Inspections ....

[Robittybob1]

1.  Eddie "did not alert to the vehicle when the key fob had been removed"

I wasnt aware that eddie was deployed to the car after the key fob was double tested by both dogs
Ie if there was blood and cadavour odour on it no one would know as a cadaver alert cant be forensically proved

There is also a problem with insisting gerry mccanns blood was on the fob whilst at the same time insisting no blood from Madeleine was found in 5a when the fss use almost identical phrases to describe the results from the blood dog in both 5a and the car find ie

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

Versus

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.


Just saying

Because apart from the difference in the one talking about Madeleine and her father ie hers being a sample from more than one person, the description  re the samples and their dna profiles is identical

It is just about a job for an expert to decipher the language they use for DNA results.  It is good to see you attempted it Mercury.

[mercury]

Well thanks and its little thinhs like that that matter especially when they have not been explained away by people arguing  x or y

[Robittybob1]

Well thanks and its little thinhs like that that matter especially when they have not been explained away by people arguing  x or y

I feel I need to go back to basics and learn how to understand DNA results 1.01

[ferryman]

1.  Eddie "did not alert to the vehicle when the key fob had been removed"

I wasnt aware that eddie was deployed to the car after the key fob was double tested by both dogs
Ie if there was blood and cadavour odour on it no one would know as a cadaver alert cant be forensically proved

There is also a problem with insisting gerry mccanns blood was on the fob whilst at the same time insisting no blood from Madeleine was found in 5a when the fss use almost identical phrases to describe the results from the blood dog in both 5a and the car find ie

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

Versus

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.


Just saying

Because apart from the difference in the one talking about Madeleine and her father ie hers being a sample from more than one person, the description  re the samples and their dna profiles is identical

?

John Lowe's report does not use the word blood

Material recovered from the key-fob matched Gerry's DNA profile.

[ferryman]

1.  Eddie "did not alert to the vehicle when the key fob had been removed"

I wasnt aware that eddie was deployed to the car after the key fob was double tested by both dogs
Ie if there was blood and cadavour odour on it no one would know as a cadaver alert cant be forensically proved

There is also a problem with insisting gerry mccanns blood was on the fob[/b] whilst at the same time insisting no blood from Madeleine was found in 5a[/b][i/] when the fss use almost identical phrases to describe the results from the blood dog in both 5a and the car find ie

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

Versus

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.


Just saying

Because apart from the difference in the one talking about Madeleine and her father ie hers being a sample from more than one person, the description  re the samples and their dna profiles is identical

Not one, single, instance of use of the word blood in John Lowe's report.

And the result (from the boot of the Renault Scenic) might well have contained, in the mix, DNA from Madeleine.

The fact, beyond all dispute, is that Madeleine herself never went near that vehicle.

In summary, that's what John Lowe's email to Stuart Prior says.

And the reason why Lowe, in his one and only report, referred to the result as too complex for meaningful interpretation.

[mercury]

Not one, single, instance of use of the word blood in John Lowe's report.

And the result (from the boot of the Renault Scenic) might well have contained, in the mix, DNA from Madeleine.

The fact, beyond all dispute, is that Madeleine herself never went near that vehicle.

In summary, that's what John Lowe's email to Stuart Prior says.

And the reason why Lowe, in his one and only report, referred to the result as too complex for meaningful interpretation.

If the word blood was not mentioned once in Lowes report, why do you contnuously post they found Gerrys blood on the keyfob?

The rest of your post has nothing at all to do with my question

[ferryman]

If the word blood was not mentioned once in Lowes report, why do you contnuously post they found Gerrys blood on the keyfob?

The rest of your post has nothing at all to do with my question

Out of courtesy to Keela.

She is (or was! is she still working?) trained to react to nothing but human blood.  If whatever she reacted to (on the key fob) was cellular material from Gerry (not in dispute!) and neither blood, Keela alerted falsely. 

[Robittybob1]

Out of courtesy to Keela.

She is (or was! is she still working?) trained to react to nothing but human blood.  If whatever she reacted to (on the key fob) was cellular material from Gerry (not in dispute!) and neither blood, Keela alerted falsely.

That is possible - dog alerts to blood so we think the sample was blood but the lab just says it was "material" from Gerry not determining the tissue.

[mercury]

Out of courtesy to Keela.

She is (or was! is she still working?) trained to react to nothing but human blood.  If whatever she reacted to (on the key fob) was cellular material from Gerry (not in dispute!) and neither blood, Keela alerted falsely.

I never disputed the blood alert, what you dont have is evidence it wasnt a cadaver alert at the same time

[ferryman]

I never disputed the blood alert, what you dont have is evidence it wasnt a cadaver alert at the same time

Yes I do.

Both dogs reacted to the key fob.  Keela isn't trained to react to other than human blood.

[mercury]

Yes I do.

Both dogs reacted to the key fob.  Keela isn't trained to react to other than human blood.

As i said, both dogs may react to blood, that doesnt prove eddie wasnt alerting to cadaver odour on the double check, see?

[ferryman]

As i said, both dogs may react to blood, that doesnt prove eddie wasnt alerting to cadaver odour on the double check, see?

Doesn't and wasn't.

Two negatives which (strictly grammatically!) = a positive.

We are talking grammar, here, not empirical evidence; still less law.

Combine the circumstance with the sheer implausibility of a vehicle hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished being used for anything other than living beings and their luggage.

And you have the full equation.

[mercury]

Doesn't and wasn't.

Two negatives which (strictly grammatically!) = a positive.

We are talking grammar, here, not empirical evidence; still less law.

Combine the circumstance with the sheer implausibility of a vehicle hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished being used for anything other than living beings and their luggage.

And you have the full equation.

Cant you talk normally to put your case across for some reason?
I prefer plain speak to equations

It doesnt matter when the parents car was rented, thats a different argument
You have holes in the dna and dog area to fill, which you still havent done as requetsed in my orevious posts, ie why is it gerrys profile in the car but not madekeines behind the sofa?
No proof eddie must have only been alerting to blood, and supported by hs alerting to the wardrobe when the blood dog did not alert

Close the holes, then you can wave your flag

[ferryman]

Cant you talk normally to put your case across for some reason?
I prefer plain speak to equations

It doesnt matter when the parents car was rented, thats a different argument
Of course it's relevant, because of the sheer implausibility of hiding 'a body' for 3 weeks before hiring a car.
You have holes in the dna and dog area to fill, which you still havent done as requetsed in my orevious posts, ie why is it gerrys profile in the car but not madekeines behind the sofa?
Even Amaral acknowledged that there would be nothing abnormal about finding Madeleine's DNA in the apartment.
No proof eddie must have only been alerting to blood, and supported by hs alerting to the wardrobe when the blood dog did not alert
Eddie's alerts are unreliable.  Cuddle-cat demonstrates that, as does the fact that he, apparently, alerted to clothing in the gym he could find no hint of a scent on when the same clothing was tested in the villa.

Close the holes, then you can wave your flag

There isn't a 'flag' emoticon, so I'll make do with this

 

[mercury]

Youre still missing the point ferryman and havent answered my question from yesterday

Why do you accept gerrys dna was was found on the key fob but dont accept madeleines dna was found behind the sofa

You didnt need to go off on one about guilt, bad dogs etc

My post 104 as a reminder