A few questions

[~n/t~]

OK, but none of those actually confirm blood was found or identified as madeleine's. You have a 2007 guardian report based on leaks which were later proven to be false ( see the fss report and leveson inquiry I linked to). The mccann file links take you to early false media reports, and the dog report which did not confirm blood being there, just indicated it could be. Neither did the dog alerts identify the person.

The forensic report confirms no material tested was identified as madeleine's or blood.

I really think it is unfair for media reports to be used as sources when those reports have been found to be false and this has been admitted to by the media. Later articles have pointed out that the rumours about blood and DNA etc were unfounded.

I never said it was Madeleine's blood. I repeatedly stated the results were inconclusive and the blood COULD have been Madeleine's. Your request in the previous post was to provide you a link stating blood was found which I provided.

 

[brit1981]

Quoting your post again regarding the fss report and your claim that no blood was identified. You have to scroll down at the link where it says perishable samples.

It says the laboratory has examined one or more of the samples listed below and they list the samples. The first one on the list is blood samples.


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

That does not say they found blood. It says they have examined one or more material from a lists that includes blood but also includes saliva, vomit etc. So it could have been any number ofthings, including the vomit from the little boy who stayed there before which they examined, the saliva from madeleine's pillow, mouth swabs from other peoples reference samples etc. I cannot see how you can make the assumption they examined blood when the report states they did not identify blood, or how you can assume the perishable sample was blood not mouth swabs, saliva, vomit etc.

 

[~n/t~]

OK, but none of those actually confirm blood was found or identified as madeleine's. You have a 2007 guardian report based on leaks which were later proven to be false ( see the fss report and leveson inquiry I linked to). The mccann file links take you to early false media reports, and the dog report which did not confirm blood being there, just indicated it could be. Neither did the dog alerts identify the person.

The forensic report confirms no material tested was identified as madeleine's or blood.

I really think it is unfair for media reports to be used as sources when those reports have been found to be false and this has been admitted to by the media. Later articles have pointed out that the rumours about blood and DNA etc were unfounded.

With respect you can't have it both ways. We are to believe the media reports regarding the burglars but yet you think it unfair to use the same sources for other reports. Ie. blood found and cadaver

 

[~n/t~]

That does not say they found blood. It says they have examined one or more material from a lists that includes blood but also includes saliva, vomit etc. So it could have been any number ofthings, including the vomit from the little boy who stayed there before which they examined, the saliva from madeleine's pillow, mouth swabs from other peoples reference samples etc. I cannot see how you can make the assumption they examined blood when the report states they did not identify blood, or how you can assume the perishable sample was blood not mouth swabs, saliva, vomit etc.

The only blood found as far as I know was from the McCanns apartment which we've discussed over and over.

 

[brit1981]

With respect you can't have it both ways. We are to believe the media reports regarding the burglars but yet you think it unfair to use the same sources for other reports. Ie. blood found and cadaver

I have never said we are to believe media reports about the burglars. I have stated and provided links that scotland yard are investigating a spate of burglaries at the complex and have said madeleine may have been taken during a robbery. In the same links scotland yard stated there suspect list had increased by three.

And as for the media reports you have neglected to add that these reports have been proven to be false and the same outlets have written about this. So it is unfair to use them but neglect to mention the stories about them being false etc.

 

[brit1981]

The only blood found as far as I know was from the McCanns apartment which we've discussed over and over.

The fss report I linked to above confirmed no blood was found in the mccanns flat.
The news report you linked to was proven to be false rumour and the media also stated this too. The report about perishable items simply states that the fss were given one or more items from a list that included among other things mouth swabs, blood, vomit and saliva. We know they had mouth swabs, saliva and vomit there is nothing to suggest one of the perishable items was blood and indeed the fss report stated they did not find blood.

 

[Junebug99]

The DNA rumors have been proven wrong time after time after time, yet they are still being spread, I don't get it. The DNA was inconclusive, that much we do know, why keep using it as evidence? You should have enough real evidence if the M's are truly guilty. Regurgitating the same rumors over and over makes it harder to figure out what's true and what's false regarding evidence.

