UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: gilet on April 04, 2013, 05:43:41 PM
-
I have had a look at one of the videos which Hideho has created which dealt with this issue.
I have done a timed set of comments on the video.
If anyone (especially Hideho) would like to offer comments about what I perceive to be the deception within the video I would be very willing to reply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP30PRieuU4
0:11 Utterly erroneous news report shown which no sane person now believes to be correct. No explanation given in the video as to the fact that this headline is a proven lie. In fact it will be used again at the end of the video to compound the deceit.
0:30 Kate McCann states "there were no body fluids in the car".
0:33 You immediately and deliberately ignore Kate's statement and you refer to "residues" which you know is not what Kate said.
0:41 You then refer to these "residues" located by the blood dog as having been sent for testing but fail to point out the results of those tests which determined that the blood was on the key fob and belonged to Gerry McCann.
0:54 A voice from news media (remember media reports are not evidence) refers to "fluids from a corpse and hair" but this is precisely what Kate McCann was referring to. There is nothing suggesting fluids existed other than the wanton errors in the news media which you are now using as evidence to back up your claims. If you cannot understand that your use of the very media which Kate is decrying to back up your claim that it is true is ridiculous then you really are not a very good reporter.
1:06 You now change from referring to "residues" to declaring that "cellular material" was found. What you fail to mention is that Kate never claimed otherwise. She simply said no fluids were found. Your attempt to make it look like Kate has lied has failed because you are not referring to what she referred to at all.
1.16 Again there is a reference in your video about blood being found. This time it is an allegation from the PJ via Justine McGuinness. But yet again you fail to mention that the blood was later discovered not to have been in the car boot but on the key fob and was from Gerry McCann. Your deliberate unwillingness to add these correct interpretations suggests your motives are not honest.
1.35 You repeat the accurate report in the AG letter that "cellular material" had been found as if someone had denied that fact. But nowhere so far in your video has anyone denied that fact. You are deliberately muddling the fluid and blood claims with that "cellular material" reference to dishonestly make it look as if Kate was lying to Leveson.
The following fifteen seconds of the video repeat this again. Cellular material was found. Absolutely no-one on your video has denied that fact. A shame that you don't point out that the results of the DNA tests on this material could only find a mixture of markers some of which could have related to Madeleine but most of which did not.
1.52 You repeat that Keela found blood on the key fob.
2.00 You stress that Keela alerted to the key fob even when it was placed elsewhere.
2.03 You then state that forensic tests were carried out on the key fob but dishonestly withold the vital information that the results of those tests showed no connection to Madeleine but identified the blood found as being that of Gerry McCann.
2.25 You go then to a shot of Kate denying the erroneous media report that it was Madeleine's blood in the car. Why? It is a fact that anyone reading the forensic reports can see that it was not her blood. Just because your video witholds the information that it was not her blood does not mean that it was.
2.30 Your next point is wholly biased. You post a quote saying "there seemed to be the POSSIBILITY of compatibility between MADELEINE'S DNA profile and some of the collected residues..." Again no fluids.
This is a disgraceful use of a partial quotation to completely alter the sense of the original.
The original full quotation is as follows.
"It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between MADELEINE'S DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following) but whose compatibility, as can be concluded from the above mentioned final FSS report, was not confirmed after the performance of lengthy and complex tests."
The letter referred to is from John Lowe and absolutely denies that there is a match to Madeleine McCann on the swab from the boot. He states "There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B". How much more conclusive do you need the report to be before you listen?
Why did you deliberately reverse the meaning of the quote you used by your deliberate selective quotation?
2.41 You further claim it was 15 out of 19 markers found. That is simply not true. On reading the report carefully you will find it was 15 out of 37 markers from at least three different people.
"A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the fibre coated luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(1))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage."
And you somehow manage to forget to mention that the report says the result is too complex to interpret.
You then say that anything less than 99% match is inconclusive. I would love to know where that claim comes from. Oddly you do not source it.
And your addition that it doesn't exclude the possibility that the DNA came from Madeleine misses the point that it is not evidence that it does and also does not preclude it having come from other sources. Why do you only ever post one side of the argument and withold all other possibilities?
3:01 Next comes a question posed to an expert from a European University. "Do 15 markers out of 19 prove it is the right person?"
