UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2016, 08:05:45 AM
-
Mark Harrison certainly knew what he was talking about...and this is what he said...
Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
perhaps you and others should take note
10
-
Mark Harrison certainly knew what he was talking about...and this is what he said...
Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
perhaps you and others should take note
But take note also that LCN DNA profiling, as its techniques improve, could yet establish that Madeleine McCann WAS the source of the body fluids in Swab 3A.
It must not be assumed that we will not, one day, find confirmation that those WERE her body fluids.
Even D C I Redwood of Operation Grange said there was EVIDENCE that she might have died 'in the apartment' - that was in a statement he made in early 2013 IIRC. That means 'before her body was removed from the apartment'.
Think about it.
What evidence would that be, I wonder???
-------------------------------------
JOHN LOWE TO STUART PRIOR, 3 SEPTEMBER 2007
>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting
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. 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.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why?...
Well, lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?
When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?
-
But take note also that LCN DNA profiling, as its techniques improve, could yet establish that Madeleine McCann WAS the source of the body fluids in Swab 3A.
It must not be assumed that we will not, one day, find confirmation that those WERE her body fluids.
Even D C I Redwood of Operation Grange said there was EVIDENCE that she might have died 'in the apartment' - that was in a statement he made in early 2013 IIRC. That means 'before her body was removed from the apartment'.
Think about it.
What evidence would that be, I wonder???
-------------------------------------
JOHN LOWE TO STUART PRIOR, 3 SEPTEMBER 2007
>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting
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. 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.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why?...
Well, lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?
When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?
i don't recall redwood using the word evidence in this context,,...do you have a cite
-
Here is one of the cites for my assertion that D C I Redwood and his team have found evidence that Madeleine did not leave Apartment G5A alive:
Guardian newspaper, 19 March 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-breakthrough-attacks-family
But there are aspects to the emerging evidence of a sexual predator being active in the holiday resorts of western Portugal that could be devastating for Madeleine's parents. Research shows that such predators do not leave their victims alive for long – a matter of hours is usual. Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.
It is possible that someone on this thread will intone: "Ah! Look! He didn't use the actual word evidence".
If any member here does venture a similar comment, then what else apart from actual EVIDENCE has he 'uncovered'?
[ P.S. @ davel Did I actually state as a PROVEN FACT that there was a 100% DNA match for Madeleine? If I did not, it might be better to withdraw your claim - and save Admin and John any further bother ]
-
Really, davel, I should have thought that Admin and the forum-owner, whom Eleanor wants called in, would be better employed removing some of the petty abuse that clogs up this and far too many other Madeleine threads here.
Here is one of the cites for my assertion that D C I Redwood and his team have found evidence that Madeleine did not leave Apartment G5A alive:
Guardian newspaper, 19 March 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-breakthrough-attacks-family
But there are aspects to the emerging evidence of a sexual predator being active in the holiday resorts of western Portugal that could be devastating for Madeleine's parents. Research shows that such predators do not leave their victims alive for long – a matter of hours is usual. Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.
It is possible that someone on this thread will intone: "Ah! Look! He didn't use the actual word evidence".
If any member here does venture a similar comment, then what else apart from actual EVIDENCE has he 'uncovered'?
[ P.S. @ davel Did I actually state as a PROVEN FACT that there was a 100% DNA match for Madeleine? If I did not, it might be better to withdraw your claim - and save Admin and John any further bother ]
lets start with this statement you made today...
Even D C I Redwood of Operation Grange said there was EVIDENCE that she might have died 'in the apartment' - that was in a statement he made in early 2013 IIRC. That means 'before her body was removed from the apartment'.
could you show where Redwood said there was evidence........what you are saying is untrue
-
lets start with this statement you made today...
Even D C I Redwood of Operation Grange said there was EVIDENCE that she might have died 'in the apartment' - that was in a statement he made in early 2013 IIRC. That means 'before her body was removed from the apartment'.
could you show where Redwood said there was evidence........what you are saying is untrue
Why not answer blonks PS ?
-
This reminds me of something...
Ah yes!
The initial finding of a '100% match' between the body fluid samples first detected by Eddie and Keela - and Madeleine's DNA.
But of course that wasn't the final 'corroborated' result.
then we have this...there never was an initial finding of 100% dna match...another post of yours that is not true
-
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mccann-idUSBREA2I1D220140319
-
Why not answer blonks PS ?
I just have...but why has blonk not replied to my previous questions of posting things as fact which are patently untrue
-
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mccann-idUSBREA2I1D220140319
thank you...I am right...Redwood never said there was evidence...blonks post is not true
-
I am allowing this discussion on the proviso that posters back up any claims with quotes and/or cites.
-
But take note also that LCN DNA profiling, as its techniques improve, could yet establish that Madeleine McCann WAS the source of the body fluids in Swab 3A.
It must not be assumed that we will not, one day, find confirmation that those WERE her body fluids.
Even D C I Redwood of Operation Grange said there was EVIDENCE that she might have died 'in the apartment' - that was in a statement he made in early 2013 IIRC. That means 'before her body was removed from the apartment'.
Think about it.
What evidence would that be, I wonder???
-------------------------------------
JOHN LOWE TO STUART PRIOR, 3 SEPTEMBER 2007
>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting
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. 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.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why?...
Well, lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?
When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?
Eddie never alerted to the boot of the car.
Let's trust the dog on this.
He scented (accurately) the only scent-source to be identified from the Renault, provenance Gerry McCann ...
-
No witness saw the child leaving the apartment alive.
-
Eddie never alerted to the boot of the car.
Let's trust the dog on this.
He scented (accurately) the only scent-source to be identified from the Renault, provenance Gerry McCann ...
You are quite correct FM -
Step 1: dog sniffs round, alerts in a particular place.
Step 2: This leads to a forensic search, and the source of the alert being the keycard.
Step 3: Tests confirm this, and the subsequent finding of a trace of blood on the keycard is traced to Gerry McCann.
Job done.
References:
"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 - (286C/2007-CRL (12)). I guess this is the fob of the car-keys " http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
-
There are 3 possibilities for the specific calendar date of the 3rd:
1) left apartment alive
2) left apartment not alive
3) did not leave apartment
-
As I understand it, Redwood acknowledged in March 2014 the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment;
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mccann-idUSBREA2I1D220140319
Full Definition of potential
1
: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potential
-
(Tragically) an intruder might have killed (murdered!) Madeleine in the apartment ....
-
But take note also that LCN DNA profiling, as its techniques improve, could yet establish that Madeleine McCann WAS the source of the body fluids in Swab 3A.
It must not be assumed that we will not, one day, find confirmation that those WERE her body fluids.
Even D C I Redwood of Operation Grange said there was EVIDENCE that she might have died 'in the apartment' - that was in a statement he made in early 2013 IIRC. That means 'before her body was removed from the apartment'.
Think about it.
What evidence would that be, I wonder???
-------------------------------------
JOHN LOWE TO STUART PRIOR, 3 SEPTEMBER 2007
>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting
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. 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.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why?...
Well, lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?
When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?
According to Amaral (whether his information was correct or not), there were 5 components on swab 3A that coincided with those present in her profile.
Total strangers would share as many, often more. There is absolutely nothing unusual in that. It's no more significant than sharing a few digits in a long phone number.
-
If DCI Redwood really did say:
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive............"
I wonder what prompted him to say so? An experienced ociffer of his standing does not "trap off" just to fill in a silence and it is hardly a casual throwaway remark.
-
(Tragically) an intruder might have killed (murdered!) Madeleine in the apartment ....
Yes, but in that case why remove the body ?
-
Yes, but in that case why remove the body ?
So as not to leave forensic evidence inside.
I'm sure we don't need to be graphic ....
-
No forensic evidence of an intruder was found in the apartment, with or without a body.
A person that careful is not going to leave traces on a body.
-
So as not to leave forensic evidence inside.
I'm sure we don't need to be graphic ....
Do you mean that in your opinion he would not have left any trace of his presence in the apartment ?
Not even down to smudges from his gloves or did he wipe the place clean before legging it ?
-
(Tragically) an intruder might have killed (murdered!) Madeleine in the apartment ....
If Madeleine died in the apartment why do you assume 'an intruder' 'murdered' her? There are other possibilities.
-
Do you mean that in your opinion he would not have left any trace of his presence in the apartment ?
Not even down to smudges from his gloves or did he wipe the place clean before legging it ?
The initial forensic sweep (by the PJ) was not very thorough; the subsequent one when the British arrived, 3 months after the crime, and after the apartment had been re-let as a holiday apartment.
Who knows?
-
(Tragically) an intruder might have killed (murdered!) Madeleine in the apartment ....
Of course it's possible that this little girl died in the flat. However, there is no physical evidence to support that possibility at the moment.
-
The initial forensic sweep (by the PJ) was not very thorough; the subsequent one when the British arrived, 3 months after the crime, and after the apartment had been re-let as a holiday apartment.
Who knows?
I am puzzled as to why it should be considered 'suspicious' that Madeleine's DNA, her siblings' DNA or anyone who had legitimate access to the apartment during the time of the McCann occupation left traces.
Is there not a foreign DNA sample which has yet to be identified?
-
I am puzzled as to why it should be considered 'suspicious' that Madeleine's DNA, her siblings' DNA or anyone who had legitimate access to the apartment during the time of the McCann occupation left traces.
Is there not a foreign DNA sample which has yet to be identified?
I seem to recall that Amaral himself said that there would be nothing remotely suspicious about Madeleine's dna should be in the apartment. And, of course, in that, he was bang-on right. Madeleine lived there (for a short while).
-
Going back to square zero, is there any evidence that the child left the apartment Thu evening? No-one saw her leaving. So what exactly is the evidence for it?
-
Going back to square zero, is there any evidence that the child left the apartment Thu evening? No-one saw her leaving. So what exactly is the evidence for it?
No independent witnesses, except JW, saw any of the Tapas group carrying out their checks in the vicinity of Block 5.
They came & went, undetected under the cover of darkness & a relatively deserted location. It happened - just as Madeleine was removed, unseen.
-
I am puzzled as to why it should be considered 'suspicious' that Madeleine's DNA, her siblings' DNA or anyone who had legitimate access to the apartment during the time of the McCann occupation left traces.
Is there not a foreign DNA sample which has yet to be identified?
Yes, there are still the hairs.
-
No independent witnesses, except JW, saw any of the Tapas group carrying out their checks in the vicinity of Block 5.
They came & went, undetected under the cover of darkness & a relatively deserted location. It happened - just as Madeleine was removed, unseen.
Why arbitrarily assume it was before 10pm? What is the exact evidence for that? Is there any?
-
Why arbitrarily assume it was before 10pm? What is the exact evidence for that? Is there any?
The time between 8.30pm & 10pm is the period during which there were no other occupants besides the 3 children in continuous occupation of the apartment. After Kate & the group returned, there was real eyewitness evidence in the immediate vicinity. It is highly improbable Madeleine left the apartment unnoticed after that time.
-
Maddie may well have died in the apartment but it seems there is no evidence to support this
-
Maddie may well have died in the apartment but it seems there is no evidence to support this
There is evidence that's why SY were searching wasteland and pipes.
-
lets start with this statement you made today...
Even D C I Redwood of Operation Grange said there was EVIDENCE that she might have died 'in the apartment' - that was in a statement he made in early 2013 IIRC. That means 'before her body was removed from the apartment'.
could you show where Redwood said there was evidence........what you are saying is untrue
I will happily once again answer your challenge - if you will also have the courtesy to answer my earlier challenge - i.e. please provide a cite for where I have ever stated as a fact that there was a 100% DNA match for the body fluids and Madeleine's DNA body. Otherwise please withdraw your allegation.
If you read my reply earlier, I quoted a press report which had Redwood clearly saying that he had a basis for the view that Madeleine had died before she left the apartment. Clearly if he had a basis for saying that, he must have had evidence for making that statement, whether he actually used the word 'evidence' or not. Evidence is of course not proof, as we know.
Here is the actual quote again, the initial source I used:
"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive".
So my question remains, though I will happily re-phrase it: what is the basis, the evidence, the indications, call it what you will, for thinking, as he said, that 'Madeleine may have been dead before she left the apartment' ?
Doing my best to shine a light on what he did actually say, I note that the flurry of press reports were all dated 19 March 2014 and appear to follow some sort of 'press conference'. Possibly this was in the form of some press briefing, possibly not intended for the cameras, because we appear AFAIK not to have any physical record of his actual words.
What he did actually say appears, now I've checked up on it, not to be entirely clear.
The Guardian amended one of its two 19th March reports two days later - Friday 21 March.
Here is the link:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
...and here is the relevant extract from the report:
QUOTE
• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
UNQUOTE
It looks, then, as though reporters were taking notes or recording his words, and manifestly he said to the reporters that (quote above) "the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment".
So I will put the question another way: on what basis could Redwood suggest it was possible that Madeleine was dead when taken out of the apartment?
-
The time between 8.30pm & 10pm is the period during which there were no other occupants besides the 3 children in continuous occupation of the apartment. After Kate & the group returned, there was real eyewitness evidence in the immediate vicinity. It is highly improbable Madeleine left the apartment unnoticed after that time.
But is there any "real eyewitness evidence in the immediate vicinity" that the child left the apartment that evening?
-
I am puzzled as to why it should be considered 'suspicious' that Madeleine's DNA, her siblings' DNA or anyone who had legitimate access to the apartment during the time of the McCann occupation left traces.
It is suspicious if it is found beneath a tile , which the police had to lift up, below the curtains in the living room where Eddie barked furiously
-
It is suspicious if it is found beneath a tile , which the police had to lift up, below the curtains in the living room where Eddie barked furiously
Why? If Amaral was correct in stating that there were only 5 components (alleles) found there, it means nothing at all.
The five components could have coincided with those in your profile, or mine, or anyone else's.
-
But is there any "real eyewitness evidence in the immediate vicinity" that the child left the apartment that evening?
Well, there was the man seen by JT.................
-
Well, there was the man seen by JT.................
In my opinion a very compelling event ...
-
Well, there was the man seen by JT.................
But he was carrying a 2-year-old Misty. Back to the missing child -
It appears that no-one can post any evidence at all that the child left the apartment before 10pm.
-
But he was carrying a 2-year-old Misty. Back to the missing child -
It appears that no-one can post any evidence at all that the child left the apartment before 10pm.
The man carrying the 2 year old child did not match the physical description provided by JT.
We also don't know what this man, who placed himself in the vicinity of 5a at approx 2115hrs, also witnessed in & around Block 5 which allowed SY to move the timeline forward to the Smithman sighting rather than back to 2030hrs.
-
There are 3 possibilities for the specific calendar date of the 3rd:
1) left apartment alive
2) left apartment not alive
3) did not leave apartment
What - ever?!
-
The man carrying the 2 year old child did not match the physical description provided by JT.
We also don't know what this man, who placed himself in the vicinity of 5a at approx 2115hrs, also witnessed in & around Block 5 which allowed SY to move the timeline forward to the Smithman sighting rather than back to 2030hrs.
It is not possible to move the time back to 20:30 hrs without disbelieving Gerry McCann's visit at 21:00 ish.
-
I will happily once again answer your challenge - if you will also have the courtesy to answer my earlier challenge - i.e. please provide a cite for where I have ever stated as a fact that there was a 100% DNA match for the body fluids and Madeleine's DNA body. Otherwise please withdraw your allegation.
If you read my reply earlier, I quoted a press report which had Redwood clearly saying that he had a basis for the view that Madeleine had died before she left the apartment. Clearly if he had a basis for saying that, he must have had evidence for making that statement, whether he actually used the word 'evidence' or not. Evidence is of course not proof, as we know.
Here is the actual quote again, the initial source I used:
"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive".
So my question remains, though I will happily re-phrase it: what is the basis, the evidence, the indications, call it what you will, for thinking, as he said, that 'Madeleine may have been dead before she left the apartment' ?
Doing my best to shine a light on what he did actually say, I note that the flurry of press reports were all dated 19 March 2014 and appear to follow some sort of 'press conference'. Possibly this was in the form of some press briefing, possibly not intended for the cameras, because we appear AFAIK not to have any physical record of his actual words.
What he did actually say appears, now I've checked up on it, not to be entirely clear.
The Guardian amended one of its two 19th March reports two days later - Friday 21 March.
Here is the link:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
...and here is the relevant extract from the report:
QUOTE
• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
UNQUOTE
It looks, then, as though reporters were taking notes or recording his words, and manifestly he said to the reporters that (quote above) "the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment".
So I will put the question another way: on what basis could Redwood suggest it was possible that Madeleine was dead when taken out of the apartment?
So you now accept Redwood never said there was evidence maddie never left the apartment alive...you admit you were wrong. On what basis could Redwood suggest Maddie never left the apartment alive...on the basis that it is one of the possibilities...as simple as that...
as regards this.....
please provide a cite for where I have ever stated as a fact that there was a 100% DNA match for the body fluids and Madeleine's DNA body. Otherwise please withdraw your allegation.
I have never said you made that claim...you have a very poor eye for detail...have a look at what I actually said...don't change or embellish it...and then answer the post I made on the subject
-
It is not possible to move the time back to 20:30 hrs without disbelieving Gerry McCann's visit at 21:00 ish.
Of course it is. Is there any evidence GM saw a living, breathing Madeleine at 2105hrs? All he allegedly saw was his daughter lying on top of her bed-covers.
-
Maddie may well have died in the apartment but it seems there is no evidence to support this
There is no evidence she left the apartment alive Dave
-
There is no evidence she left the apartment alive Dave
No, but neither is there any that she didn't.
