The following PJ photo is thought in some quarters to show blood spatter within apartment 5A.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/V/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2192_a.jpg (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/V/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2192_a.jpg)
My blog has been very active recently re 2 myths that I spent hours and hours investigating, and explaining. Then, I got asked where my section on 'blood spatter' was. Trouble is, I don't have one.
Is it possible we could work out what was going on in this photograph?
Obviously just wear and tear on the wall there. No high res image?
One can see that in the context of the theory put forward that Madeleine was killed in the area of the sofa the markers on the wall look pretty horrific.
In my opinion a perfect illustration of the reason why members of the public should not be let loose on official files they do not have the expertise to analyse and as a consequence launch into suppositions which defame the innocent.
One can see that in the context of the theory put forward that Madeleine was killed in the area of the sofa the markers on the wall look pretty horrific.OK-dokey.
In my opinion a perfect illustration of the reason why members of the public should not be let loose on official files they do not have the expertise to analyse and as a consequence launch into suppositions which defame the innocent.
OK-dokey.
Now if I look with my eyeballs, that photo tells me, personally, that it is not Madeleine's final minutes.
But that's not the debate.
I spent hours on nailing why the McCanns at Chaplins was rubbish, but it still floats to the top on my blog.
I would estimate I spent 10 days on why the CEOP story about Madeleine disappeared or died before 3 May 2007 is nonsense. It refuses to go away.
I cannot prevent either piece of flotsam from surfacing, but I can provide the evidence on both. Best I can do.
I don't have the evidence on the 'bloodspatter photograph'. When I get it, which I intend to do, the rumours will still surface.
I would simply like to have a convincing tale about the provenance of this photo and what it is actually showing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm
There is repeated reference to "altered wavelength light" used on the walls in this report. Dont quote me but isnt that what police use to see traces of blood that have been washed away? Obviously any results were negative.
I missed that bit, Mercury, and can't be bothered reading through it again for context. Do you know if that was in reference to the use of luminol?
Interesting read Mercury. Skim reading it appears the light they used to detect forensics does not detect blood per se? And reading through seems to suggest the team involved were instructed not to use agents; I guess like luminol, which would indicate the type of material discovered...
Do you have a quote for that? What else could it detect then?
As to being instructed not to use agents, no idea, maybe something to do with Martin Grime sayng Luminol can stop the blood dog detecting invisible to the eye blood? I really dont know.A more knowledgable person on luminol and different lights used might be able to help.
As regards your blog SIL maybe some f the comments can be answered wth a request for any evidence that there was blood on the walls?
Interesting read Mercury. Skim reading it appears the light they used to detect forensics does not detect blood per se? And reading through seems to suggest the team involved were instructed not to use agents; I guess like luminol, which would indicate the type of material discovered...
In his book Amaral claims as a fact that Eddie alerted to that wall - which is still claimed by some to have been 'blood spattered.
Quote (ch 16)
The investigators have hardly recovered from their amazement, when another, equally impressive, howl startles them. This time, Eddie has picked out that same odour under the window, just behind the sofa, on one of the walls in the lounge. That evening, in apartment 5A, the investigators begin to glimpse what might have happened.
End quote
Their conclusions that evening (before forensic testing) on ''what might have happened'' is a classic example of putting two and two together (before all the facts are known) and making five. And then sticking to their 'conclusions' inspite of the results of forensic testing which did not support them in any way.
AIMHO
Amaral never claimed that there was blood on the lounge wall.
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/super-kid.html
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html
Have a read through the last two links relating specifically to this subject
The first lnk is connected
Unsure if forum rules apply here, ie are blogs allowed to be linked to,in which case delete if not, but theres some very good factual analysis, feel free to debunk/deconstruct
Anyone prepared to wade through that interminable drivel is welcome as far as I'm concerned.
Thats how i felt when i read a few blog entries years ago, but patience is a virtue, and Im talking about the facts of the analysis, whch might be useful to SIL
My apologies. Poor SiL
Textusa seriously addled my brain a long time ago
IM sure SIL will find things of much interest therein but I wouldnt expect her to try this late in the evening, it needs concentration and time, I wouldnt have flagged it up if I hadnt seen any merit
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.htmlThank you.
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/super-kid.html
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html
Have a read through the last two links relating specifically to this subject
The first lnk is connected
Unsure if forum rules apply here, ie are blogs allowed to be linked to,in which case delete if not, but theres some very good factual analysis, feel free to debunk/deconstruct
I do appreciate the point you were making.
Thank you.
I remember quite a while ago finding this sort of info on the Internet but back in the day I was not interested enough to copy links or xref stories.
Oddly enough, a tale has to resurface many times before it gets elevated to the status of fact or myth.
And yup, I need to get my peeps before I dig into the details.
Obviously just wear and tear on the wall there. No high res image?I can't find a larger image on the Internet. I can enhance this photo to make it clearer, but I don't want to post 'fake' photos on-line. There are enough issues already in this case.
I can't find a larger image on the Internet. I can enhance this photo to make it clearer, but I don't want to post 'fake' photos on-line. There are enough issues already in this case.
I may be able to get a contact to check whether there is anything better than this. I'll put out the feelers.
Nice one. Be interesting to see a high rez image. I realised after reading the link that Mercury posted that those are actually markers pointing to spots on the wall.
Nice one. Be interesting to see a high rez image. I realised after reading the link that Mercury posted that those are actually markers pointing to spots on the wall.
I think the image below represents trainee CSIs investigating blood spatter ...(http://www.scenacriminis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/bloodstain-pattern.jpg)
Although the blood is still visible here ... the same technique for using markers as in 5A is in evidence. They are also taking and photographing measurements between the points of interest.
Probably to determine type of spray ... whether blunt force trauma or arterial?
Having viewed more actual crime scenes than is healthy to find that illustration, I think it would be safe to say the "blood spatter in 5A" is just another myth based on misinterpretation of the photograph showing the markers from the places where samples were taken from.
Apart from there being no evidence of blood, there was no evidence of Madeleine's DNA.
The issue for me isn't what the 'spatter' is not, but rather what the 'spatter' is. An explanation of the 'spatter' should include looking at all the evidence that is known about this forensic examination.
And that's the bottom line.
None could be forensically proven to be blood and very few of those results had any similarities to Madeleine's DNA.
So just how many unconnected people are supposed to have died due to injuries on that wall that Keela didn't even react to? As far as I know (and hope), the little boy seems to be alive, as does the PT CSI cop.
Totally silly, IMO.
When did the details of the dog alerts in McCann-related areas get leaked?Whilst trying to analyse the "blood spatter" story, I have come across a piece, from memory on JdN on the same day as the PT team went in to follow up on the dog alerts, that alleged blood was found in that forensic search.
Whilst trying to analyse the "blood spatter" story, I have come across a piece, from memory on JdN on the same day as the PT team went in to follow up on the dog alerts, that alleged blood was found in that forensic search.
That would push the dog alerts plus "blood" story back to when the PT team went in to find out what the dogs were up to.
For guests less familiar with the case, and unacquainted with my blog, I am having considerable difficulty in finding "blood splatter", whether it relates to Madeleine or not.
And I am having one heck of an issue in making sense of the dog alerts.
Oh, and the forensic exercise and FSS report appear to be a bit of a shambles.
But I do know now how to watch scorpions at night, inspect hotels, and check for pet urine. Can't be all bad.
In what way does the FSS report appear to be a bit of a shambles...and why are you having trouble making sense of the alertsAFAIK, additional tests to confirm blood were not done at the front end (under instruction from UK), and not done at the rear end on the "blood splatter" spots. Consequently, the spots could be blood, or not. Hardly impressive.
AFAIK, additional tests to confirm blood were not done at the front end (under instruction from UK), and not done at the rear end on the "blood splatter" spots. Consequently, the spots could be blood, or not. Hardly impressive.
As to the alerts, 15 or 16 "spatter" spots, an alert to perhaps 1 of them. Does this mean the rest were not blood? Eddie and Keela should have been barking madly if they were. And if they were human fluids but not blood, what was Eddie up to? Was he slacking on the job? And if they were not human, so both dogs got it right, do we have animal urine sprayed over the scene? And if we have animal urine, couldn't the FSS tell it was non-human?
Given that the FSS ran DNA from 4 of the spots against the entire UK database, surely we can conclude that the DNA was of human origin. Or can we?
AFAIK, additional tests to confirm blood were not done at the front end (under instruction from UK), and not done at the rear end on the "blood splatter" spots. Consequently, the spots could be blood, or not. Hardly impressive.
