Manhunt by Colin Sutton. Are there comparisons with Madeleine?

[G-Unit]

Why is it extraordinary that a DNA match for Madeleine was found in a place where it is known that she had been in residence?

If the DNA behind the couch was Madeleine's how did she leave bodily fluids in an inaccesible place?

[Venturi Swirl]

If the DNA behind the couch was Madeleine's how did she leave bodily fluids in an inaccesible place?

Bodily fluids??

[Venturi Swirl]

You seem to expect the police to conpletely ignore any dog alert that doesn't uncover a body or DNA. That would be ridiculous.

Explain why it would be ridiculous.  Almeida seemed quite happy to ignore or disbelieve human testimony, why should dogs be listened to in preference?

[G-Unit]

Bodily fluids??

That's what the FSS said;

it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

[G-Unit]

Explain why it would be ridiculous.  Almeida seemed quite happy to ignore or disbelieve human testimony, why should dogs be listened to in preference?

Well I have heard of no case where the police completely ignored dog alerts. In the Suzanne Pilley case the unconfirmed dog alerts were very helpful as an aid to working out what happened.

[Venturi Swirl]

That's what the FSS said;

it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

That doesn’t sound to me like it was definitely a bodily fluid.  But...presumably it could have come from a bogey flicked behind the sofa.

[Mr Gray]

If the DNA behind the couch was Madeleine's how did she leave bodily fluids in an inaccesible place?

The PJ used inconclusive alerts and an in conclusive DNA, sample to reach their conclusions.... That makes their conclusions inconclusive

[Venturi Swirl]

Well I have heard of no case where the police completely ignored dog alerts. In the Suzanne Pilley case the unconfirmed dog alerts were very helpful as an aid to working out what happened.

Who is talking about completely ignoring them?  Basing your entire belief around them is quite another thing.  I take it you disagree with the expert Martin Grime about dog alerts having no evidential reliability on their own?

[Eleanor]

That's what the FSS said;

it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

 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.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

[G-Unit]

That doesn’t sound to me like it was definitely a bodily fluid.  But...presumably it could have come from a bogey flicked behind the sofa.

Yes indeed. Keela that blood detection dog had a habit of alerting to anything and everything but blood. 

[G-Unit]

Well. despite strenuous efforts I have seen nothing which shows that the initial investigation misunderstood the evidence. They gathered a body of evidence which suggested to them that there was no abduction and that Madeleine may have died in 5A. They couldn't prove their hypothesis, but no-one has disproved it either.

[Mr Gray]

Well. despite strenuous efforts I have seen nothing which shows that the initial investigation misunderstood the evidence. They gathered a body of evidence which suggested to them that there was no abduction and that Madeleine may have died in 5A. They couldn't prove their hypothesis, but no-one has disproved it either.

The body of evidence suggested to them....but the main evidence... The dogs... Had no evidential value.... And the DNA could not be shown to be from Madeleine... Hence they didn't understand the evidence..  It's quite clear that neither piece if their so called evidence supported their conclusion... As shown by the archiving report

[G-Unit]

The body of evidence suggested to them....but the main evidence... The dogs... Had no evidential value.... And the DNA could not be shown to be from Madeleine... Hence they didn't understand the evidence..  It's quite clear that neither piece if their so called evidence supported their conclusion... As shown by the archiving report

I think you should stop trying to prove that your opinion has more value than that of the PJ.

[Mr Gray]

I think you should stop trying to prove that your opinion has more value than that of the PJ.

I'm showing that Grimes opinion... And the opinion of the FSS has more value than the original opinion of the pj.... It's clear that their conclusion was not based on evidence

[G-Unit]

I'm showing that Grimes opinion... And the opinion of the FSS has more value than the original opinion of the pj.... It's clear that their conclusion was not based on evidence

I have argued previously that your interpretation of Grime's opinion is incorrect and misleading. As to the FSS they gave no opinion on swab 3A;

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

That is very similar to this, which has been accepted without question;

An incomplete, low-level DNA profile that matched corresponding components in the profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material present on the card key
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm