Have we learnt anything from the Maddie case?

[Eleanor]

I remember a time when I assumed he knew what he was talking about and that therefore that must have been true. It wasn't until I could read the files for myself that I realised what a load of BS that was. I expect that the majority of ladies who knit in front of Dear Julia's pink couch matinée TV show still believe that.

I remember a time when I believed an awful lot of the rubbish.  It really didn't cross my mind to disbelieve, until I started check for myself.

[Mr Gray]

I took this to be based on some real observation.  "How can you state that?

Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk’s right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it’s the only way to explain what happened there. GA" 

So what I think someone saw was a wet patch on the pavement where the McCann car had been parked previously.  I would have like to see the actual report.  Who saw it?  And what day this happened?  But I have not seen that detail as yet.  Was this where the "5 weeks after" came from?

as far as i am aware this is total fantasy...nothing dripped on the kerb

[Brietta]

as far as i am aware this is total fantasy...nothing dripped on the kerb

If liquid from a dead body had been sloshing about in a car and dripping out, in my opinion the stench would have been abominable.  It just did not happen, yet interviewers never really asked any probing questions did they?  A Portuguese Paxman would have demolished him imo.

[G-Unit]

It was not possible to say what the source of the DNA.  They use the term body fluid.  In conclusive but 15 out of the 19 alleles for Madeleine were mixed in the  mixed DNA sample that had at least 3 contributors.   That is a strange result.

I have used the word blood because that's what the CSI dog was trained to find.

I have often wondered why the sample contained DNA from more than one person. I can understand that happening in a case of gang-rape, for example, but not quite how it happened in this case. If the CSI dog was as good as Grime said, there was at least some blood in the boot. Then what? Two other people bled or dribbled on exactly the same spot?

The other problem is that DNA analysis is seen as an exact science but it isn't. Different analysts can reach different conclusions about the same sample, particularly when it is from more than one person.

A man was convicted in a gang-rape case in the US because the experts said his DNA couldn't be excluded from a mixed sample. The same sample was later given to 17 analysts for retesting. Only one agreed with the original finding; that he couldn't be excluded. 4 said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom/

The 'inconclusive' conclusion reached by the FSS may have been correct, but a different conclusion could have been reached by a different analyst in my opinion.

[Mr Gray]

I have used the word blood because that's what the CSI dog was trained to find.

I have often wondered why the sample contained DNA from more than one person. I can understand that happening in a case of gang-rape, for example, but not quite how it happened in this case. If the CSI dog was as good as Grime said, there was at least some blood in the boot. Then what? Two other people bled or dribbled on exactly the same spot?

The other problem is that DNA analysis is seen as an exact science but it isn't. Different analysts can reach different conclusions about the same sample, particularly when it is from more than one person.

A man was convicted in a gang-rape case in the US because the experts said his DNA couldn't be excluded from a mixed sample. The same sample was later given to 17 analysts for retesting. Only one agreed with the original finding; that he couldn't be excluded. 4 said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom/

The 'inconclusive' conclusion reached by the FSS may have been correct, but a different conclusion could have been reached by a different analyst in my opinion.

First...only one contributor needed to be blood...not all 3
Second you may feel that a different result could have been achieved but that is pure speculation based on nothing from someone with little knowledge of what's involved

[G-Unit]

I remember a time when I assumed he knew what he was talking about and that therefore that must have been true. It wasn't until I could read the files for myself that I realised what a load of BS that was. I expect that the majority of ladies who knit in front of Dear Julia's pink couch matinée TV show still believe that.

You seem to be saying that it was rejecting Amaral's theory was what led you to believe in the McCann's innocence. I have never agreed with Amaral but I'm still not convinced by the McCann's story.

You appear to be assuming that the majority of ladies who knit in front of daytime TV are gullible. Do you have any evidence of that?