As to the alerts, 15 or 16 "spatter" spots, an alert to perhaps 1 of them. Does this mean the rest were not blood? Eddie and Keela should have been barking madly if they were. And if they were human fluids but not blood, what was Eddie up to? Was he slacking on the job? And if they were not human, so both dogs got it right, do we have animal urine sprayed over the scene? And if we have animal urine, couldn't the FSS tell it was non-human?
Given that the FSS ran DNA from 4 of the spots against the entire UK database, surely we can conclude that the DNA was of human origin. Or can we?
I can guarantee you have nothing to support that statement in red....you should remove itYou can't guarantee me anything.
there were no alerts to the spots by the dogs..
You can't guarantee me anything.
And therein lies the point. The dogs both alerted at the same position. And that is why you happen to be wrong and Brietta happens to be right.
Brietta has the dogs alerting on the floor tiles, which they most certainly did.
You have them alerting to none of the spots, which is about as wrong as it gets.
I am looking at why the dogs did not alert to all of the other "blood spatter". For the simple reason that, if everything was blood spatter, then the dogs should not have signalled once, as per Brietta.
They should not have signalled zero times, as per your ...
They should have been up and down those walls like spring puppies. But they weren't. Make sense of that.
I canguarantee that you will not supply any evidence to support your post highlighted in red because there is nothing to support itTrouble is, Eddie alerted to 'cadaver scent', whether it came from blood or not.
The dogs did not alert to the marks on the wall which would suggest they are not blood
Trouble is, Eddie alerted to 'cadaver scent', whether it came from blood or not.
Spot 9 was attributed to human C Gordon by the FSS. Was this remnant of C Gordon, who spent a week in 5A immediately before the McCanns, still alive? Or was it by the time of the inspection dead? And should not wonder dog Eddie have alerted to said dead human smell? Or did the FSS make a fool of themselves?
You are way behind the curve on this analysis. So what you can guarantee is roughly zero.
Trouble is, Eddie alerted to 'cadaver scent', whether it came from blood or not.
Spot 9 was attributed to human C Gordon by the FSS. Was this remnant of C Gordon, who spent a week in 5A immediately before the McCanns, still alive? Or was it by the time of the inspection dead? And should not wonder dog Eddie have alerted to said dead human smell? Or did the FSS make a fool of themselves?
You are way behind the curve on this analysis. So what you can guarantee is roughly zero.
AFAIK, additional tests to confirm blood were not done at the front end (under instruction from UK), and not done at the rear end on the "blood splatter" spots. Consequently, the spots could be blood, or not. Hardly impressive.
As to the alerts, 15 or 16 "spatter" spots, an alert to perhaps 1 of them. Does this mean the rest were not blood? Eddie and Keela should have been barking madly if they were. And if they were human fluids but not blood, what was Eddie up to? Was he slacking on the job? And if they were not human, so both dogs got it right, do we have animal urine sprayed over the scene? And if we have animal urine, couldn't the FSS tell it was non-human?
Given that the FSS ran DNA from 4 of the spots against the entire UK database, surely we can conclude that the DNA was of human origin. Or can we?
#I have to say I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand the dog alerts in general, or the lack of them. Or the dog alerts in this particular instance. Or the lack of them.
looks like i am 100% correct so far as you still have posted nothing to support your assertion
as regards spot 9......you seem very confused...eddie does not alert to all residual cellular materialEnlighten us to which 'residual cellular material' Eddie is supposed to not alert to.
Mosquitos?
No, because the dgs dont alert to insects blood
I have to say I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand the dog alerts in general, or the lack of them. Or the dog alerts in this particular instance. Or the lack of them.
We are still at a stage where Brietta was more accurate in describing the dog alerts.
To answer, mosquitos has indeed been suggested as the source of the 'blood spatter' on the wall. In my personal experience, that would require a lot of mosquitos. Which would require them leaving traces up and down the walls. And it would mean the mosquitos were sloppy enough to leave stuff on the walls but clean enough that the traces survived.
I am not ruling out mosquitoes. I would like to come up with something better. I still have to factor in the dogs, which should alert to human decay, the PT team that carried out the investigation, and the FSS Report.
If there had been microscopic traces of human blood from splatted mosquitos on the wall, Keela should still have reacted, but didn't.
If there had been microscopic traces of human blood from splatted mosquitos on the wall, Keela should still have reacted, but didn't.If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.
If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.
Therein lies the problem.
If human blood, both dogs should have alerted. If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted. If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?
At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert. And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type
Bit of a tricky one.
If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.What are these human marks that aren't blood but which Eddie should have alerted to then? Bits of dead body?
Therein lies the problem.
If human blood, both dogs should have alerted. If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted. If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?
At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert. And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type.
Bit of a tricky one.
If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.
Therein lies the problem.
If human blood, both dogs should have alerted. If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted. If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?
At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert. And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type.
Bit of a tricky one.
If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.
Therein lies the problem.
If human blood, both dogs should have alerted. If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted. If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?
At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert. And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type.
Bit of a tricky one.
Blood on walls in apartments is nothing new in tropical and semi tropical countries. You only need to swat a big fat mosquito on a wall to find out.
Sending Eddie and Keels to Portugal effectively put them outside their comfort zones. Smells and odours in Portugal are massively different to those in a cold temperate UK so I would question the reliability of any of the alerts in such circumstances.
Blood on walls in apartments is nothing new in tropical and semi tropical countries. You only need to swat a big fat mosquito on a wall to find out.That must be a potential explanation, particularly given some of the spots had DNA from more than one person. And if it is the explanation, then it does call into question Eddie and Keela's abilities within 5A.
Sending Eddie and Keels to Portugal effectively put them outside their comfort zones. Smells and odours in Portugal are massively different to those in a cold temperate UK so I would question the reliability of any of the alerts in such circumstances.
That must be a potential explanation, particularly given some of the spots had DNA from more than one person. And if it is the explanation, then it does call into question Eddie and Keela's abilities within 5A.
I'm simply, on my blog, trying to work through the options methodically, and on here I'm trying to benefit from posters prior thoughts on this issue.
Does anyone have an opinion as to why previous occupant Paul Gordon's extended bleeding bypassed the dogs?
In an FSS communication, it is said spots 1, 4, 9, and 16, plus the stain found on a bedcover on the afternoon of 4 May 2007, were run past first the UK national DNA database, then against a volunteer database of 282 people. Does anyone know more about that volunteer database? I am assuming that as 2 of these matched a young son of Paul Gordon, it is people connected with 5A, but I would appreciate anything extra on this.
And while we are at it, does luminol interfere with normal DNA testing or with the LCN multiplying technique used by the FSS?
8((()*/
OK - have managed to find a version of the paper here.Many thanks JP for both of your posts on this. It would have taken me hours, days or months to search this out.
http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/literature/Amplification/35_The%20Effect%20of%20Luminol%20on%20Presumptive%20Tests%20and.pdf
Whilst on the subject, the following explanation of LCA DNA may be helpful. (Apologies for cut and paste)
DNA
The standard DNA test (SGM+) is used where an identifiable stain such as blood or semen is found. The smallest bloodstain visible with the naked eye (c. 50 - 100 cells) contains enough DNA for this test.
This analyses eleven areas (also called markers or loci) of DNA, consisting of ten variable areas and a sex test.
These areas are copied 28 times and instrumental analysis used to capture and analyse the result.
This test is used to produce DNA profiles for adding to the National DNA Database (NDNAD).
This type of test is used worldwide, and a variety of commercial systems looking at different areas (markers, loci) of DNA are available.
Some samples are invisible to the naked eye, in poor condition due to external factors e.g. fire and water, or have been retained from crimes that occurred many years ago. These may have too little DNA for the standard test to be successful.
Top of page
How the Low Copy Number (LCN) technique works
The LCN test is based upon the same scientific principles as the standard SGM+
test, with variations designed to increase the sensitivity of the process, including copying the DNA sample 34 times rather than the standard 28.
The test can obtain a profile from as few as 5 - 10 cells, or from DNA that is in poor condition. This could be the amount of DNA left on a cup by drinking from it or on a pen by writing with it.
This increased sensitivity means ultra-clean laboratories are needed for the testing to minimise contamination of the sample by DNA from any other source.
Rather than performing a separate quantitation stage, a dilution stage is now included routinely to ensure that nothing else present in the sample has caused the result to be lost.
