the cadaver dog

[K9Snoop]

I mean it is 100% incorrect to say that if a dog alerts it means a cadaver was there. Equally you cannot say if a cadaver dog alerts it means he was only alerting to a bodily fluid, that is also 100% incorrect.
All you can say with any certainty is that if a dog alerts it indicates a cadaver or bodily fluid was there. But some people have claimed that as the dog alerted this was evidence a cadaver was there, which is not accurate it is (assuming the dog and its handler are correct) evidence that an odour which may have come from a cadaver, or a bodily fluid was present.

I think it would be best to leave out the percentages. It reads better, less inflamatory, and makes more sense. 'sides the only thing(s) I've been told that is 100% are death and taxes. Everything else is open to negotiation. <grin>

 

[SapphireSteel]

I have not put up false assertions at all. My assertions are true.

Assertions that are false that have been posted here

that questions were asked about the owenership of FSS ltd and that it had no license to practice - 100% incorrect it is a government owned agency, with a license to practice.

That finding 15 components out of madeleine's 19, from a mixture of three to five people's DNA which contained 37 components is more or less positive that it belongs to madeleine - this is 100% incorrect.

that the resturant was 120 metres from the flat - 100% incorrect.

that the dog alerting meant a cadaver was there - 100% incorrect as the dogs are not infallible, and the cadaver dog also alerts to bodily fluids from living people. It means a cadaver could possibly have been there, but equally so could a bodily fluid such as nails, blood etc. And that is if the dog alerted correctly.

These are just three out and out falsehoods that people have put up for reasons known only to themselves.

And how woudl I now why for the thirty second sit took to run the 75 metres to the resturant she did not call for Madeleine. Everyone says she started shouting as soon as she was in sight. But are ypou claiming that she did not shout for those few moments meant she was involved in the disappearence.

<Mod Snip>
I wish to <Mod Snip> ask a question which is VERY SIGNIFICANT.

A mother enters her sleeping babies room, and one is missing.

Do you run from the apartment (leaving 2 more babies alone) shouting "they've taken her?" or do you stand at the front door (protecting your remaining babies) and scream "Madeline! Madeline! Help me! She's gone! Madeline!" As you pointed out, 50m "as the crow flies" is within easy distance for her screams to be heard and attended to.

At no stage did Kate call for her missing daughter. At no stage did she even look for her.

This is completely unnatural behaviour for any bereaved parent and as yet has not been explained.

 

[brit1981]

Saphire,
<Mod snip>

According to witnesses including mark warner employees said they saw kate running screaming for madeleine, so it is a fabrication to say at no point did she look for Madeleine. I have never had a child go missing, so I have no idea if I would stay in the room screaming, or if I would go for help. I know when a friend could not find her child, she came running over to where I was and did not say anything until she was nearly by me. If the only thing concrete you can come up with is that kate ran to her husband and only started shouting when he was in sight, it is a pretty weak case.

You have also made statements about the FSS that are 100% incorrect, who is telling you this misinformation?

Saggy,
Grime's report states that Eddie alerts to bodily fluid - "'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".
These dogs just alert to decomposure of human material, they have no idea of whether that material orginally came from a living person or not. If hair, blood or nail is decomposing, it is decomposing (a dog would alert to odours a human would not notice) regardless of whether the donor is dead or alive. And as you say the fact that he could have alerted to any bodily fluid means his alerts could quite easily have been innocent. Nails and hair, and an unidentifible bodily fluid was in the car, and blood from someone other than the mccanns was found in the flat. This is why the dogs cannot be used as proof a body is there. In the UK they are used to find bodies, not to indicate whether a body was there. If the dog starts barking at a bath panel, then the police are going to look, and if they find a body thats fine, but if they do not find anything then they cannot say why the dog was alerting or what specifically it was alerting to.

 

[saggymoon]

Saphire,
<Mod Snip>

According to witnesses including mark warner employees said they saw kate running screaming for madeleine, so it is a fabrication to say at no point did she look for Madeleine. I have never had a child go missing, so I have no idea if I would stay in the room screaming, or if I would go for help. I know when a friend could not find her child, she came running over to where I was and did not say anything until she was nearly by me. If the only thing concrete you can come up with is that kate ran to her husband and only started shouting when he was in sight, it is a pretty weak case.