-
And round and round we go ?{)(**
-
No, but neither is there any that she didn't.
In fact there is no evidence the child even left the apartment that night even by midnight.
-
No, but neither is there any that she didn't.
Theres intellgence that it was possible...so more than a "no"
-
Theres intellgence that it was possible...so more than a "no"
no there isn't....Harrison said nothing could be inferred from the unconfirmed alerts and you have already stated he knows what he is talking about
harrison said......Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
mercury said...Harrison didnt "appear" to be anything...he was involved in the dogs initial training..he knew what he was talking about 100%
-
There is no forensic test for remnant cadaver scent
In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
Mark Harrison
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2227.jpg
-
There is no forensic test for remnant cadaver scent
In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
Mark Harrison
yes...may suggest...just may....he was absolutely definite with the quote I posted,....no inference...as in non whatsoever
-
Suggest means indicate...therefore there is intelligence that indicates the possibility that a body was removed, I was right with what I said to Carana, end of
-
Suggest means indicate...therefore there is intelligence that indicates the possibility that a body was removed, I was right with what I said to Carana, end of
you are drawing an inference from the alerts...harrison said no inference can be drawn.....it may well be that there was a body in 5a...but no inference can be drawn from the alert...that is unequivocal
-
Sorry you cant follow the obvious logic davel, have another go
A cadaver dog alert may suggest remnant scent from a body which was removed
No inference without physical evidence can be made
There is no physical evidence of remnant scent
Therefore we are left with the distinct possibility at least that remnant scent of a body was alerted to
Not rocket science..its called "intellgence" and also circumstantial evidence
-
Sorry you cant follow the obvious logic davel, have another go
A cadaver dog alert may suggest remnant scent from a body which was removed
No inference without physical evidence can be made
There is no physical evidence of remnant scent
Therefore we are left with the distinct possibility at least that remnant scent of a body was alerted to
Not rocket science..its called "intellgence" and also circumstantial evidence
it is not circumstantial evidence...it isn't any kind of evidence...according to harrison and grime. I agree it is possible the dog alerted to remnant scent...but possibly the dog didn't...no one knows..that is what makes the alerts useless
Neither Grime nor Harrison use the term distinct possibility....you are embroidering the facts to make them look better
-
Of course it is. Is there any evidence GM saw a living, breathing Madeleine at 2105hrs? All he allegedly saw was his daughter lying on top of her bed-covers.
That situation and its logical extension is certainly an interesting proposition.
-
it is not circumstantial evidence...it isn't any kind of evidence...according to harrison and grime. I agree it is possible the dog alerted to remnant scent...but possibly the dog didn't...no one knows..that is what makes the alerts useless
Neither Grime nor Harrison use the term distinct possibility....you are embroidering the facts to make them look better
It is circumstantial evidence
And distinct is the perfect word preceding possibility as a cadaver dog is trained on cadaver scent not any substance whatsoever
After all mr grime didnt "suggest" eddie could havebeen alerting to remnant bubble bath scent e.g.
-
It is circumstantial evidence
And distinct is the perfect word preceding possibility as a cadaver dog is trained on cadaver scent not any substance whatsoever
After all mr grime didnt "suggest" eddie could havebeen alerting to remnant bubble bath scent e.g.
If you want to continue to contradict Grime and Harrison then you simply show the weakness of your position and support my opinion that many sceptics simply do not understand the evidence
-
Going back to square zero, is there any evidence that the child left the apartment Thu evening? No-one saw her leaving. So what exactly is the evidence for it?
Emma Loach, documentary maker for the Mccans narrated that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted
And talking of Tannerman, who carries a four year old across the body? Unless it is a body???
-
Emma Loach, documentary maker for the Mccans narrated that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted
And talking of Tannerman, who carries a four year old across the body? Unless it is a body???
A child you've just picked up from a bed maybe?
This man does not appear to be carrying a body....
http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/5085
-
A child you've just picked up from a bed maybe?
This man does not appear to be carrying a body....
http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/5085
Tannerman/abductor hadnt "just" picked up from a bed..he was seen well away from the apartment....that photo proves nothing except that a child can be carried like that...you may be right....mYbecergin people prefer the harder option of carrying kids....but I would say its a cumbersome way to carry a child..anyway...the question i was answering from pegasus is important....emma loach stated something which wasnt true, ergo no evidence that it happened
-
Tannerman/abductor hadnt "just" picked up from a bed..he was seen well away from the apartment....that photo proves nothing except that a child can be carried like that...you may be right....mYbecergin people prefer the harder option of carrying kids....but I would say its a cumbersome way to carry a child..anyway...the question i was answering from pegasus is important....emma loach stated something which wasnt true, ergo no evidence that it happened
If Tannerman had picked up Madeleine from her bed, just how many seconds between doing so and being spotted by Jane Tanner do you think would have elapsed? Not many in my estimation, ergo "just" is "just" about right, in my view.
mYbecergin? You'll have to explain that one to me, I couldn't translate it...