Every house is full of cellular materialSo why is it stuck up what is then a very few places of wall? Is only a wall dusty?
Exfoliated skin is a constituent of dust
So why is it stuck up what is then a very few places of wall? Is only a wall dusty?
And are the cleaners experts at removing it from the floor, sofa and curtains? If so, I need to track them down and hire them, because they did one heck of a job.
They cleaned up so well after Mr Gordon bled that the dogs found not a trace.
They missed a spot on the floor that is consistent with Madeleine, and which, if the dogs are to believed, is blood, or worse.
They missed child C Gordon's ... whatever ... stuck up a wall at a height the child could not reach.
They missed the stain on the bedcover in the children's bedroom.
They appear to be both sloppy cleaners and superb cleaners.
Do you have an explanation of the spots that passes first muster?
Many thanks JP for both of your posts on this. It would have taken me hours, days or months to search this out.
Is there any indication of when SGM+ replaced SGM in the UK? Spot 4 came up with a number of matches on NDNAD. The analyst then cut this to 2, using additional information that could not be put into the NDNAD search. These 2 were discounted as they were SGM standard, which I understand to be 6x2 plus sex, versus SGM+, which I understand to be 10x2 plus sex.
Now I'm guessing that apart from the totally different odds of 6x2 match v a 10x2 match, the two SGM hits must have been pretty old, with no replacement under SGM+, therefore safe to rule out, but the question is when did new entries in NDNAD switch to SGM+?
When I write up the DNA results on my blog you will be getting an honourable mention for this contribution.
And just a thought out loud. If the NDNAD was still using SGM, would the 15 out of 19 markers have changed to 12 out of 12? Would Portuguese courts have accepted this 'evidence', when Portugal appeared to require a higher standard?
as I have already saidKindly explain how C Gordon, a child of 2 years and 3 months, got his sweaty hand approximately 1.8m or higher up the wall, at spot 9. 'Could have' does not cut the mustard.
The marks could have simply been remnants of sweaty hands
You seem to have assumed the dogs would react to all remnant human tissue
As I have explained they dont
I wasn't aware that the dogs had alerted to anything on the floor that was "consistent with Madeleine"..... &%+((£Read the FSS reports.
Read the FSS reports.Would you kindly provide the specific cite? I'm sure you're more likely to have it at your fingertips than I am.
Kindly explain how C Gordon, a child of 2 years and 3 months, got his sweaty hand approximately 1.8m or higher up the wall, at spot 9. 'Could have' does not cut the mustard.
You assert the dogs do not react to all remnant human tissue. You haven't explained anything - you have merely asserted. Hopefully, Keela did not alert to all remnant human tissue. As to Eddie, when I dig him out for my blog, I will be as precise as I can about what he did and did not alert to.
For the moment, you assert, without supporting it. And you totally ducked the point as to why this 'dust' was not all over the sofa, the curtains, covering the wall, and surely more on the floor.
You have not explained the 'blood spatter' in the slightest.
If the 15 out of 19 had come from the DNA one person they would have had more significanceThe bit in bold I happen to find objectionable. It is another assertion, with zero to help our guests find out how the discussion, which I am confident has taken place, actually went. It implies an outcome with zero to support that outcome.
But they didn't... They came from a soup of 3 to 5 people
This has already been explained at length
You criticise the FSS when it seems you simply do not understand the snap results
Furthermore even if the DNA had been proved to belong to Maddie it would have been of little significance
The child was on someone's shoulders... Happens all the timeIf Spot 9 is the spot in the picture at the beginning of this thread then I would dispute that it was 1.8 metres off the ground. The child could have left a deposit whilst standing on a piece of furniture for example.
Eddie does not alert to dust which contains human skin... That would be impossible as dust is everywhere
The dust was everywhere it simply wasn't collected
As for the blood splatter.... What are you talking about.... There was no blood splatter
You are simply digging yourself into a deeper hole
The bit in bold I happen to find objectionable. It is another assertion, with zero to help our guests find out how the discussion, which I am confident has taken place, actually went. It implies an outcome with zero to support that outcome.Is there anything in the FSS report that supports the view that the spots are blood spatters? If not, then there's your answer.
The snap results? Did you mean snap results? This is a genuine question because your predictive text seems to scramble a lot of your posts.
I think I know enough to be able to interpret the FSS results, whether interim or otherwise. Therefore, I am confident that if I decide to criticise the FSS results, which I have not yet explained, I will be on solid ground.
You are half right in saying that if the material in a single spot had been found to be from Madeleine, and even if it had been blood, it would have been of very little significance indeed.
The problem is, the topic is not about a single spot, and whether that spot is from Madeleine, and whether that spot is blood.
It is about providing evidence as to whether "blood spatter" is a fact or a myth.
The child was on someone's shoulders... Happens all the timeThe child was on someone's shoulders happens to one of the better explanations I have heard for this. The location was squeezed in against a sofa. And the child was doing something to the wall whilst, what?
Eddie does not alert to dust which contains human skin... That would be impossible as dust is everywhere
The dust was everywhere it simply wasn't collected
As for the blood splatter.... What are you talking about.... There was no blood splatter
You are simply digging yourself into a deeper hole
The child was on someone's shoulders happens to one of the better explanations I have heard for this. The location was squeezed in against a sofa. And the child was doing something to the wall whilst, what?Why do you keep harping on about this? As far as I'm aware Davel has not claimed the sofa and curtains were free of "human" dust (all dust contains skin cells) - what is your point?
The dust was everywhere fails the photo test. The photo has spots on the walls.
Are you ever going to explain how the sofa and the curtains seem to be basically free of this human dust?
If Spot 9 is the spot in the picture at the beginning of this thread then I would dispute that it was 1.8 metres off the ground. The child could have left a deposit whilst standing on a piece of furniture for example.Feel free to dispute to your heart's content, but a bit of supporting evidence would go down a treat.
Is there anything in the FSS report that supports the view that the spots are blood spatters? If not, then there's your answer.There is nothing in the FSS reports to support blood spatters. Is this my answer?
Why do you keep harping on about this? As far as I'm aware Davel has not claimed the sofa and curtains were free of "human" dust (all dust contains skin cells) - what is your point?I harp on about it because it is claimed nearly all spots in this examination can be explained by human dust. Yet the sofa and the curtains are remarkably free of human dust.
Feel free to dispute to your heart's content, but a bit of supporting evidence would go down a treat.Is spot 9 shown in the picture at the start of this thread? If so, are you saying that a person of 5ft 9" would be able to fit in the space underneath it?
And if you think C Gordon, at 2 years and 3 months could simply stand on a piece of furniture to make spot 9, please make your case.
There is nothing in the FSS reports to support blood spatters. Is this my answer?How do you think you are going to be able to establish fact or myth without recourse to scientific analysis of the stuff on the wall?
Since neither the PT analysts or the FSS analysts tested for blood, and since the FSS report says cellular material, what we have in the files does not rule out blood spatter.
If you don't test for blood, you cannot claim it is not blood spatter.
I harp on about it because it is claimed nearly all spots in this examination can be explained by human dust. Yet the sofa and the curtains are remarkably free of human dust.Who has claimed this? Dust is human, largely, no need to differentiate between human dust and ordinary dust, it's all the same thing.
Is spot 9 shown in the picture at the start of this thread? If so, are you saying that a person of 5ft 9" would be able to fit in the space underneath it?Your point was that a 2 years and 3 month old child could reach this height on furniture.
The bit in bold I happen to find objectionable. It is another assertion, with zero to help our guests find out how the discussion, which I am confident has taken place, actually went. It implies an outcome with zero to support that outcome.
The snap results? Did you mean snap results? This is a genuine question because your predictive text seems to scramble a lot of your posts.
I think I know enough to be able to interpret the FSS results, whether interim or otherwise. Therefore, I am confident that if I decide to criticise the FSS results, which I have not yet explained, I will be on solid ground.
You are half right in saying that if the material in a single spot had been found to be from Madeleine, and even if it had been blood, it would have been of very little significance indeed.
The problem is, the topic is not about a single spot, and whether that spot is from Madeleine, and whether that spot is blood.
It is about providing evidence as to whether "blood spatter" is a fact or a myth.
How do you think you are going to be able to establish fact or myth without recourse to scientific analysis of the stuff on the wall?IF YOU DON'T TEST FOR BLOOD, HOW DO YOU RULE IN OR RULE OUT, BLOOD?