3:05 And the experts answer? "If the profile is complete and quality, no doubt."
But you know and I know and everyone who has read the files knows that the profile was not complete and quality as needed for such proof. That you choose to include this question and answer here when you know it is not referring to the kind of sample Lowe tested can only mean that you are deliberately trying to deceive the viewer.
The answer from the expert in Louvain has no bearing at all on the McCann case. And by your continuation of the deception with the statistic of 1 in a billion chance you are trying just too hard to make a point which has no validity.
3.24 You go back to Kate McCann under oath stating the absolutely correct fact that there were no body fluids found in the car. (just Gerry's blood on the key fob).
It is such a disgraceful attempt to pretend that Kate is lying when you have given no evidence in this video that she is doing so. Your twisting of the claims about residues and cellular material to make it appear that Kate is lying is quite sickening.
3.29 You pose the question "Why did Kate DENY THERE WERE BODY FLUIDS found in the McCann's (sic) rented car?" and add a question "What cellular material was sent for forensic testing?"
Seriously are you unable to comprehend the difference between the two phrases "body fluids" and "cellular material"? Do you think they are always identical in meaning? Because they are not. Kate was correct that no body fluids were found.
3.36 You then repeat the wholly wrong claim that 15 out of 19 markers were found showing that you simply do not understand the actual report. That is not a good situation for a propaganda video maker to be in.
3.42 You then attempt to decieve by twisting the fact that the low quality DNA was considered INCONCLUSIVE by Lowe the expert who did the testing by re-introducing the general quote from the FBI who had no direct knowledge of the samples and Mdme Adamis who was only speaking about full quality profiles and therefore is irrelevant to this case. Oh and you try the old trick of not using the actual word inconclusive but saying "not CONCLUSIVELY" trying to focus the viewer's mind on the opposite with your use of captitalisation and your use of the wholly irrelevant Adamis claim about 1 in 1 billion chances. I find that kind of deception tantamount to lying.
3.51 More use of news headlines which were full of lies and PJ leaks to bolster your completely erroneous claims about the DNA being matched to Madeleine when you know the actual forensic report states it was not.
By such repetitive use of 6 year old media reports from the days before the truth about the contents of the FSS report were available it makes you look as though you simply cannot accept the truth. No newspaper ever posted such claims after the FSS report was published because their editors understood the report proved that they were simply not true. It is a great shame that you either do no understand that or have chosen to deliberately ignore the truth. It is entirely consistent with your total refusal to accept that the Almeida report was simply the interim summary of what was at that time being investigated and has been superseded by the later reports which you resolutely ignore.
By beginning and finishing your video with a news article claiming "Corpse found in McCann Car" you demonstrate simply that you are creating videos which contain complete lies because you know there is absolutely no truth that any corpse was found. I think that you should be totally ashamed of this video.
-
Wow. I have watched some of her videos, but I didn't realise just how bad some of them are.
Well done, for that.
-
Excellent work Gilet.
The least we should expect now, is a response from it's creator.
-
That is the first Hideho video I have spent time reviewing. I have similar views about the content of many of those from her Youtube page which I have seen but so far have not found the time to write reviews about them.
I am however making no demands of anyone to reply to my review.
I have described precisely what I saw in the video. I found it quite shocking in its dishonesty but if I have got anything wrong I will hold my hands up immediately.
As I said, I invite anyone to offer a differing viewpoint on the content of that four minute video to post it and I will reflect seriously on what is posted.
-
That is the first Hideho video I have spent time reviewing. I have similar views about the content of many of those from her Youtube page which I have seen but so far have not found the time to write reviews about them.
I am however making no demands of anyone to reply to my review.
I have described precisely what I saw in the video. I found it quite shocking in its dishonesty but if I have got anything wrong I will hold my hands up immediately.
As I said, I invite anyone to offer a differing viewpoint on the content of that four minute video to post it and I will reflect seriously on what is posted.
I have tried to watch a couple of her videos but have never seen one all the way through. I find them incomprehensible.
-
Evisceration Martha? @)(++(* ...the poor woman will be sore!! 8(0(*
...and thanks to Gilet for the breakdown.
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
Yes that is a perfectly plausible scenario. It is one which Martin Grime, the dog handler, cautions against in the summation to his report.
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
Quite easily, yes.
