Latest news on the search for Madeleine McCann

[ferryman]

Madeleine McCann: Mystery DNA tested to locate her kidnapper

    Oct 14, 2014 20:20
    By Gerard Couzens

Metropolitan Police proposing DNA tests on key samples that have been stored for seven years

New evidence: Madeleine McCann

Scotland Yard detectives probing Madeleine McCann’s disappearance are to propose new tests on mystery DNA that could belong to her kidnapper.

The Operation Grange team have been invited into the bunker where key samples collected from the holiday flat she vanished from are being held.

The Met Police officers plan to discuss new ways of analysing evidence held on file for the past seven years at a forensic science HQ in Coimbra north of Lisbon.

They are expected to focus on DNA found in Madeleine’s bedroom that does not belong to any of her family or workers at the Ocean Club holiday resort where she was staying who were tested at the time.

They hope modern-day technology could help them match the samples, described as “vague”, with DNA taken from three new suspects who were questioned in July.

Their visit to the National Institute for Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences comes 24 hours after they met Portuguese police chiefs in the Algarve capital Faro a four-hour drive away.

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood and two colleagues pressed for an quick response to their bid to do more background work on the three suspects during talks with local police chiefs Luis Mota Carmo and Ana Paula Rito.

New prosecutor Ines Sequeira, who has the final say about Scotland Yard’s fifth international of request, is expected to answer detectives in the next fortnight.

Mr Redwood declined to comment before being driven away from Faro police station in the back seat of a BMW hire car.

Asked about the new prosecutor and his hopes from the trip to Coimbra, he said: “I’m sorry but I’ve nothing to say.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-mystery-dna-tested-4438451

The Met Police officers plan to discuss new ways of analysing evidence held on file for the past seven years at a forensic science HQ in Coimbra north of Lisbon.

They are expected to focus on DNA found in Madeleine’s bedroom that does not belong to any of her family or workers at the Ocean Club holiday resort where she was staying who were tested at the time.

They hope modern-day technology could help them match the samples, described as “vague”, with DNA taken from three new suspects who were questioned in July.

Not that (for purposes of establishing the innocence of the McCanns or their friends) there has ever, particularly, been a need to.

But if these tests bear fruit, there might, just, be the platform from which to ram back down the throats of those who bleat it, the tired old mantra:

where is there the evidence of abduction!

[Mr Gray]

As long as they are better than the defunct FSS 
The FSS suffered damage to its reputation following the failure to recover blood stains from a shoe in the murder of Damilola Taylor.[5] Further damage occurred when the FSS failed to use the most up-to-date techniques for extracting DNA samples in cases between 2000 and 2005.[6] 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.[6]

this looks like an attempt to falsely discredit the FSS...do you have the source for this statement

[ferryman]

Maybe this is the one.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/13/madeleine-mccann-forensic-scientists-portugal

If Andy Redwood, himself, took part in the search, was he really wearing a suit at the time?

Surely not ...

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh I get it!  The sceptics are hoping the DNA tests are going to reveal that the McCanns dunnit.  Dream on, sceptics, dream on.

[lordpookles]

Sceptic here... But just hoping for the truth man... Whatever that may be... Always keep an open mind imo... Anyone making dogmatic claims in this case looks a bit stupid...

[ferryman]

Sceptic here... But just hoping for the truth man... Whatever that may be... Always keep an open mind imo... Anyone making dogmatic claims in this case looks a bit stupid...

I don't think so.

Not that I expect it, but you can dogmatically proclaim the innocence of the McCanns and be proved wrong: without shame.

There is never any shame in believing the innocence, even of someone guilty, until the evidence of guilt is produced.

Shame comes from the opposite tendency: to assume the guilt of someone innocent.

[Jean-Pierre]

Sceptic here... But just hoping for the truth man... Whatever that may be... Always keep an open mind imo... Anyone making dogmatic claims in this case looks a bit stupid...

Good grief - now there is something upon which we can agree. 

[Brietta]

Thanks J-P.  Why would anyone wish to hide this?  It 's good news, the investigation is progressing once more.

 … I agree ... there is nothing in that article which would lead me to lend any credence to the claims made on the forum this evening.  Maybe if we were given a cite when such assertions are made it could help us decide their veracity or even their probability.

Revisiting the much ridiculed (in certain quarters) dig carried out earlier this year by SY … I find it interesting that they apparently did find something they thought worth having tested forensically.

They obviously have their reasons for everything they are doing ... it would be good if they are left in peace to get on with it.

>>snip<< Although the searches turned up no fresh evidence, the Met said detectives had gained an “essential understanding of the activity for which people have used this piece of land” and alluded to “substantial work which is yet to be done in the coming months”.