-
Emma Loach, documentary maker for the Mccans narrated that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine being abducted
And talking of Tannerman, who carries a four year old across the body? Unless it is a body???
Anyone who thinks an adult would choose to carry a child as allegedly seen by Tanner obviously has not attempted to do it.
-
If Tannerman had picked up Madeleine from her bed, just how many seconds between doing so and being spotted by Jane Tanner do you think would have elapsed? Not many in my estimation, ergo "just" is "just" about right, in my view.
mYbecergin? You'll have to explain that one to me, I couldn't translate it...
Why have an unnecessary weight?
Ps
My cat did run across my keyboard as i hit send!!! It was meant to say maybe certain people.....
-
Anyone who thinks an adult would choose to carry a child as allegedly seen by Tanner obviously has not attempted to do it.
What nonsense. I have even posted a link to a photo of a man carrying a child exactly as Jane Tanner described.
-
Why have an unnecessary weight?
Ps
My cat did run across my keyboard as i hit send!!! It was meant to say maybe certain people.....
A child weighs the same whichever way it is carried. There is no rule which states that a child picked up from its bed and carried away in the manner described by JT has to continue to be carried in the same manner for the entire duration of the journey.
-
Anyone who thinks an adult would choose to carry a child as allegedly seen by Tanner obviously has not attempted to do it.
How does an adult carry an injured or unconscious child into A&E?
-
A Syrian refugee carrying a child through a snow storm. Someone tell him he's doing it all wrong, I'm sure he'd appreciate the advice.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/11/article-2522054-1A08A44900000578-768_634x461.jpg)
-
A child weighs the same whichever way it is carried. There is no rule which states that a child picked up from its bed and carried away in the manner described by JT has to continue to be carried in the same manner for the entire duration of the journey.
Obviously a child weighs the same but the manner of carrying can reduce the stress on the carrier
To get back to the point, Tanned saw a childs feet, and bottom of their pyjamax, she did NOT see Madeleine Mccann beng abducted, so perhaps you have an answer to why emma loach and the mccanns touted the idea as a fact...and in answer to pegasus...exactly no, no one saw her being abducted or carried...as a fact
-
How does an adult carry an injured or unconscious child into A&E?
That is usually from a car and over a very short distance.
-
A Syrian refugee carrying a child through a snow storm. Someone tell him he's doing it all wrong, I'm sure he'd appreciate the advice.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/11/article-2522054-1A08A44900000578-768_634x461.jpg)
Hes carryng like that for a reason, no reason for your sarky snide remarks is there?
-
How does an adult carry an injured or unconscious child into A&E?
Madeleine mccann was not injured or uncnscious and led to safety, was she?
-
Obviously a child weighs the same but the manner of carrying can reduce the stress on the carrier
To get back to the point, Tanned saw a childs feet, and bottom of their pyjamax, she did NOT see Madeleine Mccann beng abducted, so perhaps you have an answer to why emma loach and the mccanns touted the idea as a fact...and in answer to pegasus...exactly no, no one saw her being abducted or carried...as a fact
Jane Tanner believed she saw Madeleine McCann being abducted, and had good reason to believe it IMO. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make tbh.
-
How you carry a child very much depends on the position they are in when you pick them up IMO. If a child is asleep lying horizontal you try and maintain a similar position when carrying them for as long as possible.
-
Jane Tanner believed she saw Madeleine McCann being abducted, and had good reason to believe it IMO. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make tbh.
Its the point I originally made before conversibgg with you, in answer to pegasus' question/comment that no one saw madeleine leave the apartment, to whch I replied, well, some people touted it as a fact,that she did, and further, ie emma loach in the mccanns documentary, that tanner did see madeleine beng abducted whch is a falsehood, is that ok?
-
Hes carryng like that for a reason, no reason for your sarky snide remarks is there?
What reason would that be, that's relevant to this discussion?
The reason for the sarky, snide comment is to throw ridicule on the idea that no one would choose to carry a child in the manner described by JT, as previously stated as fact by another poster, which is fair IMO because it was a statement worthy of ridicule. I trust you will allow me my freedom of speech in pointing this out? If not, take it up with the Mods, who will probably delete everything I've written tonight anyway, so not to worry.