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
Looks like the Coldwater metal sheet and The towel with the Aztec Logo in the barn scenario is about to be resurrected
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
Looks like the Coldwater metal sheet and The towel with the Aztec Logo in the barn scenario is about to be resurrected
No idea what you are talking about there
The reason I asked the question was because I have always thought it extremely unlikely that the child's body was put in the boot of a car hired three weeks after she disappeared/died
Items that had come in contact with her body, may, however, have been transported in the boot of the car, which would explain the dogs reaction and the DNA subsequently collected
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
Looks like the Coldwater metal sheet and The towel with the Aztec Logo in the barn scenario is about to be resurrected
Is there something wrong with the quotes there.
None of the above post is attributable to me as I never wrote any part of it.
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
Looks like the Coldwater metal sheet and The towel with the Aztec Logo in the barn scenario is about to be resurrected
Please, Noooo. I am getting a little tired of explaining about a bottle of wine, lost virginity and The English interpretation of The French Preservatif.
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
Looks like the Coldwater metal sheet and The towel with the Aztec Logo in the barn scenario is about to be resurrected
Please, Noooo. I am getting a little tired of explaining about a bottle of wine, lost virginity and The English interpretation of The French Preseratif.
Yet another post in which I am quoted but which I have not contributed to.
Could you please ensure that you use the quote function properly?
-
I know nothing at all about the scientific nature of DNA but have wondered ... could DNA be transferred to other things ( a sheet or towel that had been in contact with a body for instance ) and be deposited in the boot of a car in that way ?
Is that possible ?
Looks like the Coldwater metal sheet and The towel with the Aztec Logo in the barn scenario is about to be resurrected
Please, Noooo. I am getting a little tired of explaining about a bottle of wine, lost virginity and The English interpretation of The French Preseratif.
Yet another post in which I am quoted but which I have not contributed to.
Could you please ensure that you use the quote function properly?
People aren't scrolling down properly to the last "Quote". That mucks up additional quotes.
-
I have sorted the quotes so pleeeease take care when quoting because the error stacks up with every consecutive post! 8)><(
I find this happens too when I use my Blackberry to post so please make sure you insert your comment after the last quote as gilet suggests.
You can edit or delete your previous posts if you want.
-
I have sorted the quotes so pleeeease take care when quoting because the error stacks up with every consecutive post! 8)><(
I find this happens too when I use my Blackberry to post so please make sure you insert your comment after the last quote as gilet suggests.
You can edit or delete your previous posts if you want.
There there
*offers tissue*
thanks for for your efforts
-
Thank you.
-
To the right of the previous video that I reviewed, I found a link to a further Hideho video about the car.
I have made a few comments about that one as well.
If I have made any errors in the post I will willingly correct them. It is very hard to be 100% accurate in every post made about such a massive topic when like me you are not an expert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8NVS-_19g0
0:19 Question asked on the video: "Was Madeleine's body moved in the McCann's car rented THREE WEEKS after Madeleine's disappearance?
0:24 TV Interviewer asks blunt question of the McCanns "Did you kill your daughter?"
0:26 Gerry and Kate answer. Gerry makes the point that it would have been impossible to hide her in the face of an immediate search. Kate makes the entirely logical point that moving a body after it having been successfully hidden would be foolish.
0:45 You post that "Residue/cellular material" was found in the trunk of the car and sent for forensic testing. You fail to point out that the testing found no blood matching Madeleine and the DNA match was inconclusive.
0:47 You then lie (and I use that word deliberately) in the next shot by stating that Kate McCann chose to deny the existence (the implication being of the "residue/cellular matter" which you have just referred to) UNDER OATH (your emphasis) at the Leveson Inquiry.
You are fully aware that Kate McCann did no such thing. She was very specific at Leveson (you know this because you used the clip immediately after this in this video) that there were no body fluids found in the car. She never denied the existence of "residue/cellular material". You have simply posted in this video a blatant and libellous claim.
0:56 Extremely short clip of Kate McCann saying there were no body fluids in the car, proving that you know full well that Kate never denied the existence of "residue/cellular material" as you have claimed. I repeat you have simply lied.
1:00 Screen with the claim that 15/19 markers matched Madeleine's DNA. Again a lie. The 15 markers which matched Madeleine's DNA and very crucially that of other people as well were from the 37 which were identified.