I harp on about it because it is claimed nearly all spots in this examination can be explained by human dust. Yet the sofa and the curtains are remarkably free of human dust.
Who has claimed this? Dust is human, largely, no need to differentiate between human dust and ordinary dust, it's all the same thing.If you have been reading this thread, Davel has. If you think there is no difference between 'dust' and 'human dust' and that all 'dust' is largely human, please talk to my cleaner. Hopefully she is back in Luz tomorrow to clean up our 'human dust'. It would be an interesting conversation.
If you have been reading this thread, Davel has. If you think there is no difference between 'dust' and 'human dust' and that all 'dust' is largely human, please talk to my cleaner. Hopefully she is back in Luz tomorrow to clean up our 'human dust'. It would be an interesting conversation.
IF YOU DON'T TEST FOR BLOOD, HOW DO YOU RULE IN OR RULE OUT, BLOOD?
Apologies for the caps, but the simple, scientific fact is - the "spatter" was never tested for blood.
We are reliant on Eddie and Keela. Are they superdogs or superdolts?
so your post is pure speculation...there is no evidence to support the splatter as being blood...therefore it is not a fact
the sofa and the curtains are not free from dust,,,they just were not swabbed...Spots 14 and 15 were from the rear of the sofa.
If you have been reading this thread, Davel has. If you think there is no difference between 'dust' and 'human dust' and that all 'dust' is largely human, please talk to my cleaner. Hopefully she is back in Luz tomorrow to clean up our 'human dust'. It would be an interesting conversation.
so your post is pure speculation...there is no evidence to support the splatter as being blood...therefore it is not a factRead the topic title. Blood spatter. Fact or myth.
Spots 14 and 15 were from the rear of the sofa.
It's not about what was swabbed. It's about what lit up under the forensic inspection. If it's human dust on the walls, there should be human dust on the curtains. And if humans used the sofa, there should be human dust all over the sofa.
You are still evading all the questions. No trace of Paul Gordon's extensive bleed. How the cleaners removed this 'human dust'. And why this 'human dust' showed up on the walls, but not on the soft furnishings.
Read the topic title. Blood spatter. Fact or myth.
And if you can find a single post of mine that I have gone in favour of "blood spatter" then go for it.
The amount of solid evidence that says it is not blood, is ... that the dogs did not alert to the "splatter". Do you trust in the dogs?
Please excuse me. I need to go off and cook now. Hopefully, I will get through my meal before watching Horizon on what makes overweight people eat too much.
Your point was that a 2 years and 3 month old child could reach this height on furniture.Why is it a no? Do you concede that you got the height of spot 9 wrong?
That's a no.
Davel introduced the child on shoulder, so unless you are Davel, stick to small child on furniture. It's still a no!
It is UNKNOWN.
That does not make it a myth.
Otherwise , by your logic, ABDUCTION IS A MYTH.
...and there is no forensic evidence to support an abduction
IF YOU DON'T TEST FOR BLOOD, HOW DO YOU RULE IN OR RULE OUT, BLOOD?
Apologies for the caps, but the simple, scientific fact is - the "spatter" was never tested for blood.
We are reliant on Eddie and Keela. Are they superdogs or superdolts?
IF YOU DON'T TEST FOR BLOOD, HOW DO YOU RULE IN OR RULE OUT, BLOOD?God know why you are getting so irate. It is a fact that there is no way of you proving it's a fact that there was blood spatter on the walls, or do you think you can? If so, how?
Apologies for the caps, but the simple, scientific fact is - the "spatter" was never tested for blood.
We are reliant on Eddie and Keela. Are they superdogs or superdolts?
Two thirds of the dust in your house comes from outside, as dirt tracked in on your feet, and airborne particles like pollen and soot. The rest is mostly carpet fluff, clothes fibres and pet hair.
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/what-dust-made
So let's see, the FSS failed to indentify blood from the spatter marks on the wall, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't blood there. So I don't see it as fact or myth, rather, just another unknown in this case.
Can I just add, even if blood had been found and identified as a perfect match to Madeleine, that in itself doesn't prove anything either way.
the opening posts gives two alternatives for us to consider...fact or myth...if it is not a fact then what is left...i will give you a couple of hours to think it through
Dust. Anybody? No?
It's getting like the Elmore James appreciation society round here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeoJggtSu0
he also did it as Dust My Blues.
Then of course don't forget Slim Dusty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E0aZ387M_I
Then for good measure the expression "not so dusty" meaning fairly good.....nah strike that one for this thread.
And back to the plot
http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/does_dust_consist_primarily_of_human_skin
http://www.livescience.com/32337-is-house-dust-mostly-dead-skin.html
Hows the betting on the three man catch weight bout ?
...and then some Philip Pullman quotes.
Does anyone know why were they not tested for blood or was it a case of being tested for several things but none showed a positive for blood. Surely the marks on the wall contained sufficient material to be properly tested?
Does anyone know why were they not tested for blood or was it a case of being tested for several things but none showed a positive for blood. Surely the marks on the wall contained sufficient material to be properly tested?The only sample tested for blood, from memory, was the plant material extracted from the rear garden.
so your post is pure speculation...there is no evidence to support the splatter as being blood...therefore it is not a factMy post isn't pure speculation - that is just another assertion which ignores the evidence.
The only sample tested for blood, from memory, was the plant material extracted from the rear garden.
The PT was told, I believe, not to use any reagent, so they used UV to detect spots not visible to the naked eye (again, to be confirmed).
With the exception of 2 spots matched or potentially matched (one to a PT officer, one possibly to Madeleine) they seem to have been left with 4 spots where there was sufficient info to run it through NDNAD, essentially getting no hits. Whilst on a volunteer database, one matched youngster C Gordon, a visitor to 5A in the week before the McCanns.
At this point, they probably thought it was game over, since it was not their job to worry about rumours.
The bits of information that could be recovered were small, and did not fit Madeleine meeting her demise, IMO.
However, Amaral has raised the possibility that at least some of the marks were due to an attempt to resuscitate Madeleine, before she expired. Therefore the concept of "blood spatter" is important, in the sense of trying to determine whether the marks are blood and whether they constitute spatter. This in turn requires a better explanation than that provided by the FSS.
My post isn't pure speculation - that is just another assertion which ignores the evidence.
And I have yet to accept that what the photo shows is "splatter".
I don't see how you can propose 'human dust' as a solution, then describe it as splatter.
nothing lit up.....they were just stains...and there would be dust containg human cells all over then sofaLet me see if I've got this right. Are you claiming that these are stains visible to the naked eye? Just how big is this 'human dust'? Why didn't someone clean it if it was visible to the naked eye? Why didn't the PT team on the afternoon of 4 May eyeball this 'human dust'/stains?
how extensive was Gordons bleed ...did any drop on the floor....what was used to clean it up...what importance is any of this as there was no match to maddie...
Why is it a no? Do you concede that you got the height of spot 9 wrong?You haven't given an estimate of the height of spot 9, nor a justification for your opinion, so why would I think I've got it wrong?
God know why you are getting so irate. It is a fact that there is no way of you proving it's a fact that there was blood spatter on the walls, or do you think you can? If so, how?I have not started with the objective of proving either that it is blood or that it is spatter. The photo is known widely as the Blood Spatter photo, just as the picture by the kids pool is widely known as the Last Photo and the photo of Madeleine clutching tennis balls is widely known as the Tennis Balls photo.
So let's see, the FSS failed to indentify blood from the spatter marks on the wall, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't blood there. So I don't see it as fact or myth, rather, just another unknown in this case.It would if it was indeed 'spatter'. It would mean that not only there was an incident, but there was a serious incident.
Can I just add, even if blood had been found and identified as a perfect match to Madeleine, that in itself doesn't prove anything either way.
both dogs totally ignored visible remains so if it was blood both dogs are uselessI pointed out way back that if this is blood, which we don't know, then the dogs are called into question.
Let me see if I've got this right. Are you claiming that these are stains visible to the naked eye? Just how big is this 'human dust'? Why didn't someone clean it if it was visible to the naked eye? Why didn't the PT team on the afternoon of 4 May eyeball this 'human dust'/stains?
How extensive was Gordon's bleed? Read Paul Gordon's statement. Read Saleigh Gordon's statement.
And it does matter. The only potential alert to Mr Gordon's cut was the one in the parents' bedroom. This suggests Mr Grime may have been over-egging the capability of the dogs, one way or another.
