Author Topic: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....  (Read 3878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2013, 11:57:03 PM »
I have sorted the quotes so pleeeease take care when quoting because the error stacks up with every consecutive post!   8)><(

I find this happens too when I use my Blackberry to post so please make sure you insert your comment after the last quote as gilet suggests.

You can edit or delete your previous posts if you want.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 12:00:26 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2013, 12:05:39 AM »
I have sorted the quotes so pleeeease take care when quoting because the error stacks up with every consecutive post!   8)><(

I find this happens too when I use my Blackberry to post so please make sure you insert your comment after the last quote as gilet suggests.

You can edit or delete your previous posts if you want.

There there 

*offers tissue*

thanks for for your efforts

Offline gilet

Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2013, 12:20:28 AM »
Thank you.

Offline gilet

Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2013, 12:42:43 AM »
To the right of the previous video that I reviewed, I found a link to a further Hideho video about the car.

I have made a few comments about that one as well.

If I have made any errors in the post I will willingly correct them. It is very hard to be 100% accurate in every post made about such a massive topic when like me you are not an expert.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8NVS-_19g0


0:19 Question asked on the video: "Was Madeleine's body moved in the McCann's car rented THREE WEEKS after Madeleine's disappearance?

0:24 TV Interviewer asks blunt question of the McCanns "Did you kill your daughter?"

0:26 Gerry and Kate answer. Gerry makes the point that it would have been impossible to hide her in the face of an immediate search. Kate makes the entirely logical point that moving a body after it having been successfully hidden would be foolish.

0:45 You post that "Residue/cellular material" was found in the trunk of the car and sent for forensic testing.  You fail to point out that the testing found no blood matching Madeleine and the DNA match was inconclusive.

0:47 You then lie (and I use that word deliberately) in the next shot by stating that Kate McCann chose to deny the existence (the implication being of the "residue/cellular matter" which you have just referred to) UNDER OATH (your emphasis) at the Leveson Inquiry.

You are fully aware that Kate McCann did no such thing. She was very specific at Leveson (you know this because you used the clip immediately after this in this video) that there were no body fluids found in the car. She never denied the existence of "residue/cellular material". You have simply posted in this video a blatant and libellous claim.

0:56 Extremely short clip of Kate McCann saying there were no body fluids in the car, proving that you know full well that Kate never denied the existence of "residue/cellular material" as you have claimed. I repeat you have simply lied.

1:00 Screen with the claim that 15/19 markers matched Madeleine's DNA. Again a lie. The 15 markers which matched Madeleine's DNA and very crucially that of other people as well were from the 37 which were identified.

1.:03 You then correctly state that it was "Considered inconclusive and not PROOF it was Madeleine's".
Unfortunately you then return to the irrelevant comments made in your previous video in this short series about the car.

1.08 The FBI statement has nothing to do with the McCann case. It does not take into account the fact that this low quality DNA sample from the car was from at least three separate people.

If you can show what possible relevance this CODIS information from the USA has to the McCann situation where a mixed sample of three people's DNA is being tested I would be grateful. If you cannot show relevance I will assume it is irrelevant as I believe, having read your post on the aimoo forum where again you provide no indication of relevance.

I have a strong suspicion that you have not understood that the figures in the McCann case are 15/37 not 15/19 as you so often quote and your contention that 15/15 or 19/19 would be even more unlikely shows lack of knowledge about the specifics of the McCann case. However I will freely admit my error if relevance is proven.

1:20 You then repeat your links to the quotes from Madame Adamis from the previous video. And once again you fail to point out that this is not a comparable situation to the one that was put to Madame Adamis. She was clear that only in a case of a quality DNA profile which this McCann profile is not and in the case of it being 15/19 markers which in this case it is not should her comments be taken as true and only then would the 1 in a billion claim you repeat be true.

Either deliberately or through a lack of understanding of the differences between what Adamis is saying and what is actually extant in the McCann case you are clearly posting information here which is totally incorrect and which is clearly misinforming the viewers of the video.