You have also made statements about the FSS that are 100% incorrect, who is telling you this misinformation?

Saggy,
Grime's report states that Eddie alerts to bodily fluid - "'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".
These dogs just alert to decomposure of human material, they have no idea of whether that material orginally came from a living person or not. If hair, blood or nail is decomposing, it is decomposing (a dog would alert to odours a human would not notice) regardless of whether the donor is dead or alive. And as you say the fact that he could have alerted to any bodily fluid means his alerts could quite easily have been innocent. Nails and hair, and an unidentifible bodily fluid was in the car, and blood from someone other than the mccanns was found in the flat. This is why the dogs cannot be used as proof a body is there. In the UK they are used to find bodies, not to indicate whether a body was there. If the dog starts barking at a bath panel, then the police are going to look, and if they find a body thats fine, but if they do not find anything then they cannot say why the dog was alerting or what specifically it was alerting to.

Yes thanks for the reference there. As for in the uk the dogs are only used to find bodies. Two words, Kate Prout. And two more, Attracta Harron. There are more on the list where Eddie alerted but no body was found there but found later elsewhere. You did not address why the cadaver dog alerted nowhere else apart from the only place a girl went missing from.

 

[brit1981]

In these two cases the dogs were used to try to find their bodies.

Grimes does state in his report that the dogs were interested in the other flats, but puts that down to food stuffs, and a tennis ball. But the fact is that the dog alerts to all bodily fluids, and there is no way anyone can say the dog is alerting to a corpse, or a bodily fluid unless there is other evidence.

The other flats were not checked for material either, so we actually have no idea if eddie was incorrect by not alerting in these flats. If human bodily fluids were there, or miniscule amoutsts of blood were there then the dogs should have alerted. But as they only checked where Grimes said the dogs alerted we have no way of knowing if the dogs missed anything they should have alerted to. Again if this case ever goes to trial, there will be questions raised as to why this did not happen.

 

[saggymoon]

In these two cases the dogs were used to try to find their bodies.

Grimes does state in his report that the dogs were interested in the other flats, but puts that down to food stuffs, and a tennis ball. But the fact is that the dog alerts to all bodily fluids, and there is no way anyone can say the dog is alerting to a corpse, or a bodily fluid unless there is other evidence.

The other flats were not checked for material either, so we actually have no idea if eddie was incorrect by not alerting in these flats. If human bodily fluids were there, or miniscule amoutsts of blood were there then the dogs should have alerted. But as they only checked where Grimes said the dogs alerted we have no way of knowing if the dogs missed anything they should have alerted to. Again if this case ever goes to trial, there will be questions raised as to why this did not happen.

none of the above is true. It sounds like you are making it up as you go along. Or else you just do not understand.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I hope this closes the DNA argument once and for all...for now, anyway. Snipped by me, in full at link.

It the second, amended Witness Depostion by the FSS Ltd Scientist, made AFTER further testing -

Pages 300 to 326

Witness Deposition
(Criminal Procedure Rules, r27.1 (1);
Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.9; Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.5B)

Deposition of: JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol MlBiol RFP Age: Older than 18

Profession of Witness: Forensic Scientist

Address of Witness:
Forensic Science Service Ltd.,
Birmingham Laboratory, Priory House, Gooch Street North,
Birmingham, B5 6QQ

With respect to:
References FSS: 300 655 190 / 400 947 125
References Client: 07/06085, 201/07.0GALGS
CJS URN:

I declare that:

This deposition (consisting of twenty two pages signed by me) corresponds to the truth, to the best of my knowledge, and I give it knowing that, if it is presented as evidence, I could be subject to penal action in the case if I had deliberately declared something that I knew to be false or that I thought was not the truth;

I declare also that,

I am expert in the area of forensic sciences and that I was asked to give a deposition. I confirm that I have read the guidance in the pamphlet Disclosure: Expert's evidence and unused material that specifies my functions and documents my responsibilities, with respect to the quality of the disclosure of an expert witness. I followed that guidance and understand the ongoing nature of my responsibilities in terms of disclosure. In accordance with my duties of disclosure, as documented in the guidance pamphlet, I:

a. confirm that I complied with my duty to record, to conserve and to divulge material, in accordance with the Law relating to Investigations and the Penal Process, of 1996, as amended;

b. compiled an index of all the material. I assure that such index will be updated in the case additional material is delivered to me or emerges;

c. am advised that in the case my opinion changes relative to any determining question, I am obligated to inform the person responsible for the investigation, as soon as possible, presenting him with my reasons.

