So what is the evidence for abduction?

[jassi]

Possibly not the right thread as I can't find the post on the burglar issue. From memory, it was that a seasoned burglar would wear gloves and, therefore, even in the event of an accidental death due to stopping her shouting, the burglar did not have to worry about DNA and so the idea of removing a body is not logical.

I see a problem with that idea.

Burglars wear gloves to avoid leaving identifiable fingerprints. Why wouldn't there be DNA on the gloves?

I imagine there would be, which would mean that if Madeleine's body was found, traces of DNA of the 'abductor' , as the last person to touch Madeleine ,should be present.

[Martina]

Possibly not the right thread as I can't find the post on the burglar issue. From memory, it was that a seasoned burglar would wear gloves and, therefore, even in the event of an accidental death due to stopping her shouting, the burglar did not have to worry about DNA and so the idea of removing a body is not logical.

I see a problem with that idea.

Burglars wear gloves to avoid leaving identifiable fingerprints. Why wouldn't there be DNA on the gloves?

No traceable amounts of DNA, I said. That's not exactly the same as "no DNA". Of course the burglar would shed some skin cells onto the gloves when putting them on, but it would be a minuscule amount of DNA. It would be transferred to the Maddie's skin or clothes in even smaller quantities, so it would be hard to find that DNA on her, let alone isolate from the other genetic material she would inevitably carry on her body and clothes. DNA from her parents, siblings, etc, etc. I cannot remember even a single case in which a gloved perp would be arrested and sentenced for murder or assault, basing on DNA left by touch.

So if it was just an accidental strangulation by the byrglar, trying to silence Maddie, the perp would have no reason to take her body with him. None. Sorry.

[jassi]

No traceable amounts of DNA, I said. That's not exactly the same as "no DNA". Of course the burglar would shed some skin cells onto the gloves when putting them on, but it would be a minuscule amount of DNA. It would be transferred to the Maddie's skin or clothes in even smaller quantities, so it would be hard to find that DNA on her, let alone isolate from the other genetic material she would inevitably carry on her body and clothes. DNA from her parents, siblings, etc, etc. I cannot remember even a single case in which a gloved perp would be arrested and sentenced for murder or assault, basing on DNA left by touch.

So if it was just an accidental strangulation by the byrglar, trying to silence Maddie, the perp would have no reason to take her body with him. None. Sorry.

These days, one only need miniscule amounts of DNA.
The lack of stranger DNA will raise questions, though I'm sure that a totally innocent explanation would be instantly forthcoming.

[Victoria]

These days, one only need miniscule amounts of DNA.
The lack of stranger DNA will raise questions, though I'm sure that a totally innocent explanation would be instantly forthcoming.

The fact that the local forensics squad weren't even bothering to wears gloves tells you all you need to know about the chances of meaningful forensic evidence being recovered from the crime scene.

[Martina]

These days, one only need miniscule amounts of DNA.

But still there is a limit for it, especially when DNA is mixed. Show me one case, where the perpetrator was wearing gloves yet left enough of the DNA behind to get caught. I cannot recall any.

[jassi]

The fact that the local forensics squad weren't even bothering to wears gloves tells you all you need to know about the chances of meaningful forensic evidence being recovered from the crime scene.

Agreed, but this time it will be different. There is a UK team of forensic scientists,  who will ensure that things are done correctly.

[Carana]

These days, one only need miniscule amounts of DNA.
The lack of stranger DNA will raise questions, though I'm sure that a totally innocent explanation would be instantly forthcoming.

There are still unidentified hairs from the apartment, if they've been kept. Six which have disappeared from the bed without a trace unless anyone finds what the PJ did with them, but also others. At the time, most of them could only be analysed for mtDNA. If they've been kept and IFFF a lab can try to extract nuclear DNA from whatever may have been kept, then perhaps that could be helpful.

[Silkywhiskers]

But still there is a limit for it, especially when DNA is mixed. Show me one case, where the perpetrator was wearing gloves yet left enough of the DNA behind to get caught. I cannot recall any.

Precious.

You know that DNA can come from hair follicles nowdays?

Sweat?

His hands may  have been covered but that doesn't mean he didn't leave DNA!

Indeed, climbing OUT of a small window with a corpse sounds fairly sweaty work.  I would expect that window frame to have SOMETHING, even skin cells where he scraped against the sill with his dead weight in his arms, trying to force it through an open window when the door he just entered through was standing open....

Yeah.  All very unlikely isn't it?

[Martina]

Precious.

You know that DNA can come from hair follicles nowdays?

Sweat?

His hands may  have been covered but that doesn't mean he didn't leave DNA!

Indeed, climbing OUT of a small window with a corpse sounds fairly sweaty work.  I would expect that window frame to have SOMETHING, even skin cells where he scraped against the sill with his dead weight in his arms, trying to force it through an open window when the door he just entered through was standing open....