What importance is it? What? It was important enough for the FSS to run the results against NDNAD. Why do you think they did that? It was important enough for the FSS to establish a volunteer DNA database from 282 people and run the results against that. Why do you think they did that?
(snip)
The bits of information that could be recovered were small, and did not fit Madeleine meeting her demise, IMO.
However, Amaral has raised the possibility that at least some of the marks were due to an attempt to resuscitate Madeleine, before she expired. Therefore the concept of "blood spatter" is important, in the sense of trying to determine whether the marks are blood and whether they constitute spatter. This in turn requires a better explanation than that provided by the FSS.
I pointed out way back that if this is blood, which we don't know, then the dogs are called into question.
Now, what makes you assert that the remains were visible? That makes no sense. It does not match the evidence.
my explanation is skin cells from sweaty hands...not dust..At least you have moved on from human dust, so we are making progress.
which evidence am I ignoring.......there is no splatter...no confirmation of blood...no link to maddie ...thats the evidence...you seem very confused
It would if it was indeed 'spatter'. It would mean that not only there was an incident, but there was a serious incident.
The reverse is not certain, though highly likely. If it transpires there is little or no evidence of a major incident, then many of the ideas floating the Internet would be trashed. [ moderated ] Was there a botched burglary in which someone bashed Madeleine? Hardly likely, if there is no spatter. Did Madeleine fall off the sofa and crack her head? Hardly likely, if there is no spatter.
So spatter would tell us a lot, while no spatter would tend to rule out many suggestions for a violent death.
I pointed out way back that if this is blood, which we don't know, then the dogs are called into question.
Now, what makes you assert that the remains were visible? That makes no sense. It does not match the evidence.
the spots are of no importance having seen the report from the FSS.......the residuesw may have been important...but now we know they do not relate to maddie we know they are notIf an incident took place in that location, the information that can be extracted is important. If the information that can be extracted suggests, or strongly suggests, that no major incident occurred in that location, that is important.
I have said several times the marks are more than likely hand marks..sweat..saliva...containing skin cells. At least you now realise eddie would not alert to dead skin cells
You haven't given an estimate of the height of spot 9, nor a justification for your opinion, so why would I think I've got it wrong?I have used my common sense. If you look at the picture, you say spot 9 is six feet off the ground. If so then imagine a man of six foot standing in that corner - the scale is all wrong. In my house all the windows and doors are at the same height - are they in yours? Most standard doors are around 195cm high, now if the doors and the windows in Apartment 5A were at the same height, then your spot nine is not 180cm off the ground.
I derived my estimate based on the height of the window sill. The only other independent estimate happens to be by Textusa, and is based on floor tile size. Two independent calculation methods which produce roughly the same result.
I understand that you're just trying to get to the bottom of it, SIL.I will indeed, when I factor in the FSS report, in detail. There seems at the moment to be one spot that is potentially Madeleine's, one that is a Portuguese policeman's, one that is a previous guest, 3 that are unknown but not Madeleine's and presumably not from the McCanns and 9 that may be dangling.
However, just have a look at how many results, however meagre, showed any resemblance to Madeleine's profile...
If an incident took place in that location, the information that can be extracted is important. If the information that can be extracted suggests, or strongly suggests, that no major incident occurred in that location, that is important.
And as I stated earlier, why I get in to factoring in the dogs, I will try to get a precise understanding of what Eddie did and did not alert to. If you wish to assert Eddie did not alert to human material sufficient to lift a DNA sample, please feel free to make your case. It would make my task easier.
visible as in the amount present...the remnants were visible under uv light...makes sense to meThat is also a step forward.
I will indeed, when I factor in the FSS report, in detail. There seems at the moment to be one spot that is potentially Madeleine's, one that is a Portuguese policeman's, one that is a previous guest, 3 that are unknown but not Madeleine's and presumably not from the McCanns and 9 that may be dangling.
So I need to go through the photo alongside the FSS report, subtract the 'known' ones, and see what is left. Oh, and factor in the spots with multiple DNA. This task is stacked in my 'to do' list.
That is also a step forward.
If visible to the naked eye, everybody and his dog would have seen them. If not visible to the naked eye, but visible under UV, it tells us quite a lot.
The 3rd PT team (4 May afternoon) could not have used UV in this area. If they did, they missed too many suspect spots.
So this raises the question of what is seen under UV light, because that would give us some idea of what the spots might and might not be.
Since I arrived at this point a few days back and I've already researched the idea, may I ask if anyone fancies a bit of scorpion watching?
8((()*/
I have used my common sense. If you look at the picture, you say spot 9 is six feet off the ground. If so then imagine a man of six foot standing in that corner - the scale is all wrong. In my house all the windows and doors are at the same height - are they in yours? Most standard doors are around 195cm high, now if the doors and the windows in Apartment 5A were at the same height, then your spot nine is not 180cm off the ground.May I ask what your estimate is of the height of spot 9? I will be happy to check my estimate if it appears to be seriously off, but I can't stick a 6ft man into the photo.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/S[Name removed]RkkQRlII/AAAAAAAAKhQ/Q8WAzUszZ5g/s400/blood_spatter_patern.jpg)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/V/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2192_a.jpg)
My apologies if I have missed this. It can be quite difficult catching up on a thread at times.
I posted a few links a couple of days ago, SIL.
Blood does not fluoresce under UV light, apparently. With an exception involving a rare scenario (from what I can gather), the torch is used to find other fluids of a potentially suspicious nature.
Not useless, as even traces of perspiration, saliva or urine could help some cases move forward... but I simply can't find any potentially significant results in this one.
May I ask what your estimate is of the height of spot 9? I will be happy to check my estimate if it appears to be seriously off, but I can't stick a 6ft man into the photo.I would estimate just over 150cm, lets say 160cm. A 90cm child standing on a sofa 35cm off the ground with its arm extended may reach that spot esp jumping up and down, or if standing on the arm of the sofa.
I used the height of the window sill. The PJ Files show it as 92cm. I estimate the spot to be about double that.
Textusa used the floor tiles to produce a grid up the walls. That estimate, from memory, is lower, but then so is the window sill.
Both of us got a spot that is not explained by a young child standing on the sofa, therefore an alternative explanation is required.
Side note. I see the file name of your first photo ends in blood_spatter_pattern.jpg, which shows why this topic needs a bit of investigation.
Something which has just struck me is why just that wall? Is the section of wall with all the CSI stickers on it per chance where the settee was located?Isn't it a case of "dog goes woof" behind the sofa humans go into "hunt the cadaver remains" mode?
My apologies if I have missed this. It can be quite difficult catching up on a thread at times.
Now, when you say 'blood does not fluoresce under UV light' do you mean one cannot find blood spots with UV light? That would be a big step forward in understanding what happened.
Something which has just struck me is why just that wall? Is the section of wall with all the CSI stickers on it per chance where the settee was located?If you look at the dog videos, there was a settee in there backed up to the window, that had to be removed to let Eddie and Keela onto the tiles for a good sniff.
if the stains were only visible under uv light then they were not bloodThat's another assertion, without any backing evidence.
This might help...Amber alert. Textusa is fairly good re research, but does get it wrong, as we all do. Textusa is currently assigning spot 9 to C Gordon, the same child who left a stain on the bedcover in the children's bedroom in 5A.
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html
Stains on FLOOR:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ckSQI4xWp7o/UgtJFpBTh4I/AAAAAAAAGdo/Y_bz1oEkcKM/s400/5A+floor+DNA.JPG)
# 1 - incomplete
# 2 - mixed
# 3 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)
Stains on EAST wall:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JU3EunmCWYo/Ui2speQUF4I/AAAAAAAAGm0/TwTWOoEh8Fg/s400/5A+East+wall+DNA.JPG)
# 4 - incomplete
# 5 - mixed
# 6 - too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison
# 13 - unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
Stains on NORTH wall:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KusW0FZIfKQ/Ui2svev08FI/AAAAAAAAGm8/IlE-q0NUVao/s400/5A+North+wall+DNA.JPG)
# 7 - mixed
# 8 - too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison
# 9 - incomplete
# 10 - mixed
# 11 - unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
# 12 - mixed
Stains on COUCH:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A3B9Bs8AnjQ/UgtK9RW48lI/AAAAAAAAGeI/slPF1HwAG3w/s400/5A+couchl+DNA.JPG)
# 14 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)
# 15 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)
That's another assertion, without any backing evidence.
I've asked Carana if this information can be proved. I will cross-check on this myself because my next blog post will be about what shows up under UV light.
