A few questions

[Little Jedi]

I'm not questioning your quotes, more how on earth you think it helps your case in saying its madeleines DNA. It does the opposite. It means if they had said it was madeleine's DNA that result would be thrown out as its thought to be impossible to extract an accurate result from such a small amount. Its not a case of choose another method, its a case of its so small so its lcn or nothing.

Firstly "help MY case" ???
I have no personal connection with this case or anyone involved in it !!

Secondly

"Dozens of serious criminal cases are to be urgently reviewed after the worth of a controversial DNA technique was called into question. 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"

They were then covering their own a$$e$ by backtracking their initial report.

They DID NOT say that it wasn't Maddies DNA.
What they said was

" In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion. "

*McCann Files - FSS/Lowe Reports

 

[Little Jedi]

I think it's the 'sample of Maddie's DNA' in question.

" I have received from my colleague, Sarah Vraitch, copies of the reference DNA profiles of ;

Gerald McCann (CB/1)
Kate Healy (CB/2)
Amelie McCann (SBM/2)
Sean McCann (SBM/3).

I have also received a copy of the DNA profile obtained from the possible saliva staining on the pillow case (SJM/1) which is assumed to be the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann."


"Possible, Assumed" ??

So they DON'T have an definite DNA profile of M.M. ??

It's so weak it need amplification ??

And that's what they are copying / duplicating !!

To get match to the evidence !!!

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

 

[Clutchbag]

I was talking about the evrd which only alerts to old blood, and which did not alert to the DNA found in the boot. So if you think the dog is reliable it means the DNA was fresh from a living person in July months after Madeleine disappeared.

I think you are confused.....

Both dogs alert to dried old blood

But the evrd dog reacts to cadaver scent....he reacted....no proof it wasnt cadaver scent

End of the day, where eddie alerted (10!places) keela the blood dog did not alert (apart from 2 and even her alerting to the same spot does not prove eddie was alerting to blood!) which proves the fact that eddie was not alerting to blood..how many times does this need to be explaned?

 

[Hexe]

I think it's the 'sample of Maddie's DNA' in question.

" I have received from my colleague, Sarah Vraitch, copies of the reference DNA profiles of ;

Gerald McCann (CB/1)
Kate Healy (CB/2)
Amelie McCann (SBM/2)
Sean McCann (SBM/3).

I have also received a copy of the DNA profile obtained from the possible saliva staining on the pillow case (SJM/1) which is assumed to be the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann."


"Possible, Assumed" ??

So they DON'T have an definite DNA profile of M.M. ??

It's so weak it need amplification ??

And that's what they are copying / duplicating !!

To get match to the evidence !!!

So why the parents did not provide any good source of Maddie's DNA? Was this pillowcase the item Gerry had to retrieve from the UK? No, seriously? Didn't Maddie have her own toothbrush, hairbrush, sippy cup? Was there no dirty underwear of hers in the 5A apartment?

And the last question: how anyone can be sure that the DNA provided (from the pillowcase) was really Maddie's DNA?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Precisely.

All we are seeing here is the power of the spin.

For some reason criticism of Amaral/the PJ/the dogs/PC Grime/DNA results are good and right, but criticising the McCann's or asking uncomfortable questions is on par with mooning the Queen or burning the flag - only the deeply nasty or deranged would dare do it.

 

[SapphireSteel]

As far as low copy DNA being inaccurate -

With the speed this science is developing it is more correct to say LCN DNA testing is not 100% YET.

give it another year or even six months and the experts will develop improved testing which will leave no room for doubt.

Bring it on.

I said a while ago that time will judge this crew...time and improved science.

 

[Little Jedi]

THE DOGS !!

Eddie *CADAVER* (EVRD) dog will BARK to alert.

Keela *BLOOD* (CSI) dog will freeze and pinpoint the area with her nose on the spot.
*(ONLY Human Blood)

 

[brit1981]

I think it's the 'sample of Maddie's DNA' in question.

" I have received from my colleague, Sarah Vraitch, copies of the reference DNA profiles of ;

Gerald McCann (CB/1)
Kate Healy (CB/2)
Amelie McCann (SBM/2)
Sean McCann (SBM/3).

I have also received a copy of the DNA profile obtained from the possible saliva staining on the pillow case (SJM/1) which is assumed to be the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann."


