Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Lyall]

What information was gained from the DNA found where Keela reacted.

The time that Eddie reacted and Keela did not could indicate cadaver scent but as no forensic material was found, it could equally have been a false negative by Keela or a false positive by Eddie; we shall never know.

Quite.

After the millions of words over the years the fact still remains neither alerted on any of the other searches they conducted during the same days. That was significant in 2007, and remains so.

[Alice Purjorick]

Evidence of positive results does not improve the possibility of error as those cases where dogs were used to no avail rarely get recorded.

It is a scientific fact that multiple false alerts have occurred in formal testing of scent dogs.

Would you care to elaborate so we can have a better understanding of what you are trying to say?

[OxfordBloo]

GA: The reports from the English labs… the English reports arrive shortly before the questionings that were scheduled. And it contained certain conclusions, if they thought they were inconclusive they shouldn’t have mentioned it, the question of the 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl, stating that they match Madeleine McCann, but they also say that it could have been a construction let’s say from various donors, from other persons, a contamination could have produced Madeleine McCann’s profile by coincidence. But there are no excuses for saying that it is not from Madeleine McCann because they held the profiles of the father, the mother, the siblings, therefore there are no doubts that at least within that family they only matched Madeleine McCann’s.

I am not sure what your point is. The 15/19 alleges found could not only have come from a mixture of DNA from both Kate and Gerry (a shared tissue or two tissues in the same place. It could also be from Sean and Amelia who between them are likely to share 15 alleges with Madeleine. Additionally as the sample had between three and five contributors it could have been any DNA randomly selected from a European population. This is quite clear in the final lab report. Amaral jumped the gun and misinterpreted the initial report which did not specify in detail the limited and mixed nature of the sample.

[OxfordBloo]

Would you care to elaborate so we can have a better understanding of what you are trying to say?

Look up the Black Swan effect on Wikipedia. Knowledge does not increase with additional confirmation, only by proving the opposite. Also 'heroic' dogs which help get a conviction get press coverage, unhelpful dog results do not.

Every scientific analysis of scent dogs which was adequately designed and available has shown at least a few and often many false positives and false negatives.

[OxfordBloo]

After the millions of words over the years the fact still remains neither alerted on any of the other searches they conducted during the same days. That was significant in 2007, and remains so.

It is not at all significant scientifically. There is a very simple reason that this might occur- what is called a serial error.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I would also like to see those lovely dogs work on known outcomes i.e planted cadvers and  old, almost cleaned, blood spots.

It would clear a few things up I am sure.

[OxfordBloo]

I would also like to see those lovely dogs work on known outcomes i.e planted cadvers and  old, almost cleaned, blood spots.

It would clear a few things up I am sure.

It has been done. There are always false positives and false negatives.

[Lyall]

It is not at all significant scientifically. There is a very simple reason that this might occur- what is called a serial error.

It was very significant in a case where the investigators - both Portuguese and British remember - had no other leads.

[OxfordBloo]

It was very significant in a case where the investigators - both Portuguese and British remember - had no other leads.

Significance in science has a specific meaning which differs from its normal usage. Normal usage approximates to "of utility in understanding the situation". In science it means a level of high probability that one thing is dependent on the other.

Your example has no scientific significance.

[pathfinder73]

This topic was resurrected because Pathfinder has shown that Eddie signalled to the T-Shirt Gerry was seen wearing on the morning after Madeleine went missing.
This T-Shirt was not highlighted in the Eddie & Keela videos as having been contaminated by cadaver or blood. Only Sean's T-Shirt & Kate's top & trousers were honed in on by the cameraman. Is that because the PJ were intent on pinning a crime on Kate?
Has Grime made a mistake in identifying what Eddie was alerting to? What was  the difference between Eddie picking up Sean's T-Shirt & barking & then almost picking up Gerry's T-Shirt & barking? - then standing over other clothes & just barking?
If the Grime was unable to precisely identify which items Eddie (not Keela) was really marking, were the indications worth anything at all?

4 May 2007


2:16

[pathfinder73]

I am not sure what your point is. The 15/19 alleges found could not only have come from a mixture of DNA from both Kate and Gerry (a shared tissue or two tissues in the same place. It could also be from Sean and Amelia who between them are likely to share 15 alleges with Madeleine. Additionally as the sample had between three and five contributors it could have been any DNA randomly selected from a European population. This is quite clear in the final lab report. Amaral jumped the gun and misinterpreted the initial report which did not specify in detail the limited and mixed nature of the sample.

Keela alerts to blood so how could blood come from 4 different people? Usually one person bleeds not 4 in the same exact spot.

[OxfordBloo]

Keela alerts to blood so how could blood come from 4 different people? Usually one person bleeds not 4.

Keela alerted to the back compartment of the Renault. This means there was probably blood there at some time. Samples were lifted so that they could be analysed but were such that it could not be decided what the source of the DNA was, blood or other human detritus. So it is quite possible that enough blood had been around to cause Keela to alert, but that the DNA came from a proximate source. Without trying your eughh factor, if Sean had stubbed his toe and the plaster was in the bag and also a tissue used after the McCanns had sex was in the same bag, the blood from Sean would cause Keela to alert, but the sample lifted from the semen/vaginal fluid would be certain to have the fifteen alleles found.

[G-Unit]

Significance in science has a specific meaning which differs from its normal usage. Normal usage approximates to "of utility in understanding the situation". In science it means a level of high probability that one thing is dependent on the other.

Your example has no scientific significance.

The thread doesn't mention scientific significance. I would suggest that using your normal usage definition they have to be taken notice of, even if not relied on.

[pathfinder73]

Keela alerted to the back compartment of the Renault. This means there was probably blood there at some time. Samples were lifted so that they could be analysed but were such that it could not be decided what the source of the DNA was, blood or other human detritus. So it is quite possible that enough blood had been around to cause Keela to alert, but that the DNA came from a proximate source. Without trying your eughh factor, if Sean had stubbed his toe and the plaster was in the bag and also a tissue used after the McCanns had sex was in the same bag, the blood from Sean would cause Keela to alert, but the sample lifted from the semen/vaginal fluid would be certain to have the fifteen alleles found.

Yes we're moving into the realms of fantasy land but it figures for this case. 15 out of 19 matched Madeleine McCann's profile. But we will add up all the rest of the family to get the same match in the one exact spot in the boot 

[OxfordBloo]

Yes we're moving into the realms of fantasy land but it figures for this case. 15 out of 19 matched Madeleine McCann's profile. But we will add up all the rest of the family to get the same match in the one exact spot in the boot 

I don't think you understand genetics. The alleles looked for in DNA ID are inherited, twenty halves from the mother and twenty halves from the father. In the case of the McCanns they happen to share one allele so there are only nineteen to act as markers. If you took that sexual tissue (with 38 markers) and tested it for DNA all of Madeleine's nineteen markers  would be there because by definition her variety of markers is limited to those inherited from her parents.