-
How you carry a child very much depends on the position they are in when you pick them up IMO. If a child is asleep lying horizontal you try and maintain a similar position when carrying them for as long as possible.
Why?
She was drugged we are told and if she wasnt then the cold and movement will have woken her up
-
Its the point I originally made before conversibgg with you, in answer to pegasus' question/comment that no one saw madeleine leave the apartment, to whch I replied, well, some people touted it as a fact,that she did, and further, ie emma loach in the mccanns documentary, that tanner did see madeleine beng abducted whch is a falsehood, is that ok?
She also totally misrepresented the way the child was being carried when seen by the Smiths. What honest reason can there be for that ?
-
Its the point I originally made before conversibgg with you, in answer to pegasus' question/comment that no one saw madeleine leave the apartment, to whch I replied, well, some people touted it as a fact,that she did, and further, ie emma loach in the mccanns documentary, that tanner did see madeleine beng abducted whch is a falsehood, is that ok?
JT believed she saw Madeleine being abducted. It was a reasonable assumption. I very much doubt it was a falsehood made maliciously by either Emma Loach, Jane Tanner or the McCanns, though I'm sure others beg to differ.
-
What reason would that be, that's relevant to this discussion?
The reason for the sarky, snide comment is to throw ridicule on the idea that no one would choose to carry a child in the manner described by JT, as previously stated as fact by another poster, which is fair IMO because it was a statement worthy of ridicule. I trust you will allow me my freedom of speech in pointing this out? If not, take it up with the Mods, who will probably delete everything I've written tonight anyway, so not to worry.
The reason would be to save his life,presumably madeleines abductor wasnt in the same business.
-
Why?
She was drugged we are told and if she wasnt then the cold and movement will have woken her up
Why? It's obvious isn't it? You try to minimise the likelihood of waking a child that has been lying down asleep. The surest way to rouse a child is to hoist them up vertically onto your shoulder. Am I the only person here who has actually had children?
-
She also totally misrepresented the way the child was being carried when seen by the Smiths. What honest reason can there be for that ?
its all rather silly, if they believed tannerman was smithman they would have made appeals for sightngs of him too, not hide his efits for years
-
The reason would be to save his life,presumably madeleines abductor wasnt in the same business
The less snide remarks you type the better you will do
I'm sorry but I don't understand your logic. If an abductor had gone to the trouble of abducting a child alive, he would want her to remain alive (in the short term at least) would he not?
-
Why? It's obvious isn't it? You try to minimise the likelihood of waking a child that has been lying down asleep. The surest way to rouse a child is to hoist them up vertically onto your shoulder. Am I the only person here who has actually had children?
Oh, ok, leavng it there, despite your ignoring the weather and scantily clad child, and being carried by a stranger on a long walk, ok then
-
I'm sorry but I don't understand your logic. If an abductor had gone to the trouble of abducting a child alive, he would want her to remain alive (in the short term at least) would he not?
This is getting silly now...youre saying carrying in a certain way ensures an abducted kid remains alive, duh
-
This is getting silly now...youre saying carrying in a certain way ensures a kid remains alive, duh
No, that is precisely what you are suggesting - it is you who has suggested that a Syrian refugee chooses the horizontal method of carrying a child to save its life, which is a bizarre idea. He could just as well have chosen to hug that child to his chest keeping him warm in a snow storm. Cutting to the chase - adults, men in particular, sometimes do carry sleeping children in the manner described by Jane Tanner, and to suggest that this method of carrying is somehow unnatural or abnormal is complete nonsense.
Good night.
-
No, that is precisely what you are suggesting - it is you who has suggested that a Syrian refugee chooses the horizontal method of carrying a child to save its life, which is a bizarre idea. He could just as well have chosen to hug that child to his chest keeping him warm in a snow storm. Cutting to the chase - adults, men in particular, sometimes do carry sleeping children in the manner described by Jane Tanner, and to suggest that this method of carrying is somehow unnatural or abnormal is complete nonsense.
Good night.
Carrying a child like that suggests injury or protection from danger, its NOT a normal carrying position apart from tiny babies and very young toddlers whch madeleine was not
Yes, tara
-
Carrying a child like that suggests injury or protection from danger, its NOT a normal carrying position apart from tiny babies and very young toddlers whch madeleine was not
Yes, tara
Carrying a child Tannerman style also prevents a child from kicking you hard, biting or grabbing at your face.