"Possible, Assumed" ??

So they DON'T have an definite DNA profile of M.M. ??

It's so weak it need amplification ??

And that's what they are copying / duplicating !!

To get match to the evidence !!!

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

The only way to be one hundred percent sure it is someone's DNA us to take it from them directly, but as Madeleine was not there they had to get the reference sample from saliva on her pillow not her. Therefore all they can say is that the DNA on the pillow is a female biological child of the McCann's who was not the twin daughter. That's the same with every missing person case.

And again, you are misinterpreting the statement, it means if they had said the DNA in car was madaleines the results would have been scrapped as lcn was used. As the results were inconclusive it does not matter either way.

 

[brit1981]

So why the parents did not provide any good source of Maddie's DNA? Was this pillowcase the item Gerry had to retrieve from the UK? No, seriously? Didn't Maddie have her own toothbrush, hairbrush, sippy cup? Was there no dirty underwear of hers in the 5A apartment?

And the last question: how anyone can be sure that the DNA provided (from the pillowcase) was really Maddie's DNA?

They need to get a good sample, toothbrushes are not good as people rinse them, children share them accidently drop them, no on holiday she probably shared a hairbrush ditto sippy cup. As for dirty underwear, a child would not leave ,much on that and its unlikely the underwear, if allowed to be kept by the McCann's, would have remained unwashed until they were asked for a sample. The sample had to be clear of anyone else's DNA so saliva on a pillow only used by Madeleine ideal.

And the DNA on the pillow was found to belong to a female biological female child of Kate and Gerry McCann and not the twin. So if its not Madeleine it means the McCann's had a third daughter who has never been seen.

 

[brit1981]

I think you are confused.....

Both dogs alert to dried old blood

But the evrd dog reacts to cadaver scent....he reacted....no proof it wasnt cadaver scent

End of the day, where eddie alerted (10!places) keela the blood dog did not alert (apart from 2 and even her alerting to the same spot does not prove eddie was alerting to blood!) which proves the fact that eddie was not alerting to blood..how many times does this need to be explaned?

No I'm not confused. Eddie alerts to old blood not fresh blood and did not alert in the boot, keela alerts to fresh and old blood and alerted in the boot. Therefore if we consider the dogs reliable it means it was fresh blood in the boot I.e it came from someone alive just before the dogs searched.

 

[Clutchbag]

No I'm not confused. Eddie alerts to old blood not fresh blood and did not alert in the boot, keela alerts to fresh and old blood and alerted in the boot. Therefore if we consider the dogs reliable it means it was fresh blood in the boot I.e it came from someone alive just before the dogs searched.

Youre not making sense..if keela alerts to old blood as welll as new then she wasnt necessarily alerting to fresh bloody blood in the boot

Hello????

God i hate obfuscators

 

[brit1981]

Youre not making sense..if keela alerts to old blood as welll as new then she wasnt necessarily alerting to fresh bloody blood in the boot

Hello????

God i hate obfuscators

Yes, but Eddie who does not alert to fresh blood, only old blood, did not alert in the boot despite being used to search it. So if Eddie is accurate it means it was not old blood, but fresh blood meaning the people it came from were alive in July 2007.

 

[Clutchbag]

Yes, but Eddie who does not alert to fresh blood, only old blood, did not alert in the boot despite being used to search it. So if Eddie is accurate it means it was not old blood, but fresh blood meaning the people it came from were alive in July 2007.

No youre still confused or blind

A eddie was not deployed in the boot of the car

B doent matter as keela alerted in the boot and she does old and new blood !!

 

[SapphireSteel]

Both blood and non blood DNA was found at the alert sites consistent with the indications. The blood dog was brought in ONLY when the cadaver dog alerted first and as you would expect, ONLY alerted to the blood DNA sites.

Eddie did not alert to any blood, only cadaver.

Keela didn't alert to any cadaver, only blood.

The science then confirmed their findings. DNA consistent with Madeleine WAS located at the alert sites, and only at the alert sites.

 

[Hexe]

They need to get a good sample, toothbrushes are not good as people rinse them, children share them accidently drop them

Yes, ant that's why National Institute of Justice lists toothbrushes as a good source of DNA in case the individual from which the sample is needed, is not available.

http://nij.gov/topics/forensics/evidence/dna/basics/Pages/types-of-samples.aspx

on holiday she probably shared a hairbrush ditto sippy cup. As for dirty underwear, a child would not leave ,much on that and its unlikely the underwear, if allowed to be kept by the McCann's, would have remained unwashed until they were asked for a sample.

