Does Madeleine have the right to be found?

[Robittybob1]

For yourself and Brietta.
Martin Grime

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is “cadaver scent” contaminant.  This  does  not  how  however  suggest  a  motive  or suspect  as  cross  contamination   could  be  as  a  result  of  a  number  of  given  scenarios"

I didn't think it was that difficult to understand but he seems to be saying the alert is suggestive to cadaver scent but it is possible it is a result of cross contamination.  The motive or suspect are not necessary for understanding his statement IMO.

It seems very clear to me.

So if cross contamination had occurred as Martin Grime said it was possible, what sort of situations would that occur in "as  a  result  of  a  number  of  given  scenarios".  What sort of scenarios are you considering?

[slartibartfast]

Well would you say the same if they located a perfect match to Madeleine's DNA  at the locations that Keela had alerted at?  Had the FSS came back with a match to the blood spot samples found in the apartment and the body fluid samples in the hire car, would you have described them as "just information"?

By definition corroborating evidence is "just information" "that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence".

Madeleine had been in the apartment so finding her DNA there could be expected.  So how can Madeleine's DNA in the apartment be considered corroborating evidence?  That is the question no one has really been able to answer.

Yet all the emphasis was on finding Madeleine's DNA at that location, so why were they doing that?

Unknown DNA in the apartment means there is unknown DNA in the apartment. It doesn’t add anything to the understanding of whether or not there was a body or contamination.

[Robittybob1]

Unknown DNA in the apartment means there is unknown DNA in the apartment. It doesn’t add anything to the understanding of whether or not there was a body or contamination.

But if that DNA match was found at all the sites where Keela and Eddie alerted (as a combination), surely we would need to ask who's DNA it was or how this cross contamination occurred?

[slartibartfast]

But if that DNA match was found at all the sites where Keela and Eddie alerted (as a combination), surely we would need to ask who's DNA it was or how this cross contamination occurred?

Yes, but it is the same as the alerts, it doesn’t show what happened or why.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, but it is the same as the alerts, it doesn’t show what happened or why.

It is not always possible to understand another person, but your post hinted to me that you are now thinking that DNA results in themselves are "the same as the alerts, it doesn’t show what happened or why", in other words are not that great as corroborating evidence.

I had previously listed what might be great corroborating evidence, that list of witnesses, and that brought to my attention the lack interviews of people in the area, and I wonder why the PJ put so much attention on interviewing staff at the Millennium Restaurant.  Block 4, 5, 6 and even block 2 residents may have seen something.  You would think the usual police practice of canvassing the neighbourhood would have been the best option of getting a potential witness.  Their statements are missing from the file.

[slartibartfast]

It is not always possible to understand another person, but your post hinted to me that you are now thinking that DNA results in themselves are "the same as the alerts, it doesn’t show what happened or why", in other words are not that great as corroborating evidence.

I had previously listed what might be great corroborating evidence, that list of witnesses, and that brought to my attention the lack interviews of people in the area, and I wonder why the PJ put so much attention on interviewing staff at the Millennium Restaurant.  Block 4, 5, 6 and even block 2 residents may have seen something.  You would think the usual police practice of canvassing the neighbourhood would have been the best option of getting a potential witness.  Their statements are missing from the file.

Finding a complete match for Madeleine’s DNA would have been different.

[Robittybob1]

Finding a complete match for Madeleine’s DNA would have been different.

But they did find a full match of Madeleine's DNA on the window sill.  I don't know much about that sample, which window sill and why did they take a sample from there? But that just goes to show that it would have been possible to get a match to Madeleine's DNA anywhere in that apartment.

So can you explain why you think "finding a complete match for Madeleine’s DNA would have been different"?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html

"A sample that was a full match to Madeleine's DNA was allegedly found on the windowsill of the McCanns' apartment at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. Although the nature of the sample was not disclosed, previous reports claimed that blood had been found by sniffer dogs.

One Portuguese newspaper claimed that "biological fluids" with an 80 per cent match to Madeleine were found under the carpet in the boot of the McCanns' hire car, which was rented 25 days after she disappeared.