 

[Salem]

Low copy DNA is more open to error due to its nature.

Right now at least.

This science is improving daily.

The tests were "inconclusive" only because the amplified results are not 100%.

In Madeleine case initial results showed 15/19 alleles belonged to M. It was not 100% required for conviction more like 75% certainty which to Joe Bloggs seems more than enough but the McCann. Supporters use that 25% doubt as "proof of innocence" while ignoring the enormous elephant in the lounge room -

The cadaver dog found DNA consistent with Madeleine in the boot of a car hired 24 days after she disappeared.

Obviously if M was abducted that night cadaver should not have been located at all, nor DNA.

Where is your LINK? You need 2 here. 1 to explain the DNA process that you are discussing (unless you are a DNA expert, in which case you need to be verified) and 2 to backup your assertions regarding Madeleine's DNA.

Salem

 

[Deleted member 39678]

OK, but none of those actually confirm blood was found or identified as madeleine's. You have a 2007 guardian report based on leaks which were later proven to be false ( see the fss report and leveson inquiry I linked to). The mccann file links take you to early false media reports, and the dog report which did not confirm blood being there, just indicated it could be. Neither did the dog alerts identify the person.

The forensic report confirms no material tested was identified as madeleine's or blood.

I really think it is unfair for media reports to be used as sources when those reports have been found to be false and this has been admitted to by the media. Later articles have pointed out that the rumours about blood and DNA etc were unfounded.

Thanks for clearing up the blood issue. It makes sense to me that the media report was wrong about blood. I had a hard time understanding how blood was found but a complete DNA profile was not produced from it.

 

[Little Jedi]

I have never said we are to believe media reports about the burglars. I have stated and provided links that scotland yard are investigating a spate of burglaries at the complex and have said madeleine may have been taken during a robbery. In the same links scotland yard stated there suspect list had increased by three.

And as for the media reports you have neglected to add that these reports have been proven to be false[/] and the same outlets have written about this. So it is unfair to use them but neglect to mention the stories about them being false etc.

[modsnip]

Not one link to Scotland Yard actually stating letter is anything to do with any burglars ( or stating ANY INFORMATION in fact !!

Not one Official Statement from Portuguese Authorities stating ANYTHING OTHER than confirming they've received ILofR !!

Even the MIRROR's making this clear now !!!


" Portugal's Attorney General's office confirmed they were in receipt of an International Letter of Request
- a "significant development," according to a source close to Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry McCann.

The contents of the letter are believed to ask for access to three prime suspects."

" The McCann's official spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night"


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-first-arrests-move-3056123#.UuU2rv6nzT0

 

[brit1981]

[modsnip]

Not one link to Scotland Yard actually stating letter is anything to do with any burglars ( or stating ANY INFORMATION in fact !!

Not one Official Statement from Portuguese Authorities stating ANYTHING OTHER than confirming they've received ILofR !!

Even the MIRROR's making this clear now !!!


" Portugal's Attorney General's office confirmed they were in receipt of an International Letter of Request
- a "significant development," according to a source close to Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry McCann.

The contents of the letter are believed to ask for access to three prime suspects."

" The McCann's official spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night"


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-first-arrests-move-3056123#.UuU2rv6nzT0

I am referring to crime watch where redwood stated they were looking at robberies. I'm not referring to the letters.

 

[Little Jedi]

I do not see the relevance of using evidence in another case on the other side of the world us, the fact Casey Anthony transported the body of her child in the car does not mean that the parents of other missing children did the same.
The idea that there are forensic reports, which could implicate the family, missing is incorrect as this link goes through the withheld files and they are related to anonymity and privacy issues of individuals such as paedophiles (the mccanns have every detail of theirs given out but convicted criminals get anonymity!) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

The pj had access to all the files and in the final report stated there was no evidence against the mccanns and no evidence to say whether madeleine was dead or alive. Not only that but it leasts reasons why they think the mccanns were not involved including telephone analysis, witness statements, their behaviour, and then goes onto say that the indications that ked to aguido status were not in the end confirmed as being correct, nasmely the dog alerts and dna analysis. It also states that it does not appear possible for the mccanns to have hidden a body. This also enables us to dismiss the claim that the pj are convinced the mccanns hid the body, retrieved the body weeks later then drove it around in their car before hiding it again. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Quite clearly a reply to the QUOTED in post.

