The timeline revisited

[Mr Gray]

You do this dog great injustice if you think that Eddie would alert to " an irrelevant scent" .

You need an imo there

[Snowgirl]

You need an imo there

I don't you know . He would be of absolutely no use in what he had been trained to alert to if he was simply going to react to an irrelevant scent in any given situation .

[Mr Gray]

I don't you know . He would be of absolutely no use in what he had been trained to alert to if he was simply going to react to an irrelevant scent in any given situation .

Yes you do... Are you suggesting everytime Eddie alerts is cannot be a false alert

[Carana]

You do this dog great injustice if you think that Eddie would alert to " an irrelevant scent" .

He reacted to the the scent of human (and porcine) decomposition. That could be any number of things, not just a dead body.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The alerts could have been coincidental (no one really know what decomposition odour Eddie reacted to), possibly even some irrelevant scent left by subsequent occupants.

I agree and that’s why the dog alerts are completely irrelevant IMO and I believe that view is shared by the Met as they have ruled out parental involvement.

[Snowgirl]

I agree and that’s why the dog alerts are completely irrelevant IMO and I believe that view is shared by the Met as they have ruled out parental involvement.

Ah , capitals noted !
The  Met have told us that the PJ dealt with investigating the parents ( so it was not in their remit)although the Supreme Court ruling was worded rather differently to what you believe the Met have ruled out wasn't it?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I agree and that’s why the dog alerts are completely irrelevant IMO and I believe that view is shared by the Met as they have ruled out parental involvement.

But we also had Keela's alerts and the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis. It wasn't just Eddie that alerted.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Using logic and common sense it is impossible to derive a plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement.  By all means try to prove me wrong.

So just to be clear, when Redwood said the Met were considering the possibility that Madeleine might have been dead when she was removed from the apartment, do you believe that they were considering parental involvement as a possible scenario? If not, then what "plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement."

[Brietta]

But we also had Keela's alerts and the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis. It wasn't just Eddie that alerted.

The point being that "the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis" perhaps verified the alert of both dogs to the blood deposited there as proved by forensic analysis.

So what exactly did the dogs alert to


After seeing the images and in agreement with the officers of DIC of Portimao it was defined that the undersigned should proceed with the recovery of four tiles. It was also defined that this operation of recovery of the tiles would also be filmed.

When looking at the images referred to above it was observed that the floor tiles to be recovered were situated in an area of the living room next to a window where there was a sofa and that the tiles referred to were underneath that sofa.
_____________________________________________________________________

As requested by investigating officers of the DIC of Portimao it was performed the lifting and respective recovery of the four tiles and of the skirting board next to them (they being identified with numbers 1 to 4) using a tile trimmer, a flat chisel [spelling mistake in report: "escopo" should be "escopro"] and a hammer.

After the recovery of the four tiles and the skirting board the dog specialised in the detection of traces of human blood was put into the area from where the tiles had been recovered, the English police officer who coordinated the movement of the dog, Martin Grime, having informed the undersigned that they should proceed with the recovery of another piece of tile that was close to the area from where the tile identified as number 1 had been lifted, that terminating the recovery of the tiles signalled by the dog. As requested the undersigned performed the lifting of and the recovery of the piece of tile indicated.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_EDDIE-KEELA.htm
_____________________________________________________________________

FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 9

Objects attributed to the Apartment 5A of the Ocean Club

286/2007-CRL (1) Pieces of floor-tile identified as number 1
A DNA result by LCN, that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex for a meaningful interpretation, was obtained from the cellular material collected from these floor tiles.

286/2007-CRL (2) Pieces of floor-tile identified as number 2
An inconclusive, incomplete DNA result, consisting of only some unconfirmed DNA components, was obtained from the cellular material recovered from the edges of floor-tile 2 from the apartment floor. The attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from the larger area of floor-tile 2 was unfruitful, given that it was not possible to obtain any DNA profile. These samples were then subjected to LCN analysis.

An incomplete, low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material in an area of floor-tile 2. In my opinion, there is not any positive proof that supports the theory of any of the members of the McCann family to have contributed DNA to this result. A DNA result was obtained through LCN consistent with only one DNA component from a second area of floor-tile 2. In my opinion, this component leaves no room for any other interpretation.

286/2007-CRL (3) Pieces of floor-tile identified as number 3
The attempts to a DNA profile from any cellular material in two areas of this floor-tile were unfruitful, given that no DNA profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN analysis.

FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 10

A DNA result that consisted of only some DNA components was obtained through LCN analysis of cellular material recovered from one area of floor-tile 3. In my opinion, this result left no room for any other interpretation. The attempt made the obtain a DNA profile through LCN from a second area of floor-tile 3 was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained.