So how about you. Do you have a cite for your assertion?
That's another assertion, without any backing evidence.
I've asked Carana if this information can be proved. I will cross-check on this myself because my next blog post will be about what shows up under UV light.
So how about you. Do you have a cite for your assertion?
The answer is quite straightforward.Thanks for helping to clarify.
Shining a UV light will help to highlight subtle differences. If a liquid is spilled on a material and dries it will leave a residue. This can be hard to detect under normal light but will show up under a uv source.
So it can be handy in showing where something has spilt and dried but Will not distinguish the type of liquid. That will require microscopic or chemical analysis.
While we are about it, The marks on the wall are not blood splatter. Sorry to disappoint. Blood splatter from an injury produces a quite characteristic pattern. What is seen in the photos of the wall are just random grubby marks.
Thanks for helping to clarify.
Question. "Blood spatter from an injury produces a quite characteristic pattern." Does it? I would have thought that depended on the type of injury.
I'm curious because on my blog I have ruled out a gunshot injury pattern and a repeated bludgeoning injury pattern, and I'm keen to rule out any other pattern that does not fit the photo.
Random grubby marks may well be the truth, but I would like to 'prove' what the photo shows. As best as I can.
what do you mean by prove....prove is a word used very loosely on here...yet we have absolute proof.....beyond reasonable doubt....and on the balance of probablities...which one do you mean
any advance on...no blood...no splatter and no connection to Maddie
ou watch many of the TV “Cop” shows, you will see at some point those working a crime scene using a blue light in search of invisible blood (blood stains that were cleaned up). Shazam! Blue-white stains appear all over the floors, walls and objects sitting around the crime scene! But in reality—this cannot happen. You see, blood does not fluoresce by applying UV or visible blue light.Thank you for this.
Blood, even minute quantities that remain after clean-up, can be made to “luminesce;” that is, by spraying certain chemicals such as Luminol, BlueStar or Fluorescene on the various surfaces, blood will luminesce, or simply “glow in the dark”—and adding blue light is not necessary. So what can alternate light sources reveal? Although blood does not fluoresce, certain other physiological fluids will. UV alternate light sources can reveal the following: seminal fluid, saliva and urine stains. Also, certain narcotics will fluoresce as will bone and teeth fragments.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/alternatelightsources-print.html
Thanks for helping to clarify.
Question. "Blood spatter from an injury produces a quite characteristic pattern." Does it? I would have thought that depended on the type of injury.
I'm curious because on my blog I have ruled out a gunshot injury pattern and a repeated bludgeoning injury pattern, and I'm keen to rule out any other pattern that does not fit the photo.
Random grubby marks may well be the truth, but I would like to 'prove' what the photo shows. As best as I can.
Thank you for this.
However, it raises a few issues.
If correct, the pattern in the photo is seminal fluid, saliva or urine. Or narcotics, or bone or tooth fragment. Now the issue is, how did so much semen, saliva and urine get splattered over the walls. The walls where both dogs alerted.
It goes from bad to worse. The PT team, if correct, did not apply a test that would find blood. The FSS did not test for blood. Since a test for blood was supposedly not performed, then the only evidence we have on blood is ....
.... the dogs.
I am struggling with this one. Why would you deploy two dogs, get an alert on human blood (Keela) and on 'cadaverine' (Eddie), and then not get two forensic teams to look for any trace of blood, or any trace of cadaver?
Were both the PT team and the FSS as short as two thick planks? Someone might have died and they did NOT look for blood? Seriously?
No established connection.That may well be the wobble factor at the conclusion of the thread.
I agree SiL, those two walls and the settee were central to something and especially since the lower marks were all but hidden by the settee. Could all be perfectly innocent of course!
The question which should be being asked is why those two adjoining walls and nowhere else?
If you look at the dog videos, there was a settee in there backed up to the window, that had to be removed to let Eddie and Keela onto the tiles for a good sniff.
I think it might be in Amaral's book that Gerry allegedly stated that he pushed the sofa up against the wall because the kids were throwing cards behind it.
As to why just this wall, good question. Even if it was re the dog alerts, I think I would have had a look elsewhere in 5A, as a reference.
Perhaps it was thought the dogs were infallible.
I agree SiL, those two walls and the settee were central to something and especially since the lower marks were all but hidden by the settee. Could all be perfectly innocent of course!I don't know what was 'correct procedure' in PT in 2007. There was no CSI manual.
The question which should be being asked is why those two adjoining walls and nowhere else?
Isn't it a case of "dog goes woof" behind the sofa humans go into "hunt the cadaver remains" mode?
Detecting hidden blood stains in crime scenes
If you watch many of the TV “Cop” shows, you will see at some point those working a crime scene using a blue light in search of invisible blood (blood stains that were cleaned up). Shazam! Blue-white stains appear all over the floors, walls and objects sitting around the crime scene! But in reality—this cannot happen. You see, blood does not fluoresce by applying UV or visible blue light.
Blood, even minute quantities that remain after clean-up, can be made to “luminesce;” that is, by spraying certain chemicals such as Luminol, BlueStar or Fluorescene on the various surfaces, blood will luminesce, or simply “glow in the dark”—and adding blue light is not necessary. So what can alternate light sources reveal? Although blood does not fluoresce, certain other physiological fluids will. UV alternate light sources can reveal the following: seminal fluid, saliva and urine stains. Also, certain narcotics will fluoresce as will bone and teeth fragments.
Other uses of alternate light sources Indeed, many forms of physical evidence will fluoresce. But modern science has resulted in the development of chemicals that “make” objects fluoresce. When using fluorescent chemicals, latent fingerprint development can be greatly improved. Fluorescent latent print powders have the ability to make the latent residue on a surface fluoresce. The benefit here is that the ridges fluoresce brightly and when photographed, a multi-colored or confused background can be minimized to the point where it does not show up in photographs. Fluorescent liquids are used to develop latent prints on porous surfaces such as paper and cardboard.
Fluorescent dyes are used to enhance latent prints developed using superglue fuming. The use of alternate light sources provides a highly practical and efficient means of locating physical evidence at crime scenes. The invention and perfection of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) has further advanced evidence recovery since even 1 and 3 watt LEDs can be installed in small, hand-held flashlights, and their performance is remarkable.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/alternatelightsources-print.html
eta. Sorry just noticed davel posted a snippet from this already.
No doubt. I don't actually have a problem with examining the area of the dog alerts. What I do have a problem with is that myths are being perpetuated even nine years laters as to the implications, when the actual results drew a blank.
What's the point?
There is nothing in the files to indicate that chemical products had been used on that wall.
On what basis do you state that blood spatter is "not a myth"?
whats the point .....................
well seems to me not a myth ..
just missed opportunity ...........
thats the point.....
On what basis do you state that blood spatter is "not a myth"?
So, are you saying blood spatter in Apartment 5 A is not a myth, and is therefore a fact?
could be because the correct chemicals were not used ..............it could have been there ...
So, are you saying blood spatter in Apartment 5 A is not a myth, and is therefore a fact?
You go on believing that if it makes you happy.
oh....is that what i said......... @)(++(* @)(++(*......
i thought i posted this...........
could be because the correct chemicals were not used ..............it could have been there ...
It is interesting that we had that situation in Cipriano. Chemicals being used to clean a crimescene, human blood spatter on a wall and a mother who confessed to having accidentally killed her daughter by hitting her head off that same wall?
It is interesting that we had that situation in Cipriano. Chemicals being used to clean a crimescene, human blood spatter on a wall and a mother who confessed to having accidentally killed her daughter by hitting her head off that same wall?
My apologies if I have missed this. It can be quite difficult catching up on a thread at times.
Now, when you say 'blood does not fluoresce under UV light' do you mean one cannot find blood spots with UV light? That would be a big step forward in understanding what happened.
I harp on about it because it is claimed nearly all spots in this examination can be explained by human dust. Yet the sofa and the curtains are remarkably free of human dust.
Why should eddie have alerted to them....dead skin cells would not cause eddie to alert and skin cells are being shed all the time...eddie would not alert to saliva.....again saliva containg shed epithelial cells that would contain dna...eddie would not alert to sweat...again which may contain shed epithelial cells..
So there is your answer... Not tricky at all from the poster you claimed did not understand the dog alerts
@ SILExcellent stuff. Many thanks!
The current technology is SGM Plus, introduced in 1999, which looks at 10 STRs.