Signed: [Signature appended]
Date: 18 June 2008


FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 1


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

Qualifications and Experience

I have a degree in Sciences in the areas of Microbiology and Biochemistry. I am a Chartered Biologist, a member of the Institute of Biology, a forensic doctor enrolled in the Order and a forensic scientist in the Birmingham Laboratory of the Forensic Science Service. My area of speciality is the examination of biological evidence including the analysis of spots of body fluid and the interpretation of DNA profile results.

Information

Based on the information furnished by the Leicestershire Constabulary and the Policia Judiciaria, I was informed that, allegedly, on 3 May 2007 Madeleine McCann disappeared from apartment 5A, Ocean Club, na Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal.

My examinations, interpretations and conclusions are in line with the statements of information available during the examination. In the event there are alterations relating to that information, I shall have to reconsider the conclusions that I drew in the light of the new circumstances. Additional information will have to be furnished prior to any trial.

This DNA Scientist is clearly stating that he based his work on ]information that was available at the time...NOT directly on the RESULTS of the testing.

FACTUAL INFORMATION DOES NOT CHANGE. What changes is how it's being interpreted, and this man is saying he will not stand by his earlier conclusions as they are based on information WHICH MAY CHANGE.

He is essentially underlining the fact that he did not come to his conclusions based on fact alone, but "information" which may or may not be accurate.

So...it's clear that SOME GUESSWORK has gone into these reports, essentially rendering them unreliable at best.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

 

[brit1981]

none of the above is true. It sounds like you are making it up as you go along. Or else you just do not understand.

yes it is true, and there is no need to be so rude. the dog alerts to all degrading human matter, regardless of whether it is coming directly from a corpse, or from a degrading bodily fluid donated by a living person. It cannot tell you what type of human material is degrading. It cannot tell you anything more then the odour is present. It is up to the police to ascertain what material is present.

 

[brit1981]

I hope this closes the DNA argument once and for all...for now, anyway. Snipped by me, in full at link.

It the second, amended Witness Depostion by the FSS Ltd Scientist, made AFTER further testing -

Pages 300 to 326

Witness Deposition
(Criminal Procedure Rules, r27.1 (1);
Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.9; Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.5B)

Deposition of: JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol MlBiol RFP Age: Older than 18

Profession of Witness: Forensic Scientist

Address of Witness:
Forensic Science Service Ltd.,
Birmingham Laboratory, Priory House, Gooch Street North,
Birmingham, B5 6QQ

With respect to:
References FSS: 300 655 190 / 400 947 125
References Client: 07/06085, 201/07.0GALGS
CJS URN:

I declare that:

This deposition (consisting of twenty two pages signed by me) corresponds to the truth, to the best of my knowledge, and I give it knowing that, if it is presented as evidence, I could be subject to penal action in the case if I had deliberately declared something that I knew to be false or that I thought was not the truth;

I declare also that,

I am expert in the area of forensic sciences and that I was asked to give a deposition. I confirm that I have read the guidance in the pamphlet Disclosure: Expert's evidence and unused material that specifies my functions and documents my responsibilities, with respect to the quality of the disclosure of an expert witness. I followed that guidance and understand the ongoing nature of my responsibilities in terms of disclosure. In accordance with my duties of disclosure, as documented in the guidance pamphlet, I:

a. confirm that I complied with my duty to record, to conserve and to divulge material, in accordance with the Law relating to Investigations and the Penal Process, of 1996, as amended;

b. compiled an index of all the material. I assure that such index will be updated in the case additional material is delivered to me or emerges;

c. am advised that in the case my opinion changes relative to any determining question, I am obligated to inform the person responsible for the investigation, as soon as possible, presenting him with my reasons.