[lordpookles]

I don't mean shame... I guess to be clearer I mean willfully disregarding or making stuff up to defend a particular viewpoint... I've read a lot about this case on this forum and others and still surprised by the dogmatic/stubborn viewpoints... People have become emotionally involved in this case and can't bear to be wrong... Personally although I suspect the McCanns it's no big deal if they are innocent and indeed I try not post for just this reason.. I don't want to be part of creating suspicion however small if they are innocent which I percieve as a high possibility... Anyway, there is some shame to protecting their innocence if they are guilty... You are generating support for a pair of criminals who somehow helped or concealed the demise of a young girl... Personally I think that shame you talk about cuts both ways... In a way I wish this was a closed forum...

[lordpookles]

On a lighter note anyone seemed gone girl? Thought it was interesting the way they portrayed the media. Reminded me of this case somewhat..

[Alfred R Jones]

On a lighter note anyone seemed gone girl? Thought it was interesting the way they portrayed the media. Reminded me of this case somewhat..

No plot spoilers please, we're going to see it on Friday!

[ferryman]

I don't mean shame... I guess to be clearer I mean willfully disregarding or making stuff up to defend a particular viewpoint... I've read a lot about this case on this forum and others and still surprised by the dogmatic/stubborn viewpoints... People have become emotionally involved in this case and can't bear to be wrong... Personally although I suspect the McCanns it's no big deal if they are innocent and indeed I try not post for just this reason.. I don't want to be part of creating suspicion however small if they are innocent which I percieve as a high possibility... Anyway, there is some shame to protecting their innocence if they are guilty... You are generating support for a pair of criminals who somehow helped or concealed the demise of a young girl... Personally I think that shame you talk about cuts both ways... In a way I wish this was a closed forum...

I've carefully read the whole of your post and choose to cite just one small extract:

 there is some shame to protecting their innocence if they are guilty

I would actually agree with that, but with a caveat.

To protest the innocence of anyone whom you know and can prove to be guilty is clearly wrong.

But if you are simply undecided, or don't have information to make an informed decision either way, making the assumption of innocence is far the lesser evil than the opposite tendency ...

[Brietta]

I don't mean shame... I guess to be clearer I mean willfully disregarding or making stuff up to defend a particular viewpoint... I've read a lot about this case on this forum and others and still surprised by the dogmatic/stubborn viewpoints... People have become emotionally involved in this case and can't bear to be wrong... Personally although I suspect the McCanns it's no big deal if they are innocent and indeed I try not post for just this reason.. I don't want to be part of creating suspicion however small if they are innocent which I percieve as a high possibility... Anyway, there is some shame to protecting their innocence if they are guilty... You are generating support for a pair of criminals who somehow helped or concealed the demise of a young girl... Personally I think that shame you talk about cuts both ways... In a way I wish this was a closed forum...

IMO you are reiterating many of the false justifications with which the internet is awash but which are merely an excuse to hound the family of a missing child.

There is NO shame in supporting the concept of “INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY” and there is not one iota of evidence to support your allegation regarding Madeleine’s parents.

The news coming out of Portugal at the moment is very good indeed and perhaps you should go along with your instinct of not wishing to add to the controversy. 
You can do that by thinking very carefully about the content of your posts prior to posting.

[lordpookles]

Really, how so?

Anyway, I am no angel by any means, but sure I don't want to add fuel to an already blazing fire. My main reason to post is simply an interest in intelligent discussion here...

Edit: also I think some of your replies are constructed in such a way as to stifle discussion. I realise that you have probably done significant research on this case and can become irked at misinformed opinion, but perhaps a more patient approach would help to dispel some of these justifications. Also I suspect you are rather entrenched in your views and do you think you have an open mind here? Is there a universe in which you suspect the McCanns? Seems weird to me to know for sure in either case...

[Brietta]

Really, how so?

Anyway, I am no angel by any means, but sure I don't want to add fuel to an already blazing fire. My main reason to post is simply an interest in intelligent discussion here...

Edit: also I think some of your replies are constructed in such a way as to stifle discussion. I realise that you have probably done significant research on this case and can become irked at misinformed opinion, but perhaps a more patient approach would help to dispel some of these justifications. Also I suspect you are rather entrenched in your views and do you think you have an open mind here? Is there a universe in which you suspect the McCanns? Seems weird to me to know for sure in either case...

Isn’t it about time people moved on from groundhog day to take on board current developments in Madeleine’s case?

The current PJ and SY investigations have gone through the old evidence with a fine tooth comb and used it as a foundation to develop the case. 
One in which neither Madeleine’s parents nor their friends figure as suspects.

There is confirmation about the burglaries taking place at the time.

There is confirmation about the children being attacked in their beds … both of which were being strenuously denied in some quarters even at the beginning of this year.

Now we have a new Prosecutor in Portugal who is keen to solve the case and The PJ and the Met working to solve the case … there are people to be questioned and forensics to be sorted out … all new activities … which are focused on the people who actually took Madeleine.

Things are moving now only because the case was reopened ... and that is entirely due to Madeleine's parents.