Forensic Science Service Results - HELP WANTED

[Texana]

You guys are right - but if I remember correctly, FSS was asked to determine if the hair was pre- or post- mortum. That can be done by looking under a microscope. You or I could do it according to the forensic experts on Nancy Grace discussing Caylee's hair. It is my recollection that FSS said they could not do this "test" because they did not have the equipment. They never indicated that they did not have a "root" and supposedly there was a clump of hair, not just one strand. So... in my mind, FSS's response is highly suspect. Why do they not come out and say there were no hair roots or that there was only one strand of hair? Why say they don't have the equipment? Also, if I recollect, they said they could not distinguish the DNA of the hair with certainty from that of Kate or the twins. However, if the hair was from a post mortum body, it would go a long way toward establishing who's hair it was, because Kate and the twins are still alive.

Just my opinion, of course. And Colomom, I'm like you in that I try hard to discount conspiracy theories. Generally I trust LE and those associated with the investigation to be truthful and forthcoming. But in this case, I just don't believe the response that came from FSS. I think the final results were contradictory to their early responses.

Salem

I agree, the FSS final response was highly suspect, not only for what it did say, but for what it didn't. Usually reports start out by saying as well what cannot be ruled out, but you had to infer that from the final statement. It sounded as if it couldn't be Madeleine at all, but the possibility of the source being Madeleine was quite clear--once you read the statement two or three times.

It was obfuscating and like you Salem, I discard conspiracy theories as just impractical, but this one had the heavy hand of a powerful hand all over the editing.

 

[CaliKid]

I agree. It's like a lab technician giving evidence during a trial when the defense atty. asks if there is a possibility that the specimen isn't the victim's. And even though it is 99.99% positive, that .01% prevented the lab from stating it as fact. So it's very possible the hair was Madeleine's, but some major player squashed the evidence... or caused the specimen to be lost during transit.

 

[Barnaby]

Sadly, I believe that something went awry in the FSS lab. I think that we could have had conclusive proof if someone powerful had not intervened!
Stranger things have happened in this corrupt world of ours!

 

[rashomon]

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).

Could it be establshed when exactly the McCanns moved the sofa next to the window? Was it right after they moved into the apartment?

jmo

 

[colomom]

Could it be establshed when exactly the McCanns moved the sofa next to the window? Was it right after they moved into the apartment?

jmo

Only the McCanns know for sure....

 

[Tony Bennett]

Just a short note to thank everyone here for their contributions.

The press in August/September mentioned hairs and even a 'clump' of hairs.

I am wondering if Amaral mentions hair in the car boot in his book?

If anyone knows one way or the other, please post here or 'pm' me, many thanks.

++++++

So far as possible corruption in British forensic circles is concerned, look no further than the discredited, part-qualified, non-University-attached former Home Office pathologist Dr Michael Heath.

Guess who was brought in to pronounce that government scientist Dr David Kelly, who had embarrassed the British government over so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, had committted suicide?

And guess who Essex Police brought in to pronounced that Stuart Lubbock had died from drowning in a tragic swimming accident, when - later - three other pathologists thought that the likeliest cause of death was asphyxiation and/or massive internal injuries caused by anal penetration by a large firm object?

You are only allowed one guess in each case.

P.S. Last year Dr Michael Heath was disciplined by the Central Criminal Court and the General Medical Council over unacceptable shortcomings in several of his autopsies

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[anne11]

I found an old article from the times, saying that "a surprising amount" of Madelaines hair was found in the hire car.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2424822.ece

 

[Tony Bennett]

I found an old article from the times, saying that "a surprising amount" of Madeleines hair was found in the hire car.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2424822.ece

Hallo Anne11, thanks for posting, unfortunately the link didn't work.

Are you able to post the key points in that article please?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Morag]

Hallo Anne11, thanks for posting, unfortunately the link didn't work.

Are you able to post the key points in that article please?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, Tony, I'm not Anne, but here is a link that works:

Morag

 

[Leviosa]

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Simply as an interested person, and living in the USA, coverage of Maddie's plight was difficult and sporadic at best.

First, how would one find, write to, or procure the police report, such as the one you referenced in your writing?

Pursuant to your submission, each statement must (for me anyway) go through the process of plausibility and truth. Moreover, each statement must meet my criteria of "Reasonable doubt."

As for me, the question begins with this notion: Why on earth was Maddie's hair, blood, perhaps even bodily fluids, found in the boot of one's hire car?

I loved the remark "...crashing down like a house of cards..." insofar as it certainly fits in this regard. It is unusual at best to find these types of idyosyncracies where they were found.

Predicated upon these particulars alone, I am still amazed at how PLE and BLE have handled this case. Cheers mate.

 

[Morag]

Sometime around the time the information about the hair in the trunk came out, Kate was said to describe how she washed M's hair and 'gently removed' the pink bead that had been woven into her hair. I always thought that was an odd thing to say and wondered if she was trying to tell us or herself some story about why a clump of hair might have been found. Does anyone else remember the pink bead story?