Signed: [Signature appended]
Date: 18 June 2008


FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 1


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

Qualifications and Experience

I have a degree in Sciences in the areas of Microbiology and Biochemistry. I am a Chartered Biologist, a member of the Institute of Biology, a forensic doctor enrolled in the Order and a forensic scientist in the Birmingham Laboratory of the Forensic Science Service. My area of speciality is the examination of biological evidence including the analysis of spots of body fluid and the interpretation of DNA profile results.

Information

Based on the information furnished by the Leicestershire Constabulary and the Policia Judiciaria, I was informed that, allegedly, on 3 May 2007 Madeleine McCann disappeared from apartment 5A, Ocean Club, na Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal.

My examinations, interpretations and conclusions are in line with the statements of information available during the examination. In the event there are alterations relating to that information, I shall have to reconsider the conclusions that I drew in the light of the new circumstances. Additional information will have to be furnished prior to any trial.

This DNA Scientist is clearly stating that he based his work on ]information that was available at the time...NOT directly on the RESULTS of the testing.

FACTUAL INFORMATION DOES NOT CHANGE. What changes is how it's being interpreted, and this man is saying he will not stand by his earlier conclusions as they are based on information WHICH MAY CHANGE.

He is essentially underlining the fact that he did not come to his conclusions based on fact alone, but "information" which may or may not be accurate.

So...it's clear that SOME GUESSWORK has gone into these reports, essentially rendering them unreliable at best.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

No it does not imply that guesswork has come into play. It means if they get new material they may be able to look at the material again. For instance if they were sent more material from the car boot, or if they were told that the wrong reference sample from madeleine McCann was sent to the lab etc. he will be able to stand by the conclusions drawn if no other material appears. The idea of guesswork comes from you, and your own incorrect interpretation of a scientific report. What he has written is standard for this sort of report.

 

[brit1981]

Sapphire did you remember who has given you all this false information that you have posted in relation to the fss etc.

 

[saggymoon]

yes it is true, and there is no need to be so rude. the dog alerts to all degrading human matter, regardless of whether it is coming directly from a corpse, or from a degrading bodily fluid donated by a living person. It cannot tell you what type of human material is degrading. It cannot tell you anything more then the odour is present. It is up to the police to ascertain what material is present.

that is not what the majority of your previous post was about. lets have your proof that mr grime said the cadaver dog was interested in the other apartments. For starters.

The way these handlers work is that they send in the cadaver dog first. If it alerts they THEN send in the blood dog to find forensics ie blood. Seeing as Eddie did NOT alert to any other flat, there was no reason to send in the blood dog.

And no, I was questioning your post, not being rude. statements of fact need to be backed up wouldnt you agree? Otherwise i could say the moon is made of cheese and some report says this but I wouldnt expect you to blanket believe it just because I said so without proving it.

 

[rashomon]

There is only one definitive trace of madeleine's DNA and it was found on a tile in the apartment along with other foreign DNA taken on the same swab Not only that, but the source of this solitary DNA sample could not be identified as being blood or saliva or skin cell - just that it was Madeleine's DNA

Does it say in the FSS report where exactly that tile was located?

Also , but there was no evidence of her DNA in the car, Or behind the sofa and that the dog alert areas could not be identified as blood let alone Madeleine's blood

The FSS report does speak of a match though because of the number of components within the test results that are also in Madeleine's reference sample. It only leaves open the question whether "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. [/FONT]" http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

 

[SapphireSteel]

Does it say in the FSS report where exactly that tile was located?

The FSS report does speak of a match though because of the number of components within the test results that are also in Madeleine's reference sample. It only leaves open the question whether "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. [/FONT]" http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

This is an example of how "junk science" is being used to defend the McCanns, and based on some of the postings here it has worked.

If they had located 20 alleles IT WOULD BE REGARDED AS A 100% MATCH TO MADELINE.

As they only located 19, and could confirm 15 matched MADELINE ONLY, it has been ignored, overlooked, brushed under the carpet, however you like to put it, by team McCann.

If I got 15/20 at any sort of school exam, that would be considered a good pass. Obviously 20/20 is PERFECT, but who gets 20/20?