If you had read them it would be obvious what the 'relevance' is !!

 

[Supernovae]

LCN is a technique that allows a DNA profile to be obtained from a very small sample, maybe even a couple of cells:

Low copy number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The limitation of this is it's not necessarily possible to determine what type of source within the body the sample came from or how it got where it ended up (potentially through very casual or even indirect contact).

That doesn't mean it has no value. In a case such as the one I linked to on the other thread, the presence of the cellular DNA of the stranger-perpetrator either on the girl or the bathroom from which she was taken, combined with other pieces of evidence that might not be of themselves enough to convict, might very well be enough. In the context of the McCann case however, we know that Madeleine stayed in the apartment for a time, and that she was in close contact with the other McCanns. The presence of a few of her cells on the floor of the apartment, or in the car in which her parents and siblings travelled are harder to conclusively link to foul play.

Complicating that, according to the FSS, the sample from the boot of the hire car was a mixture of at least three peoples DNA, it contained 15 out of 19 of Madeleine's markers and so would be consistent with a partial sample from her, but by definition would also be consistent with a mixture of cells from both parents, who of course regularly drove in the car.

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

Combined with the dog evidence it might rise to the level of being suggestive, but it doesn't really get you further than that. IMO the cadaver dog indications in areas linked with the McCanns and those areas alone is far more concerning.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

By all accounts it seems the PJ were convinced by whatever the evidence was actually found to show.


Bearing in mind we only have access to limited section of the actual files,

I thought this was VERY interesting;

(NOTE: From Casey Anthony Case)

"Results of examinations:

A Caucasian head hair found in specimen Q12 exhibits characteristics of APPARENT DECOMPOSITION at the proximal (root) end."

(snip)

Q12 Debris from left side oftrunk liner (Item Q-l2)

Q 1 2.1 Hair from specimen Q12 debris from left side of trunk liner.


Now what were we saying about the files that were NOT released ??

Anyone find any reports on the 'analysis' of the hair found in the Renault Scenic ??

(Or anything regarding the hair)

http://tinyurl.com/od5jypl

I don't understand your point with this post. Are you saying that there is evidence of decomposition on hairs in this case and it's documented in unreleased files? How could you know that if the files haven't been released?

 

[Junebug99]

That post (re: caylee) is irrelevant and confusing. moo

 

[Supernovae]

Yep.

There is absolutely no doubt the British media has been behaving like the schoolyard bully for years.

There is no doubt they shamelessly embellished stories and printed falsehoods, breached all sorts of privacy, libel and moral laws awhile they were at it.

There is ALSO no doubt that some of their covert earwigging has got hold of some juicy, image shattering stuff - hands up who remembers when a married Prince Charles wished to transform himself into a feminine hygiene product for his equally married mistress? :scared:

After Levenson they have been thoroughly smacked down and frightened. The threat of life-ruining fines and/or jail has silenced the most rabid sensationalists for now.

Or should I say, refocused their attentions on those without access to a team of expensive lawyers like Mick Philpott and his ilk.

As far as accurate reporting on more litigious parties - ain't gonna happen.

Once of a baying pack of wild and hungry mutts, the Brit media has been reduced to a tiny tired lap dog, happy to consume and regurgitate the spin hand fed to them by expensive PR.

I honestly don't know which s worse. Thank God for the internet.

This perhaps isn't strictly on topic but I wouldn't entirely agree with that analysis. The British press have been easily misdirected by a well executed PR campaign long before Leveson. Nick Davies' book: Flat Earth News is the definitive source on this. The Libel courts have scared them off bothering well funded individuals and groups too much for a very long time. To the extent that there has been a recent change it's that they've been unable to resort to the Dark Arts, and that's really been down to the criminal cases arising out of them rather than Leveson per se. I don't think Leveson has had that much noticable effect, myself.

