Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[Carana]

Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.

He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.

But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...

Hmmm. I don't think that that is what I said.

My understanding is that Eddie alerts to various substances within his parameters of training. It is then up to humans to explore what caused the alert. In PdL there was no evidence of any kind.

If correct procedure was followed, Eddie will have tested the area beforehand for pre-existing scents, leaving open only the possibility that he reacted to the coconut.

If correct procedure was followed ...

Not if he alerted in an area and upon looking to see what he'd "found" was a potential piece of human skull.

[ferryman]

                                                              Carana:

Not if he alerted in an area and upon looking to see what he'd "found" was a potential piece of human skull.

                                                                 ?

[marxman]

Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?

[marxman]

In a word no.

Hi Martha, are you sure? think a bit more about it please

[ferryman]

There was a trace of Madeleine's dna found in the apartment -- 3 months after the crime, but none found in the Portuguese forensic sweep of the apartment ...

[Benice]

Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?

We don't know if any of the above were completely absent - all we do know is that none were found by the forensic people.    That doesn't prove none existed.   

There were lots of hairs found - predominantly dog hairs IIRC?   

[marxman]

In a word no.

Hi Martha, are you sure? think a bit more about it please

What's that saying about the absence of evidence...?

Edgar Allen Poe, had a keen interest in this particular matter, he asserted that when evidence of an existence was absent when it should clearly be present, then it displays evidence of a cover up for that once existing object.(our words to that effect)

When police look for a weapon, lets say a knife, amongst a drawer of cutlery, it will most likely be the knife thats has no trace of prior usage, the one thats wiped clean.

Elementary my dear Martha

[Redblossom]

Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?

The scene was not completely clean

There were no hairs found from the twins either

The police were not *looking* for Madeleine's dna

They collected/tested what was there, fingerprints, hairs, visible stains and the like

[marxman]

Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?

The scene was not completely clean

There were no hairs found from the twins either

The police were not *looking* for Madeleine's dna

They collected/tested what was there, fingerprints, hairs, visible stains and the like

Forgive me if im wrong, but did the McCann's apartment suggest a cleaning operation with curtains washed(myth?) etc, Cuddlekat washed and as you said hairs, toothbrushes missing or absent?
Didn't Gerry have to go back to Rothley to aquire hair samples?

[Redblossom]

Corroborating presumptions are stronger that simple presumptions...

Thing is keela can never corroborate eddies alerts if they are to cadaver odour as she only alerts to blood,(though if she fails to react the odds are upped that it is cadaver scent), no science can either, the dog in the absence of physical remains is the only tool available to detect remnant scent

[Redblossom]

Forgive me if im wrong, but did the McCann's apartment suggest a cleaning operation with curtains washed(myth?) etc, Cuddlekat washed and as you said hairs, toothbrushes missing or absent?
Didn't Gerry have to go back to Rothley to aquire hair samples?

I don't think any of that is established fact. But yes Gerry had to go home to get a sample of Madeleine's dna from as much a sterile environment as possible, something 5a was not, in order to have a control sample against which to match forensics found. He gave her pillowcase to the Leicester police from which the FSS derived her dna profile, and which profile, tested against her parents and siblings' profiles, was 100% hers

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm

[AnneGuedes]

Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?

We don't know if any of the above were completely absent - all we do know is that none were found by the forensic people.    That doesn't prove none existed.   

There were lots of hairs found - predominantly dog hairs IIRC?

Numi's hairs.

[AnneGuedes]

the dog in the absence of physical remains is the only tool available to detect remnant scent

Precious tool !

[AnneGuedes]

Forgive me if im wrong, but did the McCann's apartment suggest a cleaning operation with curtains washed(myth?) etc, Cuddlekat washed and as you said hairs, toothbrushes missing or absent?
Didn't Gerry have to go back to Rothley to aquire hair samples?

I don't think any of that is established fact. But yes Gerry had to go home to get a sample of Madeleine's dna from as much a sterile environment as possible, something 5a was not, in order to have a control sample against which to match forensics found. He gave her pillowcase to the Leicester police from which the FSS derived her dna profile, and which profile, tested against her parents and siblings' profiles, was 100% hers

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm

Very right.

[debunker]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.