Forensic experts in the UK have pointed out that if the samples found in the car were hair or skin they would be of little evidential value as they could have rubbed off Madeleine's toys or clothing."

[Robittybob1]

This article discusses both sides of the debate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481124/Madeleine-The-sinister-innocent-explanations-polices-DNA-evidence.html

One statement there is quite mind boggling "Police refuse to say whether they have investigated who hired the car in the 25 days between Madeleine's disappearance and when the McCanns collected the vehicle from the hire company"
 
Who's to say that the alleged abductor hadn't used the car prior to the McCanns hiring it!

[barrier]

This article discusses both sides of the debate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481124/Madeleine-The-sinister-innocent-explanations-polices-DNA-evidence.html

One statement there is quite mind boggling "Police refuse to say whether they have investigated who hired the car in the 25 days between Madeleine's disappearance and when the McCanns collected the vehicle from the hire company"
 
Who's to say that the alleged abductor hadn't used the car prior to the McCanns hiring it!

Who's to say there is an alleged abductor first.

[Robittybob1]

Who's to say there is an alleged abductor first.

What options do you consider?  Abduction is one of the options in the McCann case.  Surely you are aware of that!

[Robittybob1]

This article discusses both sides of the debate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481124/Madeleine-The-sinister-innocent-explanations-polices-DNA-evidence.html

One statement there is quite mind boggling "Police refuse to say whether they have investigated who hired the car in the 25 days between Madeleine's disappearance and when the McCanns collected the vehicle from the hire company"
 
Who's to say that the alleged abductor hadn't used the car prior to the McCanns hiring it!

I'll edit that since Barrier noted the issue with "alleged abductor":

"This article discusses both sides of the debate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481124/Madeleine-The-sinister-innocent-explanations-polices-DNA-evidence.html

One statement there is quite mind boggling "Police refuse to say whether they have investigated who hired the car in the 25 days between Madeleine's disappearance and when the McCanns collected the vehicle from the hire company"
 
For those who support the abduction option:
Who's to say that the abductor hadn't used the Renault car prior to the McCanns hiring it!

[G-Unit]

This article discusses both sides of the debate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481124/Madeleine-The-sinister-innocent-explanations-polices-DNA-evidence.html

One statement there is quite mind boggling "Police refuse to say whether they have investigated who hired the car in the 25 days between Madeleine's disappearance and when the McCanns collected the vehicle from the hire company"
 
Who's to say that the alleged abductor hadn't used the car prior to the McCanns hiring it!

Just because the police refused to say whether they had done something it doesn't follow that they hadn't done it.
All those who rented the car before the McCanns were interviewed.

[Robittybob1]

Just because the police refused to say whether they had done something it doesn't follow that they hadn't done it.
All those who rented the car before the McCanns were interviewed.

But why keep it secret?  What would happen if that car had been the car hired by the Weinburgers?  OK it seems fairly unlikely that two families at OC would end up just coincidentally hiring the same car, but weirder things have happened in the past.
I chose the Weinburgers since on their arrivals listing they say they wanted a car rather than travelling on the bus.

[Robittybob1]

Just because the police refused to say whether they had done something it doesn't follow that they hadn't done it.
All those who rented the car before the McCanns were interviewed.

All those who rented the car before the McCanns were interviewed.

How did you know that?

I found one site: http://themaddiecasefiles.com/statements-from-those-who-rented-the-renault-sceni-t532.html

I see one lot were questioned but they hired the car even bore the McCanns had even landed in Portugal

"The car was returned to the rental agency at the airport on 25th March 2007."  Well that was a waste of time!

Earlier lot hired the car just before the McCanns did
"He had collected the vehicle from the AAC premises in Praia da Rocha on 17 May, having returned it at the premises of the school where he worked, where an employee of the rental company had gone [to collect it] on 22 May."

We still need to cover the 27th April to 14 May period.  Particularly where was it on the night of the 3rd May 2007.