Regarding the McCanns, others have made a good case that in late 2007 the tabloids believed that the McCanns were going to be imminently charged and would thus be unable to sue. This led to them jumping the gun, and in my opinion, to stay ahead in the 24 hour news cycle surrounding an increasingly sensational case, some of the less ethical publications began to embellish or fabricate sensational details. When a prosecutable case failed to come together they were left high and dry, and paid for it through the libel courts. Of course up until some of the Desmond publications trying to about face, the default position of the media was very favourable to the McCanns. The fact that they and their spokespeople were very generous with off-record briefings can't have hurt their case but also they were white, middle class professionals, as are most high-ups in the media, and there's still an unwillingness to contemplate that people such as them could ever do such a thing.

 

[InspectorGadget]

Quoting your post again regarding the fss report and your claim that no blood was identified. You have to scroll down at the link where it says perishable samples.

It says the laboratory has examined one or more of the samples listed below and they list the samples. The first one on the list is blood samples.


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

Yes, "one or more of the below samples" does not mean there was a blood sample.

 

[Little Jedi]

Where is your LINK? You need 2 here. 1 to explain the DNA process that you are discussing (unless you are a DNA expert, in which case you need to be verified) and 2 to backup your assertions regarding Madeleine's DNA.

Salem

Here's one regarding 2)

"However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.

LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

 

[Little Jedi]

Where is your LINK? You need 2 here. 1 to explain the DNA process that you are discussing (unless you are a DNA expert, in which case you need to be verified) and 2 to backup your assertions regarding Madeleine's DNA.

Salem

Here's a couple about LCN DNA :

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF

' In specific terms, three key consequences of amplifying LCN DNA which can lead to different DNA profiles being observed:

(a) allele drop-out may occur because one allele of a heterozygote locus can be preferentially amplified

(b) stutters may be preferentially analysed—these are sometimes known as false alleles; and

(c) the method is prone to sporadic contamination—amplifying alleles that are not associated with the crime stain or sample.'

___________________

Low Copy Number DNA profiles

"First, the number of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)11 cycles has to be substantially increased to obtain LCN DNA profiles, which inevitably magnifies the risk of contamination and inaccurate results from ‘stochastic effects’, random statistical anomalies.12 Secondly, even if a DNA profile is accurately yielded, there are difficulties associated with the propositions and interpretations that can be drawn from LCN DNA results. Since LCN DNA profile can stem from the cells of a single touch by an unconnected innocent individual prior to the crime, a phenomenon commonly termed ‘adventitious transference'

http://tinyurl.com/onal93z

And here's a couple specific to FSS :

" Dozens of serious criminal cases are to be urgently reviewed......The spotlight will be thrown on a number of high-profile cases, including the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."

The Crown Prosecution Service ordered the re-examination of cases and queried its reliability"

.....had led to the temporary suspension of the laboratory’s accreditation by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service"

"The Association of Chief Police Officers also announced it was suspending its use of the method called "low copy number" DNA."

(The Daily Mail -21st Dec 2007)


"This led the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to advise all police forces in England and Wales to review cases where samples had failed to give a DNA profile

In addition, other Police Forces around the world are reviewing cases where LCN DNA profiling resulted in the successful prosecution of suspects."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_Science_Service

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

As far as links go I still haven't figured out how to do it on my new cheap! tablet. Fwiw ALL of my information comes directly from the source - Amarals book explains the DNA in simple layman's terms.

Also the DNA is discussed then discussed some more on every single thread- it seems like discussing the dinner plates on the Titanic while the iceberg is looming. There are links upon links.

It will remain a point of contention until there's a trial...or until science catches up.

Which is why I constantly beg to discuss newer evidence - such as the nonexistence of Tannerman and the suppression of the e-fit.

But no its always the DNA or the dogs and how wrong they are.

If you are going to say things as if they are fact you have to source it.