286/2007-CRL (4) Pieces of floor-tile identified as number 4
Low-level DNA results were obtained through LCN from cellular material present in swabs collected from these floor-tiles. In my opinion, this resuly contained information too meagre [scanty/poor] to permit a meaningful comparison.

286/2007-CRL (5) Pieces of floor-tile identified close to number 1
The attempt to obtain a DNA result through the LCN technique from some cellular material present in swabs collected from the marks [spots] 1, 2 and 3 were unfruitful, given that no DNA profile was obtained.

286/2007-CRL (6) Pieces of skirting board identified as number 1
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from these objects.

FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 11

286/2007-CRL (7) Pieces of skirting board identified as number 2
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered from these objects.

286/2007-CRL (8) Pieces of skirting board identified as numbers 2 and 3
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered from these objects.

286/2007-CRL (9) Pieces of skirting board identified as number 3
A DNA result that contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in swabs collected from these objects.

286/2007-CRL (10) Pieces of skirting board identified as number 4
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered from these objects.

FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 12

286/2007-CRL (11) Pieces of skirting board identified close to number 1
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered from these objects.

286/2007-CRL (12) Pieces of skirting board identified close to number 4
Low-level DNA results were obtained through LCN from cellular material present in swabs collected from these objects. In my opinion, there exists no proof that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results.

286/2007-CRL (13) Residual/small fragments in the area of the skirting board.
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

286/2007-CRL (14) Dust/small fragments in the area of the floor tiles
This object was not adequate to perform DNA profile tests.

FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 13

286/2007-CRL (15) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

286/2007-CRL (16) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 1
A DNA profile that did not match any [of the five members] of the McCann family was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered in that area.

286/2007-CRL (17) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 2
A DNA profile that appeared to be from at least two sources was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered in that area. In my opinion, the major part of the profile matched that of Lino Henriques. Breaking [departing] from the principle, for it to have had a DNA contribution from Lino Henriques then the remaining information in the smaller part of the result is too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.

286/2007-CRL (18) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 3
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 14

286/2007-CRL (19) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 4
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

286/2007-CRL (20) Fragments of floor tile and grouting
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-forensic-science-service-lowe-report-t10.html

Who is  Lino Henriques

None other than the guy tasked with lifting the floor tiles and who apparently was the only forensically recognised contributor to any of the samples collected from the tiled floor of Apartment 5A

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ah , capitals noted !
The  Met have told us that the PJ dealt with investigating the parents ( so it was not in their remit)although the Supreme Court ruling was worded rather differently to what you believe the Met have ruled out wasn't it?

What has the Supreme Court got to do with the Met’s opinion of the parents’ involvement?  I always capitalise IMO FYI.

[Vertigo Swirl]

But we also had Keela's alerts and the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis. It wasn't just Eddie that alerted.

I never said it was, why are you erecting yet another strawman?  Dog alerts = all alerts by both dogs, both now consigned to the doghouse of history by all but the most ardent McCann sceptic.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So just to be clear, when Redwood said the Met were considering the possibility that Madeleine might have been dead when she was removed from the apartment, do you believe that they were considering parental involvement as a possible scenario? If not, then what "plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement."

No I do not believe they were considering parental involvement when he said that but look, I am once again answering your questions when you refuse to answer mine!  How about YOU answer the questions I ask you for once? 

[Carana]

But we also had Keela's alerts and the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis. It wasn't just Eddie that alerted.

I'm aware that Keela also reacted in the flat, however nothing of significance was found.

Haver you read the report?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

There's also a lengthy thread on DNA on here, which explored the topic fairly extensively.

[Snowgirl]

What has the Supreme Court got to do with the Met’s opinion of the parents’ involvement?  I always capitalise IMO FYI.

Not the Met's " opinion" at all ,don't you understand how these announcements are carefully constructed ? I expect not if you're not a member of a police force .
The Supreme Court  of Portugal (the country whose case it is  remember)  announcement  definitely counts far more than what the Met say ,whose remit doesn't include investigating the parents.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not the Met's " opinion" at all ,don't you understand how these announcements are carefully constructed ? I expect not if you're not a member of a police force .
The Supreme Court  of Portugal (the country whose case it is  remember)  announcement  definitely counts far more than what the Met say ,whose remit doesn't include investigating the parents.

Are you a member of a police  force then?  I thought you were an ex-nurse.  I have no idea what you are on about tbh, but the Met are of thr firm opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and the Supreme Court’s ruling on a defamation case has got diddly squat to do with the current investigation.