So we do have proof. Just not 100% proof...more like 75%, which is enough for a match to be extremely compelling, but just not quite good enough for court.

YET.

DNA science is becoming more exact every day. There will come a day when Low Copy DNA testing is 100% accurate...and I can't wait.

:woohoo:

 

[SapphireSteel]

No it does not imply that guesswork has come into play. It means if they get new material they may be able to look at the material again. For instance if they were sent more material from the car boot, or if they were told that the wrong reference sample from madeleine McCann was sent to the lab etc. he will be able to stand by the conclusions drawn if no other material appears. The idea of guesswork comes from you, and your own incorrect interpretation of a scientific report. What he has written is standard for this sort of report.

The lab in question, FSS Ltd, has already lost a clump of Madeline's hair. OOPS!!!

Mistakes like this don't "just happen" in controlled scientific environments, especially in high profile cases.

This case is like an onion. The more layers you peel off, the stinkier it gets.

:moo:

 

[brit1981]

This is an example of how "junk science" is being used to defend the McCanns, and based on some of the postings here it has worked.

If they had located 20 alleles IT WOULD BE REGARDED AS A 100% MATCH TO MADELINE.

As they only located 19, and could confirm 15 matched MADELINE ONLY, it has been ignored, overlooked, brushed under the carpet, however you like to put it, by team McCann.

If I got 15/20 at any sort of school exam, that would be considered a good pass. Obviously 20/20 is PERFECT, but who gets 20/20?

So we do have proof. Just not 100% proof...more like 75%, which is enough for a match to be extremely compelling, but just not quite good enough for court.

YET.

DNA science is becoming more exact every day. There will come a day when Low Copy DNA testing is 100% accurate...and I can't wait.

:woohoo:

If 100% of madeleine's components had been found it would most certainly not been assumed it meant madeleine's DNA had been present. No-one who understands DNA and genetics would make this assumption. Even with all 19 of Madeleine's different components present there is no way of identifying whether these compoents were donated by her parents or other relatives. This is not junk science, it is basic genetics.

This is because it was from a mixed sample of up to five people's DNA, and more importantly because the sample was found in a place where her parents and other close relatives were present and where it would be expected to find their DNA.

This seems to be something that people have really misunderstood. It is not the components that are important in DNA, it is the sequence. Now in a sample of five random people, there is still a chance albeit a small one that fifteen of one's components will appear, and a smaller chance that all will appear.

However, if those five people are relatives and include your parents, then there is a very large chance that fifteen or all of your components will appear. The DNA of two people will contain 100% of the components of their children, so it would not be unusual for a mix of DNA from five people including both parents included 100% of their child's DNA components.

Imagine it a bit like scrabble, but instead with the DNA components. You get three to five people from a selection that of your parents, grandparents, siblings and aunts and uncles and you take a sample of each of their DNA and break it up into its components and add all the different components to a bag. You then take out just 37 of the components. Out of these 37 there would be a very high chance you would find all of your components.

Can I just ask why you are talking about 20 alleles? madeleine only had 19 different alleles as she inherited the same allele from both parents (gerry and kate, two unrelated individules each gave ten different components to their daughter and out of that ten they had a match).

Saphire,
is this the same FSS that you claimed was not a government owned agency charged with examining forensic evidence, and maintianing the DNA database, but instead a company owned privately with the ownership having links to the McCanns and which no no legal right to examine DNA?

Rashamon,
The tile was identified as having DNA components that linked the DNA to either Gerry or Madeleine. It was not identified what material the DNA had come from. I think the tile was located behing the sofa (at least at the time of the search)

 

[badhorsie]

Brit1981, IMO you should consider becoming a verified poster. I know that you have said that your workplace would not approve but you are posting here in, what I assume to be, good faith and you are anonymous.
Verification is a simple process and not intrusive. I am verified and it just means that I can give a professional opinion in certain matters.
It does not affect my personal life away from the internet at all

 

[saggymoon]

So was the sequence of the individual dna components available in any of the blood samples collected?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Brit1981, IMO you should consider becoming a verified poster. I know that you have said that your workplace would not approve but you are posting here in, what I assume to be, good faith and you are anonymous.
Verification is a simple process and not intrusive. I am verified and it just means that I can give a professional opinion in certain matters.
It does not affect my personal life away from the internet at all

I agree.