Yeah.  All very unlikely isn't it?

Silky, hold your horses for a moment, ok? I'm talking here about a hypothetical situation in which a gloved burglar accidentally suffocates Maddie, trying to silence her and then decides to take her body with him, in fear that, read that carefully, please, in the process of murdering Maddie he might leave a significant amount of DNA on her. How much DNA can be transferred from the gloved hands to the skin or clothes of the victim? Not much, certainly. Not enough for the perp to decide he should increase the risk by taking the body away. That's why I don't actually believe in the murdered-and-taken-by-a burglar theory.

Now, I also don't believe that anyone used the window as the point of entry or exit that night, as, I do agree with you, that would have to leave some traces behind and there were none.
And yes I do generally agree that if there was any intruder, he should leave some forensic evidence behind. I'm just trying to explain, that a hypothetical burglar, killing Maddie by accident would not leave much of said evidence on her. Comprende? 

[Silkywhiskers]

Silky, hold your horses for a moment, ok? I'm talking here about a hypothetical situation in which a gloved burglar accidentally suffocates Maddie, trying to silence her and then decides to take her body with him, in fear that, read that carefully, please, in the process of murdering Maddie he might leave a significant amount of DNA on her. How much DNA can be transferred from the gloved hands to the skin or clothes of the victim? Not much, certainly. Not enough for the perp to decide he should increase the risk by taking the body away. That's why I don't actually believe in the murdered-and-taken-by-a burglar theory.

Now, I also don't believe that anyone used the window as the point of entry or exit that night, as, I do agree with you, that would have to leave some traces behind and there were none.
And yes I do generally agree that if there was any intruder, he should leave some forensic evidence behind. I'm just trying to explain, that a hypothetical burglar, killing Maddie by accident would not leave much of said evidence on her. Comprende? 

What I comprehend, is that someone stated there would be no DNA if the intruder wore gloves.

This is false.

DNA also comes in semen, if the "abductor" got his rocks off strangling small children you can expect some semen based DNA.

But no....HE WAS WEARING GLOVES....whoever "he" is.......

[sadie]

Silky, hold your horses for a moment, ok? I'm talking here about a hypothetical situation in which a gloved burglar accidentally suffocates Maddie, trying to silence her and then decides to take her body with him, in fear that, read that carefully, please, in the process of murdering Maddie he might leave a significant amount of DNA on her. How much DNA can be transferred from the gloved hands to the skin or clothes of the victim? Not much, certainly. Not enough for the perp to decide he should increase the risk by taking the body away. That's why I don't actually believe in the murdered-and-taken-by-a burglar theory.

Now, I also don't believe that anyone used the window as the point of entry or exit that night, as, I do agree with you, that would have to leave some traces behind and there were none.
And yes I do generally agree that if there was any intruder, he should leave some forensic evidence behind. I'm just trying to explain, that a hypothetical burglar, killing Maddie by accident would not leave much of said evidence on her. Comprende? 

Martina, latched doors can be opened with just a key, no hands on the door..  Leave the door open and out again quickly, pulling it to with the key = NO fingerprints

[Martina]

What I comprehend, is that someone stated there would be no DNA if the intruder wore gloves.

This is false.

DNA also comes in semen, if the "abductor" got his rocks off strangling small children you can expect some semen based DNA.

But no....HE WAS WEARING GLOVES....whoever "he" is.......

Silky, concentrate, please. A burglar, murdering accidentally, while wearing gloves, that's the situation I'm talking about. We were discussing here the motive for said burglar to take Maddie's body with him, so I was talking about DNA he could leave on her body, when suffocating her with gloved hands. In this hypothetical situations there is no place for semen and possible DNA left anywhere outside from Maddie's body is irrelevant. Get it?

And yes, I will repeat this again, I do believe that the intruder, if he really existed, would leave the forensic traces, DNA included, in the apartment.

[jassi]

What I comprehend, is that someone stated there would be no DNA if the intruder wore gloves.

This is false.

DNA also comes in semen, if the "abductor" got his rocks off strangling small children you can expect some semen based DNA.

But no....HE WAS WEARING GLOVES....whoever "he" is.......

It would be impossible to put gloves on without leaving DNA on the outside.
How much might transfer is debatable, but forensic science is pushing back the boundaries all the time, so may well be able to detect such traces.

[Martina]

Martina, latched doors can be opened with just a key, no hands on the door..  Leave the door open and out again quickly, pulling it to with the key = NO fingerprints

Forensic traces are not only the fingerprints, Sadie.

[Carana]

What I comprehend, is that someone stated there would be no DNA if the intruder wore gloves.

This is false.

DNA also comes in semen, if the "abductor" got his rocks off strangling small children you can expect some semen based DNA.

But no....HE WAS WEARING GLOVES....whoever "he" is.......

Whether the person wore gloves or not, you do agree then that there could be a viable reason for a perp to take her out of the apartment?