[G-Unit]

First...only one contributor needed to be blood...not all 3
Second you may feel that a different result could have been achieved but that is pure speculation based on nothing from someone with little knowledge of what's involved

If you had taken the time to read my post I said 'bled or dribbled', allowing for other fluids to be there.

If you read the link you would know that there is evidence that different analysts can reach different conclusions about the same sample. The link contains opinions from people who know exactly what's involved.

[barrier]

Interesting....so you have considered all the evidence....and you have an in depth knowledge of it....and now you se no way the parents are involved...That is precisely my stance...sceptics take note

I prefer a more moderate stance,officer's from Scotland Yard can't or won't declare whether the girl remains alive or more sadly dead, or even if she left the apartment alive which  maybe was not their line if thinking,from that its hard to see how any arm chair detective can decipher it to show they believe there was an abduction.The most of important evidence of all, how? is yet to be answered.

[sadie]

I have used the word blood because that's what the CSI dog was trained to find.

I have often wondered why the sample contained DNA from more than one person. I can understand that happening in a case of gang-rape, for example, but not quite how it happened in this case. If the CSI dog was as good as Grime said, there was at least some blood in the boot. Then what? Two other people bled or dribbled on exactly the same spot?

The other problem is that DNA analysis is seen as an exact science but it isn't. Different analysts can reach different conclusions about the same sample, particularly when it is from more than one person.

A man was convicted in a gang-rape case in the US because the experts said his DNA couldn't be excluded from a mixed sample. The same sample was later given to 17 analysts for retesting. Only one agreed with the original finding; that he couldn't be excluded. 4 said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom/

The 'inconclusive' conclusion reached by the FSS may have been correct, but a different conclusion could have been reached by a different analyst in my opinion.

So despite this, the conclusions reached are accepted in other cases.   Why single this case out to treat differently, with unecessary suspicion?

[Mr Gray]

If you had taken the time to read my post I said 'bled or dribbled', allowing for other fluids to be there.

If you read the link you would know that there is evidence that different analysts can reach different conclusions about the same sample. The link contains opinions from people who know exactly what's involved.

The sample did not have to be deposited there initially...a cloth could have been used to wile several surfaces and then used to wipe the boot....this is how sensitive LCDNA is
The DNAs could have collected and mixed on the cloth
The results are the results...the alleles found are the allies found... different interpretation s could in their be made re the results...as I understand no one has contradicted the FSS

[faithlilly]

I remember a time when I assumed he knew what he was talking about and that therefore that must have been true. It wasn't until I could read the files for myself that I realised what a load of BS that was. I expect that the majority of ladies who knit in front of Dear Julia's pink couch matinée TV show still believe that.

Rather condescending of you Carana.

[Angelo222]

Interesting....so you have considered all the evidence....and you have an in depth knowledge of it....and now you se no way the parents are involved...That is precisely my stance...sceptics take note

I have considered all the evidence currently in the public domain and it is very clear that a certain firm of Spanish detectives, a Portuguese lawyer and others attempted to pervert the course of justice in the Maddie case and the sooner the police investigate these individuals the better.  Could be though that there is a political reluctance to have these unsavoury activities exposed to a national audience.

[Mr Gray]

I have considered all the evidence currently in the public domain and it is very clear that a certain firm of Spanish detectives, a Portuguese lawyer and others attempted to pervert the course of justice in the Maddie case and the sooner the police investigate these individuals the better.

That's fine in your opinion but it doesn't really relate to what happened to Maddie...

[Mr Gray]

Rather condescending of you Carana.

But true...imo

[Mr Gray]

I prefer a more moderate stance,officer's from Scotland Yard can't or won't declare whether the girl remains alive or more sadly dead, or even if she left the apartment alive which  maybe was not their line if thinking,from that its hard to see how any arm chair detective can decipher it to show they believe there was an abduction.The most of important evidence of all, how? is yet to be answered.

Both SY and the Portuguese have made it clear the parents are not involved ...imo...and that's the conclusion I had already reached