Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?

[mercury]

OK

Here are some of the questions.

How could KM have answered them without getting tied up in knots - given that the PJ had deliberately broken the rules.

Before you say it, yes, I am looking at this from a legal rather than a PR perspective.

_____________

43- In the case files you were forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44- When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

I don't see how answering those simple questions or any others will have made her "tied up in knots". And what was so difficult to answer when asked what did she see when entering the kids bedroom? one of the earlier questions IIRC.

[Carana]

I don't see how answering those simple questions or any others will have made her "tied up in knots". And what was so difficult to answer when asked what did she see when entering the kids bedroom? one of the earlier questions IIRC.

If you start answering some questions and then choose to say "no comment" to others.... what would you find more more "interesting"?

[Carana]

--- Asked about her professional life, and in how many hospitals and in which she had worked, she did not respond. Being a doctor, and asked about her speciality, she did not respond. Asked about if she worked in shifts, in emergencies [the emergency section of a hospital] or other services she did not respond. If she worked every day, she did not respond. Asked if at a particular time she stopped working and why, she did not respond.

What possible relevance could that have? They presumably knew that she was a GP, unless the PJ were trying to make her say that she had specialised as an anaesthetist at some point.

Aha! Calpol!



--- Asked whether or not it is true that the twins have difficulty sleeping, that they are restless and that that causes her uneasiness, she did not respond.

--- Asked whether or not it is true that at certain times she felt desperate [driven to despair; angered; exasperated] by the attitude of the children and that that left her much disquiet [unease], she did not respond.

There was apparently some reference in her diary about the twins crying in the car with the paps hanging around and another about them crying when out to get them new shoes. This was, of course, after Madeleine had disappeared, with all the exhaustion and underlying worry.

What should she have said? No? They'd have concluded Aha - but we have the diary to show that you moaned that the twins were crying. Yes? Aha... so you DID feel that the children were too much for you.


--- Asked whether or not it is true that in England she was thinking to deliver MADELEINE into the custody [guardianship] of a family member, she did not respond.

I've no idea where they got this idea from... unless the PJ got totally confused over the application for the WOC status.


--- Asked if at home (England) she gave medication to the children and what kind of medication, she did not respond.

What parent has never given children any medication whatsoever? What were they expecting her to say? Calpol? Aha!

[Carana]

Others were pointless. If they'd done their homework, they'd have known that she hadn't rung Sky news.

What was the point of asking her which police force was called? How would she have known that there were several police forces and why would it matter anyway?

[Carana]

"I guarantee there was no bluff in those interviews, not at all. And when all the documents are made public, people will see I am telling the truth..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7517883.stm

Page last updated at 14:39 GMT, Monday, 21 July 2008 15:39 UK

  &%+((£

[Jean-Pierre]

"I guarantee there was no bluff in those interviews, not at all. And when all the documents are made public, people will see I am telling the truth..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7517883.stm

Page last updated at 14:39 GMT, Monday, 21 July 2008 15:39 UK

  &%+((£

Perhaps the kindest thing that can be said is that he "misunderstood" the FSS reports. 

[Montclair]

Perhaps the kindest thing that can be said is that he "misunderstood" the FSS reports.

You keep repeating yourself.

[Jean-Pierre]

You keep repeating yourself.

It must be catching 

[slartibartfast]

Perhaps the kindest thing that can be said is that he "misunderstood" the FSS reports.

So...

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

Plus dog alert equals?

[Jean-Pierre]

So...

Plus dog alert equals?

It equals an incomplete excerpt from a report.

>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence

Stuart

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.



What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

John Lowe
Forensic Scientist
Major Incidents Team
Priory House   

[slartibartfast]

It equals an incomplete excerpt from a report.

>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence

Stuart

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.



What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

John Lowe
Forensic Scientist
Major Incidents Team
Priory House

Why quote stuff not associated with swab 3a

[Jean-Pierre]

Why quote stuff not associated with swab 3a

Because I prefer to look at reports in their complete form rather than a selected excerpt.  I am sure you will agree it gives a more complete view.

[slartibartfast]

Because I prefer to look at reports in their complete form rather than a selected excerpt.  I am sure you will agree it gives a more complete view.

Not when you are looking at a forensic report, each individual part stands on its own.

[Gadfly2.1]

Watch this from 1.30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOkpiJ6DEco -- Susan Healy: "they WON'T be refusing to answer any questions."

It's quite interesting that Kate was:

 (a) informing her mum that she was going to answer any questions and then broke that word.

OR

 (b) had agreed with her mum that the 'line' was going to be that they were answering all questions, when they knew they would not be doing so.

OR

(c) unaware that her mum was sounding off back in the UK about Kate answering all questions, when she knew herself that she was never intending to do so.

My gut feeling is the PJ know which of the above is true through telecommunication intercepts.

[Gadfly2.1]

Even poor old Philomena seemed a bit out of the loop on this when asked about the 'silence':

"PM: Well, Dermot, you're saying that they didn't answer 40 questions. That's certainly not coming from Kate and Gerry and I'd imagine if they refused, which I doubt, to answer questions they were either fatuous or spurious and contemptible. Therefore they probably felt that those questions were not at all justified or possibly that they had already answered them and as fully as they possibly could, therefore there was nothing else they could say to further that. "