2:00 You show a video clip of the McCanns and Mitchell where he states that there are entirely innocent explanations for the claims made against them. As people who are claiming to be innocent you would expect them to offer such explanations.

2.04 Sky news video continues. Three DNA explanations are given by a source (possibly though not necessarily Mitchell).
Sweat from her flip flops.
Nappies from twins.
Up to 30 others who used the car whilst it was on hire including blood relatives.

2:30 Martin Brunt asked to explain some of variables relating to DNA in car including that it might not have been Madeleine herself in the car.

2.48 Brunt says evidence says very strongly that it was not her DNA that has been transferred. He then has to correct himself when he has said it is a fact that the DNA shows a full match to Madeleine, a 99%+ match, to it just being an allegation. He then says this allegation, according to the police, shows the presence of her body, not her clothing or the transfer of her DNA onto anything else. He claims the police are adamant that this shows that this was Madeleine's body in the boot of the family car at least five weeks after she disappeared.

BUT (as you so often say in your videos).

You know as I know that none of this allegation by the police was factual. You know as I know that these allegations bore no resemblance whatsoever to the actual FSS report on the DNA which John Lowe was clear was inconclusive.

Once again you have simply used the false news reports from six years ago to back up your story and have not offered the slightest clarification that the story has since been proven to be nothing more than the allegation which Blunt described it as.

You are being utterly deceitful and deliberately denigrating the McCann explanations when you know that your so-called facts are nothing but unsupported allegations.

3:16 Next you quote Amaral who says that everything pointed to the body having been moved by car twenty something days after the disappearance.

As he was presumably aware of the Lowe report which provided no evidence of any such claim it is a reasonable question to ask why this man, convicted of lying in another similar missing child case, should be making this claim.

Was it deliberate or did he lack understanding?

3:35 Brunt reappears this time talking about body fluids in the car from a de-composing body.
Unfortunately like the PJ, Brunt never provided the slightest evidence for any such body fluids or for a de-composing body in the hire car. It was as we all now realise media hype (later punished in many cases by large financial penalties) based on the leaks from the PJ which Brunt freely admitted on air.

3.44 Next you post the extraordinary claim by Amaral that being police experts they can say that the type of body fluid in the car indicates the cadaver was frozen. Total and utter invention. As there was no body fluid in the car it is impossible for this to be supported by evidence. By the release of the files this has been shown to be utterly untrue.

Why you still publish in your video such imaginative rubbish is a poignant question which impinges on your underlying motives and/or understanding of the facts in the case.

3:47 You carry on posting the imaginative nonsense from Amaral about the hot weather melting the body and when the car was on a curb something fell above the wheel.

Where do you think the evidence for all this is? In the missing pages of the files? If so, why was no reference made to these body fluids in the FSS report? Nothing there suggesting fluids of any kind let alone ones which had melted out of a decomposing frozen corpse. It is complete fantasy and very sick fantasy at that.

And a very significant propaganda point is just how long you have allowed these particular shots within your video.
In comparison to other sections they hold their position on screen far longer. Why, I wonder might  that be?

3.58 Having spent 10 full seconds on the 15 words about the curb and something falling on the wheel, you now only allow 4 seconds for the 18 word screen explaining that even Amaral only considers this frozen body scenario to be SPECULATION.

That is an extremely telling time allocation, something that matters to video makers, something they spend a lot of time deciding.

Your time priorities for the screenshots are very good indicators of your bias.

4:10 Further circumstantial claims about the car boot being seen open are not developed beyond saying that there was a possible reason given by Sandy Cameron about blood having seeped from a plastic bag and the car was aired after this.

4:19 2 second shot of the car with its boot open. Could have been at any time for any length of time but your insinuation is that it was part of some cover up to justify the blood and smell in the car as you lead on to ...

4:21 Amaral speculating on this possibility. And him claiming that the boot of the vehicle was left open overnight.
Is there any reference to this boot being open overnight in the files or is this something only Amaral knows about?