Here is the link again- it seems to have disappeared from my previous post: (?)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2429822.ece

 

[Texana]

Sometime around the time the information about the hair in the trunk came out, Kate was said to describe how she washed M's hair and 'gently removed' the pink bead that had been woven into her hair. I always thought that was an odd thing to say and wondered if she was trying to tell us or herself some story about why a clump of hair might have been found. Does anyone else remember the pink bead story?



Here is the link again- it seems to have disappeared from my previous post: (?)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2429822.ece

I don't recall ever seeing the pink bead story. That certainly sounds like something Kate would say to explain any pieces or clumps of hair--I've got to say having had children who had their hair braided and beaded, "gently" is the last way you can undo the braids and beads. They're not really meant to undo easily.

Thanks for reposting the link!

 

[jat]

I think that is an excellent summary. However I would question this statement :

"Each one of those 5 markers exactly matched Madeleine's DNA."

I'm not sure whether you can have an 'exact' match form 5 markers - I think the point is that there were no markers that could not have come from Madeleine so the idea that it was her blood could not be discounted - but that 5 markers does not give positive identification either.

Legally, 5 markers can not be used as positive identification, however, scientists know that 5 markers is pretty positive. The only reason it isn't totally positive is because close relatives may have the same 5 markers. So, it could be a relative.

Just an aside, I have participated in a "crime lab" to study DNA testing in a group of about 100 students. We only checked 3 markers. ON personal served as a pretend criminal that donated his DNA for the purposes of the experiment. There was not a single other student with those same markers. And when we compared his marker combinations with the general population for his race...it was a 99.2% match.

j

 

[thentherewere4]

 

[rashomon]

I remember we went through the discussion about the hair sample a month or so ago but I can't remember who gave us the links--I thought it was Tony B. but I could be wrong.

The FSS reportedly did not have the capacity to test for whether or not the hair was from living or deceased person. They refused to release the sample to another European lab that could test, as requested by the Portuguese authorities. They basically shut down on making any conclusions about the sample stating only the number of matching markers and that a definitive identification as Madeleine's could not be made.

However, they did NOT say that Madeleine was ruled out.

I thought of this immediately when the news about Caylee Anthony surfaced.

Texana, do you have the source where it says the FFJ did not have the capacity to test the hair for whether or not it was form a living or dead person?

 

[Salem]

We all know the McCanns are "in the frame" because of the DNA results. The problem is that LE can not or will not act.

I sincerely hope that the McCanns are hearing a lot of news on the Caylee Anthony case and that it is keeping them awake at night.

Salem

 

[Texana]

Texana, do you have the source where it says the FFJ did not have the capacity to test the hair for whether or not it was form a living or dead person?

I don't think so anymore. Some of the links that used to work, don't work anymore. :-( It was this summer though that I did have the links before for the British media reports.

However, the reports made absolute sense as to why we heard nothing further from the testing. The strands/clumps of hair had a significant number of markers that tied them to Madeleine or a member of her family, but there were not enough to undeniably say they were from Madeleine. SO, the official word was "not able to identify" and nothing more. The fact that the clumps or strands WERE enough to identify the source as a McCann family member was left out.

Second, the fact that the British lab did not have the testing ability to tell whether or not the strands came from a living or dead person, was absolutely correct as well--as reported, they "could not identify" or words to that effect, the life status of the source.

Nice parsing of words there, because the reason they could not identify, was that they lacked the testing ability.

FSS refused to send their sample on to another European lab that did claim to have that ability, and so there it ended.

I've got some sources bookmarked on other computers, I"ll look at them., but I've found it increasingly hard to get some of these sources. I'd say "Clarence at work" but that sounds so gosh darned conspiracy theorist--and yet--I can pull reports and sources for the darndest old things. Just not this. Hmm.

 

[thentherewere4]

We all know the McCanns are "in the frame" because of the DNA results. The problem is that LE can not or will not act.

I sincerely hope that the McCanns are hearing a lot of news on the Caylee Anthony case and that it is keeping them awake at night.

Salem

Sorry can you tell me what LE stands for?

LE = Leicestershire Police / Constabulary?

 

[colomom]

Sorry can you tell me what LE stands for?

LE = Leicestershire Police / Constabulary?

I'll jump in here TTW4...LE=Law Enforcement, so it could be any law enforcement agency involved in this case. None of them can/will do anything to bring justice to Maddie, or so it seems....

 

[colomom]

I read the same thing about the FSS not being able to conduct certain testing and that was why we never heard any conclusive results about the hair. There is a good thread (or 2 or 3) on 3As about the testing. One of them is here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=24964

Most of the final reports from the FSS are outlined and discussed here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26484&p=770982&hilit=FSS+final+report#p770982

Another good thread is here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=26115&hilit=+FSS+final+report

And also: http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/v...38&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=DVD+Forensics+science

Lots of good reading....