-
Carrying a child Tannerman style also prevents a child from kicking you hard, biting or grabbing at your face.
If theyre not drugged and if they did not do that when tanner saw "them" and besides i doubt any abductor would care about a 3 yr old kicking them
Edited for the spelling police
-
If theyre not drugged and if they did not do that when tanner saw "them" and besides i doubt any abductor would care about a 3 yr old kicking them
Edited for the spelling police
JT couldn't see if the child was struggling or not - and a few pieces of duct tape over the mouth would muffle any noise.
-
The correct way to investigate is
1. First determine the time window (the absolute earliest and absolute latest possible times) during which the missing person could have left the residence. No assumptions about the nature of the event are allowed. No sightings are allowed to be taken into account at this stage. It's important to get this right before even looking at any supposed sightings.
2. Only after the time window has been determined, then look at all sightings of all types near the residence in that time window, without any assumptions about transport method.
-
JT couldn't see if the child was struggling or not - and a few pieces of duct tape over the mouth would muffle any noise.
So duct tape would stop any noise, so no need to carry in that position for noise made...and also for kicking or biting...muzzle?
-
The correct way to investigate is
1. First determine the time window (the absolute earliest and absolute latest possible times) during which the missing person could have left the residence. No assumptions about the nature of the event are allowed. No sightings are allowed to be taken into account at this stage. It's important to get this right before even looking at any supposed sightings.
2. Only after the time window has been determined, then look at all sightings of all types near the residence in that time window, without any assumptions about transport method.
So you work from 5.30pm or whenever Madeleine left high tea. Any evidence she made it back to 5a at all?
Latest time - what time did the CSI leave the premises & how were the doors secured? Was the property guarded until officers arrived the following morning?
-
So duct tape would stop any noise, so no need to carry in that position for noise made...and also for kicking or biting...muzzle?
You've never dealt with your little darlings having a prolonged "moment"?
-
JT couldn't see if the child was struggling or not - and a few pieces of duct tape over the mouth would muffle any noise.
Yeah, so someone carrying a child in a street who could have been seen doing that......
-
I know it is awfully boring of me to ask but could we keep to the topic theme please? TY
-
There is no forensic test for remnant cadaver scent
In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
Mark Harrison
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2227.jpg
Crucial to put that quote in context.
Made before any canine inspections had been carried out ....
-
Crucial to put that quote in context.
Made before any canine inspections had been carried out ....
Why does that alter the statement?
-
As I have posted Harrison has made it clear that NO INFERENCE CAN BE MADE FROM THE UNCONFIRMED ALERTS....
so the alerts tell us nothing....
-
Why does that alter the statement?
Important to make plain that Harrison was not commenting on anything that may (or may not) have been indicated by any alert.
-
I know it is awfully boring of me to ask but could we keep to the topic theme please? TY
Fair dos ....
No (in answer to the opening post)
-
So you work from 5.30pm or whenever Madeleine left high tea. Any evidence she made it back to 5a at all? (snip)
At 7.15pm two witnesses simultaneously see the child obviously present, alive, moving, talking, and awake, so that would be a very safe window start.
-
(snip) Latest time - what time did the CSI leave the premises & how were the doors secured? Was the property guarded until officers arrived the following morning?
There are no witnesses who state they saw the child leave the apartment (moving from just inside a door or window to just outside a door or window). Therefore the time window of when child left apartment is initially open-ended in the forward direction. I think somewhere in the files it states what time CSI left that night? And whether or not they locked the apartment?
(continued on the off topic thread)
-
Important to make plain that Harrison was not commenting on anything that may (or may not) have been indicated by any alert.
No he wasn't.
-
Disgraced by who? Only YOU
(Ps that doesnt count at all in any way shape or form)
Try not to lose sleep over it.
-
Disgraced by who? Only YOU
(Ps that doesnt count at all in any way shape or form)
Try not to lose sleep over it.
I shan't lose sleep ....
-
I shan't lose sleep ....
Its slightly amusing and bizarre that so many people arebeing painted as criminals in this case...or something not far from it..or potential criminality being involved...or any other epithets going down the scale of "bad" ....so many in fact, its quite unprecedented and that is what is disgraceful
-
Its slightly amusing and bizarre that so many people arebeing painted as criminals in this case...or something not far from it..or potential criminality being involved...or any other epithets going down the scale of "bad" ....so many in fact, its quite unprecedented and that is what is disgraceful
It is indeed a strange old world where so many are doing/have done so much to fit up so few.
Who gains from this ? or if the school you went to played cricket rather than conkers cui bono ?.