From a CPS paper, but link not working:
B4. Adventitious (chance) DNA Matches
B4.1 Move to 16-marker system (recommendation 23)
Lines to take
SGM Plus DNA profiling is very discriminating between individuals. The probability of obtaining a match between the profiles of two unrelated individuals by chance is very low, of the order of 1 in a billion. However, it has not yet been possible to carry out the required statistical testing to be able to quote this match probability, and in practice a more conservative chance match figure of 1 in 1,000 million is used.
The Government has every confidence in the current SGM Plus profiling technology but recognises that it should keep its reliability and level of discrimination under review.
The NDNAD now contains the profiles of over 3 million individuals from our population of 60 million. We are not aware of any chance match between two full SGM Plus profiles for unrelated individuals having been obtained to date. However, as the size of the NDNAD grows and as more international comparisons are made with other countries' DNA profiles, the probability, although currently very small, will increase.
The SGM Plus profiling system looks at 10 STR (short tandem repeat) areas of DNA. It would be technically possible to improve the discriminating power of the SGM Plus profiling system further by testing for more markers, for example by developing a profiling system which looks at 13 or 16 STRs.
Recent research studies by the European DNA Profiling Group (EDNAP) and the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) have demonstrated that the success rate for analysis of partly degraded samples (which may be found at crime scenes and which result in a partial profile with less than 21 markers) improved by using recently developed tests for markers based on mini-STRs (shorter lengths of DNA).
At a meeting earlier this year, EDNAP/ENFSI agreed that its strategy should be to incorporate tests for some of the mini-STRs into new profiling systems. It was also proposed that work should be undertaken to re-engineer the test for the existing markers in SGM Plus to make them easier to detect in degraded DNA.
For DNA profiling in the UK, this might mean the addition of tests for 3-6 of the new mini-STR markers to the current (possibly re-engineered) 10 SGM Plus markers, ideally in a single profiling technique i.e. the development of a technique which looks at 13-16 STR areas.
The international scientific community have agreed that the best way forward would be to develop a new 13-plex or 16-plex technique. This would also need to take account of the divergent requirements of the different European countries. The timescale for the development and introduction of a new multiplex profiling technique (one that looks at multiple markers) would be a commercial decision by the companies that make the multiplexes. It is estimated that the development of a new 13-plex or 16-plex could take 2-3 years. A 13 marker system would give match probabilities of about 1 in 10 (to the power 15) (compared to 1 in 10 (to the power 12) for SGM Plus).
Background Information
The technology used to obtain DNA profiles for the NDNAD looks at specific areas of DNA, known as short tandem repeats (STRs). STRs are known to vary widely between individuals by virtue of variation in their length and are therefore extremely useful for identification purposes.
The STRs are found only in the non-coding region of DNA and therefore provide no information of genetic significance e.g. about an individual's genetic predisposition to a medical condition.
The DNA technology used in forensic science has evolved enormously since DNA was first used in 1987. The first STR technique was introduced in 1994 and looked at only 4 STR areas. The next development was SGM (second generation multiplex) profiling which looked at 6 STRs. A multiplex is a profiling system which looks at more than one STR area.
The current technology is SGM Plus, introduced in 1999, which looks at 10 STRs. For each STR, there are 2 markers (or alleles), one from the individual's mother and one from their father. There is also a gender marker. A full DNA profile for the NDNAD therefore contains 20 markers and the gender marker.
When fewer than 20 markers have been determined - for example from degraded or incomplete samples from crime scenes - the level of discrimination is reduced accordingly.
The Government has every confidence in the current SGM Plus profiling technology but recognises that it should keep its reliability and level of discrimination under review.
The NDNAD now contains the profiles of over 3 million individuals from our population of 60 million. There is a very small probability of a chance match occurring between two full SGM Plus profiles for unrelated individuals, but we are not aware of any such chance match having been obtained to date. However, as the size of the NDNAD grows and as more international comparisons are made with other countries' DNA profiles, this probability, although small, will increase.
The risk of a chance match will also increase if the crime scene profile is a partial profile (i.e. does not have all 21 markers). Comparison of partial profiles from crime scene samples with full SGM Plus profiles from individuals on the NDNAD is thus more likely to result in matches being found relating to more than one individual. The evidential significance of a match between a suspect and a crime scene sample must always be considered in conjunction with other evidence available to the police.
B4.2 Current Practice in Preventing Adventitious Matches involving SGM Profiles
NB. The issue of how chance matches are avoided in relation to DNA profiles developed using the SGM system (which has now been replaced by SGM Plus) was raised at the last hearing of the Committee.
Lines to take
In relation to SGM to SGM matches (which test for only 6 STRs), Home Office Circular 58/2004 and the ACPO DNA Good Practice Guide advise that strong consideration should be given to upgrading the SGM suspect offender profile to SGM+ to ensure that the upgraded SGM+ suspect offender profile matches the crime scene profile before the matter comes to trial.
If the upgraded profile does not match with the crime scene profile, the NDNAD issues a Match Elimination Notification which indicates that the further analysis has eliminated the original SGM suspect offender profile from the SGM to SGM match. [The inference would be that the original SGM to SGM match was a chance match.]
It was suggested that a sampling exercise should be carried out to provide assurance that police forces were taking appropriate action to monitor and deal with SGM match notifications received from the Database.
The Home Office has recently written to several police forces to ask them about their procedures for considering the evidential quality of SGM matches e.g. whether such matches are upgraded to SGM+ and in what circumstances.
The forces have also been asked to undertake a case-tracking exercise of crimes with DNA SGM matches to look at how many SGM matches were upgraded to SGM+, how many continued to match the crime scene profile and, if not, whether the case went to court on the basis of other non-DNA evidence or whether there was insufficient evidence to proceed.
Background information
The SGM profiling technique was introduced in 1995 around the time that the NDNAD was established. SGM (second generation multiplex) tests for 6 STR areas or markers. It was subsequently replaced in 1999 by SGM Plus which test for 10 STR areas. Since June 1999, only SGM Plus profiles have been loaded on to the NDNAD.
In 2001, the National DNA Database Board recommended that consideration should be given, on a case by case basis, to upgrading any SGM profiles involved in a match, before taking any further steps, to minimise the risk of the match being adventitious (chance).
When a match involves an SGM profile, the police are made fully aware through caveats attached to the match report of its potential limitations as an intelligence tool for identifying suspects.
In 2004, the NDNAD and CPS agreed to a policy of charging on the basis of a Database match but only where there was sufficient supporting evidence. If the match involved an SGM profile, upgrading the profile to SGM Plus was recommended.
Link not working...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/scientific_evidence/adventitious_dna_matches/index.html
Excellent stuff. Many thanks!
If I boil this down into simple English, the 2 potential matches remaining for spot 4 were SGM, and the NDNAD had been loading only SGM+ since June 1999.
Therefore, the two matches had been loaded onto NDNAD about 8 years or more before M disappeared. And the persons supplying them had not been re-tested since then, at least in the UK.
So, for a match to be valid, these persons would have had to have dropped off UK radar for 8 years. Such as an innocent person in 1999, who commits a heinous crime in 2007. Or an offender who gets out of prison, then moves to Portugal. Or an offender in the UK who decides to avoid the NDNAD by simply leaving the country.
I wonder if the FSS or LP had access to the reason why those samples were on the NDNAD?
Switching back to the topic title, I understand that 1) an agent that reacted to blood was not used 2) UV was used, and it does not detect blood 3) the dogs did not alert to the walls. So far, it looks like the wall spots are probably not blood.
However, a visual examination of the area was conducted by the PT team, and we don't get told whether a given spot was found by naked eye or under UV light.
Into this mix we need to throw the samples that are attributed to more than one person. (Sorry, I haven't worked through the FSS report to count how many of these there were.)
In trying to come up with a feasible explanation, the best I can do is mosquitos. Not for all the spots, but just for the multi-person spots, however many there are. This would leave me unclear as to why these spots did not interest the dogs.
Is there anything that explains multi-person spots that should not interest the dogs?
SIL
Of course, there is going to be human dust everywhere. But, they only took swabs when something was noticed (either visually to the naked eye or through waving the torch around). There is no mention of having used luminol.
The torch makes many human fluids fluoresce (saliva, semen, sweat...), except blood.
The only person who claimed that there was blood on the wall is Amaral.
Thefss report in itself was dodgy in the way it described findings...inconsistent
I will dig into this again when I have finished on the "blood spatter" analysis. But from memory, at least in two instances Amaral was working from a report written by a PJ inspector, where an error crept in at the inspector stage i.e. the summary report itself was inaccurate.
