The dogs.....

[pathfinder73]

And on both occasions the blood of living persons was identified from the swabs taken and forensically tested.  No other unidentified  DNA material  was found and therefore Eddie's alert could only have been to the same cellular  material Keela had alerted to.    And Keela only alerted to blood.  Therefore so did Eddie on those two occasions.

That's funny Eddie was clearly trying to get over the sofa from a distance away i.e. scenting the cadaver. Keela has to get in very close to find and alert to blood. How this goes over everyone's head is a complete mystery to me. How convenient! It's obvious what Eddie alerted to in all his alerts - cadaver!

[Anna]

To simplify matters................

MARK Jobling is Professor in Genetics at the University of Leicester]

Sunday Mirror

The DNA clues.. vital questions are answered

Sep 9, 2007
by MARK JOBLING DNA expert

Q: Could the blood in the hire car belong to Madeleine?

A: Dead people don't bleed. So, if the blood was fresh when found by forensic experts, it clearly could not belong to Madeleine, who had been missing/dead for 25 days before the car was hired. We have to presume if Portuguese police think the blood is Madeleine's, then it was dry when found. The only way this could have got in to the boot of the hire car would have been if dried flecks fell off Madeleine's body. Under this scenario, her parents somehow killed Madeleine, stored her for 25 days and then used the car to dump her body secretly - despite being under the intense police and media spotlight. Alternatively, the parents could be being framed by someone planting Madeleine's blood.

Q: Why are the police asking the McCanns if it is Madeleine's blood?

A: A good question. In my opinion, if they had a complete DNA match with Madeleine's blood, they would simply charge Kate and Gerry. In 18 years' experience in this field, I have not heard of a case where police did not act immediately on evidence of that magnitude.

Q: Could the police be bluffing, then?

A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.

This happens when the sample is too small to get a full profile or it is contaminated by somebody touching it or even a tiny drop of saliva falling on it. A method called Low Copy numbers is used for small samples. This will often give us a partial profile. If there are family members around, as in the McCanns' case, then things become even more complicated as all of the members of the family would share some aspects of their DNA. That could explain the police's tactics.

Q: Could scientists have made a mistake?

A: The Forensic Science Service in Birmingham which carried out the tests is a highly reputable and careful organisation. It is extremely unlikely that anything would have gone wrong once the sample reached them. Analysis of what is called short tandem repeats - which is the pattern of a person's DNA - allows us to build up a profile.

All people except identical twins have their own unique profile. If they get a full profile the chance of it being wrong is ridiculously small.

Q: How important is DNA?

A: DNA is a massively powerful tool in criminal cases, but it alone is not enough to convict a person. If it was Madeleine's blood in the back of that car then it places her at the scene. But it doesn't explain how she got there, who put her there or, if she died, how she did and who did it.

MARK Jobling is Professor in Genetics at the University of Leicester

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post171133.html#p171133

[ferryman]

To simplify matters................

MARK Jobling is Professor in Genetics at the University of Leicester]

Sunday Mirror

The DNA clues.. vital questions are answered

Sep 9, 2007
by MARK JOBLING DNA expert

Q: Could the blood in the hire car belong to Madeleine?

A: Dead people don't bleed. So, if the blood was fresh when found by forensic experts, it clearly could not belong to Madeleine, who had been missing/dead for 25 days before the car was hired. We have to presume if Portuguese police think the blood is Madeleine's, then it was dry when found. The only way this could have got in to the boot of the hire car would have been if dried flecks fell off Madeleine's body. Under this scenario, her parents somehow killed Madeleine, stored her for 25 days and then used the car to dump her body secretly - despite being under the intense police and media spotlight. Alternatively, the parents could be being framed by someone planting Madeleine's blood.

Q: Why are the police asking the McCanns if it is Madeleine's blood?

A: A good question. In my opinion, if they had a complete DNA match with Madeleine's blood, they would simply charge Kate and Gerry. In 18 years' experience in this field, I have not heard of a case where police did not act immediately on evidence of that magnitude.

Q: Could the police be bluffing, then?

A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.

This happens when the sample is too small to get a full profile or it is contaminated by somebody touching it or even a tiny drop of saliva falling on it. A method called Low Copy numbers is used for small samples. This will often give us a partial profile. If there are family members around, as in the McCanns' case, then things become even more complicated as all of the members of the family would share some aspects of their DNA. That could explain the police's tactics.

Q: Could scientists have made a mistake?

A: The Forensic Science Service in Birmingham which carried out the tests is a highly reputable and careful organisation. It is extremely unlikely that anything would have gone wrong once the sample reached them. Analysis of what is called short tandem repeats - which is the pattern of a person's DNA - allows us to build up a profile.

All people except identical twins have their own unique profile. If they get a full profile the chance of it being wrong is ridiculously small.

Q: How important is DNA?

A: DNA is a massively powerful tool in criminal cases, but it alone is not enough to convict a person. If it was Madeleine's blood in the back of that car then it places her at the scene. But it doesn't explain how she got there, who put her there or, if she died, how she did and who did it.

MARK Jobling is Professor in Genetics at the University of Leicester

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post171133.html#p171133

Interesting.  Thanks Anna:

Q: Could the police be bluffing, then?

A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.

We (now!) know that they had Madeleine's full profile.

[ferryman]

The other observation interesting about that article, of course, is this:

The only way this could have got in to the boot of the hire car would have been if dried flecks fell off Madeleine's body.

If the soup recovered from the Renault Scenic had been consistent with blood from a dead person, I'm quite certain the FSS would have said.

They never did.

That must be because what was recovered was not consistent with blood from a dead person ...

[Brietta]

The other observation interesting about that article, of course, is this:

The only way this could have got in to the boot of the hire car would have been if dried flecks fell off Madeleine's body.

