

It might also urge the portugese LE to give 100% cooperation as well - though I think behind the scenes they are . I think they learnt form the days when everything was being linked to the press and we had missleading rumour and falsehoods on a daily basis

I don't think the process is being "slagged off".

I do think the process is now being viewed with some suspicion.

The point is as you say, the process is not completed...yet here we have "opinion" being bandied about as though it is truth. We have "findings" presented on breakfast television, when the review is not even close to being completed!

Do you not find this nonsensical?

:dunno:

Remember, it was SY themselves who invited this debate, by sending AR on telly to share his personal opinions in the first place, when they were only one quarter of the way through the evidence.

It is highly irregular for a senior policeman to appear on tv for a sit down chat on any one case that is still open and current.

It is even more irregular for that policeman to blab about the expected results when only one quarter way through a review.

So irregular in fact, that I don't think it has ever occured before. Senior Policemen are usually excellent at avoiding comment in fact.

It really makes you wonder about the standard of policing and basic common sense in SY.

If you have no problem with a senior policeman opining the results of a "review" while only one quarter way through it, on tv, like the conclusion is foregone, then you really should consider going to live in a communist country where this sort of thing is commonplace and accepted by Joe Public.

ETA: Britain isn't communist yet, but police coverups are apparently just fine, so no need to move (see: Hillsborough).