I don't know how many instances of this there may be, though I guess I will be compiling a list of such instances from now on.
Due to the sheer volume of diligences, Amaral had to rely on his officers reporting accurately, rather than ignoring their reports and reading all the base material himself.
It is surprising that Mr Amaral relied on such a summary report from an officer probably no better qualified than he was himself to do so.As a person who was in charge of large teams for multiple years, I had a choice. I could do 100% of the work they did, re-check it all, or I could delegate and rely on the team. The max size team I handled was somewhere around 100 people. I chose to delegate.
He had access to the best Portuguese scientific personnel who could have given him an accurate interpretation of the information coming in from the FSS or who could have double checked the officer's report.
Neither procedure needed his direct involvement and he would have been assured he was building a case based on verified accurate information.
That simple procedure would have halted the constitution of Madeleine's parents as arguidos.
However I don't think the accuracy of the forensic evidence was his main priority.
Or having made the original error regarding the FSS report in the manner and for the reasons you describe why has he continually compounded it using every means at his disposal for nine years?
As a person who was in charge of large teams for multiple years, I had a choice. I could do 100% of the work they did, re-check it all, or I could delegate and rely on the team. The max size team I handled was somewhere around 100 people. I chose to delegate.
As to why Amaral does what he does today, I don't know. I suppose I need to finish off my blood splatter blog posts and hunt down what Amaral was told about the blood and the dogs. Topics that are both fascinating and at the same time, I suspect, are going to tell us nothing relevant about the case. But I could be wrong.
Btw its deleted but jean pierre posted on here that amaral got his info from the 3as forum and blood spatters story emanating from a bbc report that was seen once by some but never repeated or video captured so was not real even if they saw it lol and rememberd the reporters, anyway
The 3_as was created in nov 2007 after amaral left the investigation so nothng to do with him or the investigation at the time when they marked all them spots which was not known until aug/sept 08 for the files to be posted on 3as forum
Silly jp
Maybe huntng down the blood spatter theory story relayed by the bbc mght help
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t22461-broken-neck
what about all this crap?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-564776/BBC-chiefs-apologise-McCanns-blunder-saw-Madeline-film-scheduled-disappearance-anniversary.html
Dear god reading that forum 'missing madeleine', you can see all the twisted myths that are still being circulated today.
One of them has even got a picture of piles of money on a table in front of the McCann's when it was LETTERS they had in front of them in the original photo before some malicious idiot changed it.
Dear god reading that forum 'missing madeleine', you can see all the twisted myths that are still being circulated today.If it's the picture I'm thinking of, it's actually the McCanns who have been photoshopped into a picture of some women in Palestine counting money on a table.
One of them has even got a picture of piles of money on a table in front of the McCann's when it was LETTERS they had in front of them in the original photo before some malicious idiot changed it.
Ironic perhaps?What's ironic about it?
you sem to want to make excuses for the errors amde by amaral. It is quite simple he reached false conclusions from the available evidence...the buck stops with him and there is no one else to blameI prefer reality to some form of virtual fantasy world where the expectation is zero errors and 100% success. Otherwise we'd be discussing your spelling and use of capitals.
I prefer reality to some form of virtual fantasy world where the expectation is zero errors and 100% success. Otherwise we'd be discussing your spelling and use of capitals.You having a laugh? I do hope so.
You rely on predictive text, which makes errors. Amaral relied on his team, which made errors. I know which of these two I would pick.
I prefer reality to some form of virtual fantasy world where the expectation is zero errors and 100% success. Otherwise we'd be discussing your spelling and use of capitals.
You rely on predictive text, which makes errors. Amaral relied on his team, which made errors. I know which of these two I would pick.
when I post here i'm not too bothered about predictive text...spelling...punctuation and often post from a phone...because it doesn't matter.
professionally I am meticulous...amaral was sloppy...I know which one i would prefer
again you seem to want to make excuses for his sloppiness.
his book is still being sold containing content he knows not to be true...that is unprofessional and indefensible...yet you and others support him...strange
There is of course a school of thought that, a tidy mind = a tidy mind regardless of circumstances.
ie it's in your nature to be meticulous or it isn't in your nature and cannot be switched on and off off at will.
Meredith Belbin figured that out with his nine types years ago.
when I post here i'm not too bothered about predictive text...spelling...punctuation and often post from a phone...because it doesn't matter.Unless someone on this forum has met you when you were working, we would not have a clue as to whether you are meticulous in that sphere or not. Claiming you are meticulous does not make it so. Nor is it relevant. You are simply trotting out the idea of 'sloppy Amaral' without looking at what actually went on. The equivalent would be 'sloppy Rebelo', 'sloppy Redwood', and 'sloppy Wall'.
professionally I am meticulous...amaral was sloppy...I know which one i would prefer
again you seem to want to make excuses for his sloppiness.
his book is still being sold containing content he knows not to be true...that is unprofessional and indefensible...yet you and others support him...strange
then the school of thought is wrong and I'm living proof
Unless someone on this forum has met you when you were working, we would not have a clue as to whether you are meticulous in that sphere or not. Claiming you are meticulous does not make it so. Nor is it relevant. You are simply trotting out the idea of 'sloppy Amaral' without looking at what actually went on. The equivalent would be 'sloppy Rebelo', 'sloppy Redwood', and 'sloppy Wall'.i don't give a toss whether you believe i am meticulous in my profession or not. What matters is what my meticulous approach gives me....one taht I don't have to move country because my children are being bullied at school....i can afford to send them to a school that has zero tolerance to bullying.
It's cheap. It's easy. It's sloppy.
Amaral headed up a large, unprecedented investigation, and did not solve the case. Rebelo, Redwood and Wall have done the same. And that is called reality.
Unless someone on this forum has met you when you were working, we would not have a clue as to whether you are meticulous in that sphere or not. Claiming you are meticulous does not make it so. Nor is it relevant. You are simply trotting out the idea of 'sloppy Amaral' without looking at what actually went on. The equivalent would be 'sloppy Rebelo', 'sloppy Redwood', and 'sloppy Wall'.When you yourself have been extremely snooty about the Met's investigation in PdL led by Andy Redwood, perhaps you could explain why one is not allowed to criticise Amaral's investigation at all as far as you're concerned?
It's cheap. It's easy. It's sloppy.
Amaral headed up a large, unprecedented investigation, and did not solve the case. Rebelo, Redwood and Wall have done the same. And that is called reality.
i don't give a toss whether you believe i am meticulous in my profession or not. What matters is what my meticulous approach gives me....one taht I don't have to move country because my children are being bullied at school....i can afford to send them to a school that has zero tolerance to bullying...again perhaps you should cease your personal attacksThe issue is that you are applying the same approach here as you are to the alleged blood spatter.
The issue is that you are applying the same approach here as you are to the alleged blood spatter.
You are asserting a position. You are claiming superiority. Both happen to be wrong.
With Amaral, you are asserting that he should have understood the so-called blood, without looking at what information was put to him, and when. Then you apply the label 'sloppy'.
Your approach in this matter is without merit.
most of your posts towards me today as everyone has seen are without merit and thinly disguised personal attacksThen you should find it easy to prove what the spots are or what they are not.
you should concentrate on the title of the thread...no blood...no splatter and no connection to maddie
Then you should find it easy to prove what the spots are or what they are not.
You should be able to prove they are not blood.
And you should be able to prove they are not connected to Madeleine.
You can't. Merely further unsupported assertions. Hardly a meticulous approach. Quite the opposite.
Then you should find it easy to prove what the spots are or what they are not.
You should be able to prove they are not blood.
And you should be able to prove they are not connected to Madeleine.
You can't. Merely further unsupported assertions. Hardly a meticulous approach. Quite the opposite.
In his book Amaral claims as a fact that Eddie alerted to that wall - which is still claimed by some to have been 'blood spattered.Interesting appraisal Benice.
Quote (ch 16)
The investigators have hardly recovered from their amazement, when another, equally impressive, howl startles them. This time, Eddie has picked out that same odour under the window, just behind the sofa, on one of the walls in the lounge. That evening, in apartment 5A, the investigators begin to glimpse what might have happened.
End quote
Their conclusions that evening (before forensic testing) on ''what might have happened'' is a classic example of putting two and two together (before all the facts are known) and making five. And then sticking to their 'conclusions' inspite of the results of forensic testing which did not support them in any way.
AIMHO