If the soup recovered from the Renault Scenic had been consistent with blood from a dead person, I'm quite certain the FSS would have said.

They never did.

That must be because what was recovered was not consistent with blood from a dead person ...

Such speculations are really only of interest to those who prefer to ignore the conclusions of the FSS.

It should be remembered that there was no soup either of the broccoli and cheese type or that of the dead body type and I find it extraordinary that you choose to make such a remark.

Blood on a key fob very definitely from a living breathing person; an imperceptible spot  under a carpet in the boot; a dog barks and you think the significant thing is not what the FSS said about it but what they did not say?

It just does not work like that.

[Jean-Pierre]

Interesting.  Thanks Anna:

Q: Could the police be bluffing, then?

A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.

We (now!) know that they had Madeleine's full profile.

It was a "fishing expedition" - a very inept one.

They were presumably expecting Kate to say "Gor blimey copper, its a fair cop.  OK, I dun it, you got me bang to rights." 

It was fortunate that she had good legal representation.     

[ferryman]

Such speculations are really only of interest to those who prefer to ignore the conclusions of the FSS.

It should be remembered that there was no soup either of the broccoli and cheese type or that of the dead body type and I find it extraordinary that you choose to make such a remark.

Blood on a key fob very definitely from a living breathing person; an imperceptible spot  under a carpet in the boot; a dog barks and you think the significant thing is not what the FSS said about it but what they did not say?

It just does not work like that.

I am using soup as a loose term for material recovered from the Renault scenic that contained DNA material and I defend its usage.

[Carana]

Such speculations are really only of interest to those who prefer to ignore the conclusions of the FSS.

It should be remembered that there was no soup either of the broccoli and cheese type or that of the dead body type and I find it extraordinary that you choose to make such a remark.

Blood on a key fob very definitely from a living breathing person; an imperceptible spot  under a carpet in the boot; a dog barks and you think the significant thing is not what the FSS said about it but what they did not say?

It just does not work like that.

I think there's a misunderstanding. Ferryman was quoting the answer from the DNA professor. At the time, the DNA chap wouldn't have had access to the forensic report, so he couldn't be sure what they'd found or not. It sounds to me as if he was just going through the possibilities, based on what was able to gather from the information available at the time.

There wasn't a soup in the literal sense of a gooey mess, but there was what could loosely be termed a soup in the sense of DNA from several sources in the same sample.

[Carana]

Interesting.  Thanks Anna:

Q: Could the police be bluffing, then?

A: It would be a strange method for the police to use, but possible if they aren't sure it's Madeleine's blood. If the police do not have a full DNA profile, then it is feasible that they have a partial profile, which shares some of Madeleine's DNA strands.

We (now!) know that they had Madeleine's full profile.

That phrasing is a bit ambiguous, FM. I know it's not what you meant, but yes, they had an inferred reference profile from her pillow at home - there was NOT a full profile obtained from the car.

[ferryman]

I think there's a misunderstanding. Ferryman was quoting the answer from the DNA professor. At the time, the DNA chap wouldn't have had access to the forensic report, so he couldn't be sure what they'd found or not. It sounds to me as if he was just going through the possibilities, based on what was able to gather from the information available at the time.

There wasn't a soup in the literal sense of a gooey mess, but there was what could loosely be termed a soup in the sense of DNA from several sources in the same sample.

Thank you Carana.

Brietta may not have twigged that I was quoting from an article written well before release of John Lowe's report.

I am very happy to accept his report as is.

And yes!  In response to your second post, the FSS had secured Madeleine's full DNA profile from a sample of saliva provided to them by Gerry from the pillow of her bed in the McCanns' Rothley home.

Slight doubt that the profile might have been Amelie's was resolved by taking her DNA and comparing it with the profile from the saliva.

The two profiles were different, confirming they had Madeleine's DNA.

[pathfinder73]

[ moderated ]

[Carana]

It was a "fishing expedition" - a very inept one.

They were presumably expecting Kate to say "Gor blimey copper, its a fair cop.  OK, I dun it, you got me bang to rights." 

It was fortunate that she had good legal representation.     

Hmmm. According to her book, Kate was the one who was unimpressed with the so-called dog "evidence". Her lawyer, after being taken aside for a few hours (presumably to view the clip), seemed quite concerned and that may have been at the root of asking her to consider "confessing"...

[sadie]

Hmmm. According to her book, Kate was the one who was unimpressed with the so-called dog "evidence". Her lawyer, after being taken aside for a few hours (presumably to view the clip), seemed quite concerned and that may have been at the root of asking her to consider "confessing"...

Well Kate would KNOW that Madeleines body was NOT carried in their hire car. 

And she had the presence of mind to stick to her guns despite, little doubt, a threatening atmosphere.


Gerry too, would realse that lies were being told in orfer to try and implicate them



Thank goodness they both had the intellect and strength of mind not to cave in to the intimidation which such an accusation would foster

[Matthew Wyse]

Well Kate would KNOW that Madeleines body was NOT carried in their hire car. 

And she had the presence of mind to stick to her guns despite, little doubt, a threatening atmosphere.


Gerry too, would realse that lies were being told in orfer to try and implicate them



Thank goodness they both had the intellect and strength of mind not to cave in to the intimidation which such an accusation would foster

so if that had been the case why was she so afraid that she couldnt answer 49 simple questions????

[sadie]

so if that had been the case why was she so afraid that she couldnt answer 49 simple questions????

Very sensibly she was advised not to. 

Her lawyers did not want her stitched up.  They were aware of what had happened in previous cases no doubt, with questions only designed to indict.


The questions were not about finding Madeleine at all.