There would be a plethora of skin cells on the panties, also a bit of feces and urine and vaginal secretions might be there, all of it contains DNA. And, as far as I remember, police did not take away all the Maddie's clothes and did not obligate McCanns to make a laundry.

The sample had to be clear of anyone else's DNA so saliva on a pillow only used by Madeleine ideal.

A sample containing so small amount of DNA it needs amplification is far from ideal. As for clarity, panties or towel used by Maddie also would contain only her DNA. And please, don't tell me they shared also their underwear and towels.

And the DNA on the pillow was found to belong to a female biological female child of Kate and Gerry McCann and not the twin. So if its not Madeleine it means the McCann's had a third daughter who has never been seen.

Still it begs the question why Gerald McCann had to go to the UK to retrieve the pillowcase. Maddie somehow drooled while asleep only at home? Or someone wanted to delay things maybe? And why to give such a weak sample? McCanns are educated people and doctors, they know very well where to find a good amount of DNA.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Just add it to the growing pile of inconsistencies that make up this case.

It is absolutely true that there is no independent source of Madeleine DNA to corroborate the control sample.

We have only Kate and Gerry's word.

Considering the difficulties they had re opening and closing shutters, 30 minutes vs 30 seconds, doors being locked or unlocked, they hardly qualify as a reliable source.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Yes, but Eddie who does not alert to fresh blood, only old blood, did not alert in the boot despite being used to search it. So if Eddie is accurate it means it was not old blood, but fresh blood meaning the people it came from were alive in July 2007.

The most likely reason Eddie did not find blood in the Renault is because the DNA was from a non blood source.

It has been suggested that Madeleine leaked decomposition fluid in the Renault.

 

[brit1981]

Both blood and non blood DNA was found at the alert sites consistent with the indications. The blood dog was brought in ONLY when the cadaver dog alerted first and as you would expect, ONLY alerted to the blood DNA sites.

Eddie did not alert to any blood, only cadaver.

Keela didn't alert to any cadaver, only blood.

The science then confirmed their findings. DNA consistent with Madeleine WAS located at the alert sites, and only at the alert sites.

This does not match the fss report, could you please link to where in the fss blood was identified?
Also it is misleading to state the DNA was consistent with madeleine without stating it was consistent with other people including her family. Your statement gives the false impression the DNA was madeleines.

And the evrd was deployed all around the car, there is a video showing his handler calling the dog back after he ignores the car.

 

[SapphireSteel]

This does not match the fss report, could you please link to where in the fss blood was identified?
Also it is misleading to state the DNA was consistent with madeleine without stating it was consistent with other people including her family. Your statement gives the false impression the DNA was madeleines.

And the evrd was deployed all around the car, there is a video showing his handler calling the dog back after he ignores the car.

The other people in the family all made it back alive.

The cadaver dog was not led. You are slandering the British police namely PC Grime when you say that.

The very same LE which you now believe are about to arrest 3 burglars any second, burglars who were in and out leaving no trace at all, and miraculously invisible too with all the checking going on and no one seeing a thing!

 

[SapphireSteel]

Yes, ant that's why National Institute of Justice lists toothbrushes as a good source of DNA in case the individual from which the sample is needed, is not available.

http://nij.gov/topics/forensics/evidence/dna/basics/Pages/types-of-samples.aspx



There would be a plethora of skin cells on the panties, also a bit of feces and urine and vaginal secretions might be there, all of it contains DNA. And, as far as I remember, police did not take away all the Maddie's clothes and did not obligate McCanns to make a laundry.



A sample containing so small amount of DNA it needs amplification is far from ideal. As for clarity, panties or towel used by Maddie also would contain only her DNA. And please, don't tell me they shared also their underwear and towels.



Still it begs the question why Gerald McCann had to go to the UK to retrieve the pillowcase. Maddie somehow drooled while asleep only at home? Or someone wanted to delay things maybe? And why to give such a weak sample? McCanns are educated people and doctors, they know very well where to find a good amount of DNA.

Cuddle cat would have dripped with her DNA, but Kate got that through the wash too.

Ahhh hindsight.