Or is it just a media story like so many others? I genuinely do not know so would appreciate a pointer to the source.

4:28 You then introduce your climactic point about this open boot, that cadaver and blood dogs only detect human odour and fluids.

Since you have gone from the speculation about the reason for the boot being open to this it seems you are pointing us towards a very illuminating claim.

But, you then spoil it again with your reliance on those old news reports.

4.32 Sky again saying a full match and a partial match of DNA was recovered after the dog alerts. 

Unfortunately for your propaganda that was proven to be completely wrong by the reports.  It is very strange that you missed those reports from John Lowe which utterly debunk this claim on Sky and are still propagating these myths. One could almost believe it was deliberate.

5:04 A man on the Sky report says the parents will be worried. Innocent or guilty they would be worried. If they know they are innocent, even without the FSS report they will know that the claims are ludicrous (as Kate stated in your video).

And of course once they read the files and saw the Lowe report they knew how justified in their worry they were and how right they had been to be worried.

I believe it both to be sad and at the same time shameful that having had time to digest the full forensic reports you continue to peddle this speculative nonsense in the way you do.

Again if I have made any errors in what I have claimed about the video I stand to be corrected.





icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2013, 12:50:55 AM »
Goodness me !
 
I have never viewed any of these videos in question,  but I think I will make a journey to youtube  ...  to check out what deserves such forensic dissecting

Offline Eleanor

Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2013, 01:05:30 AM »

Snort.  Sorry, sorry.  Couldn't help myself.

Offline gilet

Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2013, 01:11:43 AM »
Goodness me !
 
I have never viewed any of these videos in question,  but I think I will make a journey to youtube  ...  to check out what deserves such forensic dissecting

I find it hard to credit that someone who has followed the case for any length of time has not come across these videos. One thing Hideho is not short of is self-publicity.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2013, 01:16:24 AM »
Goodness me !
 
I have never viewed any of these videos in question,  but I think I will make a journey to youtube  ...  to check out what deserves such forensic dissecting

I find it hard to credit that someone who has followed the case for any length of time has not come across these videos. One thing Hideho is not short of is self-publicity.

Well it's true gilet

Apart from this one, the only forum I post on is digital spy

It's ages since the McCann case was discussed there,  and ages since I contributed to the debate  ...  there was no mention of videos at that time

I will look them up now though

Offline gilet

Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2013, 01:20:56 AM »
You will need plenty of time to go through them. I think there are about 300 - 400 minutes in total.

I would normally say, "Enjoy" but not in this case.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2013, 08:29:59 AM »
Back on topic.

Was Madeleine's hair found in the Scenic?

No:


There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.

Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of
insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.

Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.

Conclusion

In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.


http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10-10.html

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2013, 08:33:42 AM »
Was cadaver odor detected in the Scenic?

NO.

BOth Eddie and Keela reacted. Blood was found in the car ( Gerry's). So no detection of cadaver odor.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2013, 08:42:16 AM »
No identification of material from Madeleine was found in the Scenic:

Task Portugal

From: "Prior Stuart" <Stuart.Prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
To: "Task Portugal" <Task.Portugal@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence

---

>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 the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, 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?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

John Lowe
Forensic Scientist
Major Incidents Team
Priory House


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2013, 12:20:05 PM »
Was cadaver odor detected in the Scenic?

NO.

BOth Eddie and Keela reacted. Blood was found in the car ( Gerry's). So no detection of cadaver odor.

How can you know, with certainty, that  Eddie the cadaver dog was not alerting to cadaver odor ?

If there was both blood and  cadaver odor, then both dogs would alert,  wouldn't they  ? 

( genuine question,  because I'm not sure of the answer )

Offline Luz

Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2013, 12:39:36 PM »
Mr. Lowe sold himself short.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Please add Myth number 3: Madeleine's DNA was found in the Scenic....
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2013, 12:41:25 PM »
Mr. Lowe sold himself short.

Mr. Lowe understands Forensics and DNA.  You obviously don't.