Especially as this particular issue is so contentious and under debate, even in the scientific community.

We have a self proclaimed DNA scientist on this thread posting compelling scientific argument, it would be fantastic to have a verified source if one indeed has chosen to post on this forum.

:woohoo:

 

[brit1981]

Saggy,
I believe they found enough to identify pieces of nail in the car as belonging to Gerry and Kate.
they found components on the card fob that matched Gerry. Again no sequence I believe, but as it was only from one person it is enough to say it is his. Just as if the material containing fifteen of madeleine's components had only come from one person, it would have been a safe assumption it belonged to her. But even in both of these it would still be an assumption, and would have to be looked at in relation to where it was found. It would not be as reliable as if the sequence had been identified.

I am not sure if they were able to identify a DNA sequence in any of the sample found in the flat. the report just focused on whether or not it belonged to the Mccanns, so it could be they have a sequence, or it could be the material contained components not found in any of the mccanns.

However, they used a sample fo saliva found on madeleine's pillow as her reference sample i.e they tested the sample found it was a female child of the mccanns who was not amelie, and assumed it was madeleine's saliva.

sapphire,
the area of how components are donated from parents is not a contentious issue, it is basic genetics. Each parents donates half of their components to their child, so every single component found in a person is found in the DNA of their biological parents.
Its so basic that this is taught at GCSE level, it is not even university level.

If they had been able to seperate the mixture into individuel profiles, they may have got somewhere, but the amount was too small. So yes they found madeleine's components in the mixture, but these exact same components would be found in any sample where gerry, and kate donated, and likely found in a sample where madeleines siblings and grandparents donated too.
This article is about using familial DNA to track suspects down, and shows how close parents and siblings DNA is. It does not talk about mixed sample, but it gives a basic idea about how similar the dna of close relatives is (and this is sequences too, whereas in the Mccann case we only have the basic components).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-dna-searching-help-solve-crimes-2029636.html

 

[SapphireSteel]

Saggy,
I believe they found enough to identify pieces of nail in the car as belonging to Gerry and Kate.
they found components on the card fob that matched Gerry. Again no sequence I believe, but as it was only from one person it is enough to say it is his. Just as if the material containing fifteen of madeleine's components had only come from one person, it would have been a safe assumption it belonged to her. But even in both of these it would still be an assumption, and would have to be looked at in relation to where it was found. It would not be as reliable as if the sequence had been identified.

I am not sure if they were able to identify a DNA sequence in any of the sample found in the flat. the report just focused on whether or not it belonged to the Mccanns, so it could be they have a sequence, or it could be the material contained components not found in any of the mccanns.

However, they used a sample fo saliva found on madeleine's pillow as her reference sample i.e they tested the sample found it was a female child of the mccanns who was not amelie, and assumed it was madeleine's saliva.

sapphire,
the area of how components are donated from parents is not a contentious issue, it is basic genetics. Each parents donates half of their components to their child, so every single component found in a person is found in the DNA of their biological parents.
Its so basic that this is taught at GCSE level, it is not even university level.

If they had been able to seperate the mixture into individuel profiles, they may have got somewhere, but the amount was too small. So yes they found madeleine's components in the mixture, but these exact same components would be found in any sample where gerry, and kate donated, and likely found in a sample where madeleines siblings and grandparents donated too.
This article is about using familial DNA to track suspects down, and shows how close parents and siblings DNA is. It does not talk about mixed sample, but it gives a basic idea about how similar the dna of close relatives is (and this is sequences too, whereas in the Mccann case we only have the basic components).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-dna-searching-help-solve-crimes-2029636.html

Therefore, if Madeline, Kate and Gerry's components were found, the results of the testing could not be used to either confirm or deny...so the relevance of the test results is zero.

Now, back to Eddie and Keela - they were brought to PDL by the British Police. The British Police also developed evidence incriminating Kate and Gerry, which was borne out by the results of the British sniffer dogs, paid for and supplied by the British police.

Would the British police have done this if they did not have faith in Eddie and Keela's abilities? Doubtful, and surely grounds for an enquiry if there are suggestions of wasting public money?