1.:03 You then correctly state that it was "Considered inconclusive and not PROOF it was Madeleine's".
Unfortunately you then return to the irrelevant comments made in your previous video in this short series about the car.
1.08 The FBI statement has nothing to do with the McCann case. It does not take into account the fact that this low quality DNA sample from the car was from at least three separate people.
If you can show what possible relevance this CODIS information from the USA has to the McCann situation where a mixed sample of three people's DNA is being tested I would be grateful. If you cannot show relevance I will assume it is irrelevant as I believe, having read your post on the aimoo forum where again you provide no indication of relevance.
I have a strong suspicion that you have not understood that the figures in the McCann case are 15/37 not 15/19 as you so often quote and your contention that 15/15 or 19/19 would be even more unlikely shows lack of knowledge about the specifics of the McCann case. However I will freely admit my error if relevance is proven.
1:20 You then repeat your links to the quotes from Madame Adamis from the previous video. And once again you fail to point out that this is not a comparable situation to the one that was put to Madame Adamis. She was clear that only in a case of a quality DNA profile which this McCann profile is not and in the case of it being 15/19 markers which in this case it is not should her comments be taken as true and only then would the 1 in a billion claim you repeat be true.
Either deliberately or through a lack of understanding of the differences between what Adamis is saying and what is actually extant in the McCann case you are clearly posting information here which is totally incorrect and which is clearly misinforming the viewers of the video.
2:00 You show a video clip of the McCanns and Mitchell where he states that there are entirely innocent explanations for the claims made against them. As people who are claiming to be innocent you would expect them to offer such explanations.
2.04 Sky news video continues. Three DNA explanations are given by a source (possibly though not necessarily Mitchell).
Sweat from her flip flops.
Nappies from twins.
Up to 30 others who used the car whilst it was on hire including blood relatives.
2:30 Martin Brunt asked to explain some of variables relating to DNA in car including that it might not have been Madeleine herself in the car.
2.48 Brunt says evidence says very strongly that it was not her DNA that has been transferred. He then has to correct himself when he has said it is a fact that the DNA shows a full match to Madeleine, a 99%+ match, to it just being an allegation. He then says this allegation, according to the police, shows the presence of her body, not her clothing or the transfer of her DNA onto anything else. He claims the police are adamant that this shows that this was Madeleine's body in the boot of the family car at least five weeks after she disappeared.
BUT (as you so often say in your videos).
You know as I know that none of this allegation by the police was factual. You know as I know that these allegations bore no resemblance whatsoever to the actual FSS report on the DNA which John Lowe was clear was inconclusive.
Once again you have simply used the false news reports from six years ago to back up your story and have not offered the slightest clarification that the story has since been proven to be nothing more than the allegation which Blunt described it as.
You are being utterly deceitful and deliberately denigrating the McCann explanations when you know that your so-called facts are nothing but unsupported allegations.
3:16 Next you quote Amaral who says that everything pointed to the body having been moved by car twenty something days after the disappearance.
As he was presumably aware of the Lowe report which provided no evidence of any such claim it is a reasonable question to ask why this man, convicted of lying in another similar missing child case, should be making this claim.
Was it deliberate or did he lack understanding?
3:35 Brunt reappears this time talking about body fluids in the car from a de-composing body.
Unfortunately like the PJ, Brunt never provided the slightest evidence for any such body fluids or for a de-composing body in the hire car. It was as we all now realise media hype (later punished in many cases by large financial penalties) based on the leaks from the PJ which Brunt freely admitted on air.
3.44 Next you post the extraordinary claim by Amaral that being police experts they can say that the type of body fluid in the car indicates the cadaver was frozen. Total and utter invention. As there was no body fluid in the car it is impossible for this to be supported by evidence. By the release of the files this has been shown to be utterly untrue.
Why you still publish in your video such imaginative rubbish is a poignant question which impinges on your underlying motives and/or understanding of the facts in the case.
3:47 You carry on posting the imaginative nonsense from Amaral about the hot weather melting the body and when the car was on a curb something fell above the wheel.
Where do you think the evidence for all this is? In the missing pages of the files? If so, why was no reference made to these body fluids in the FSS report? Nothing there suggesting fluids of any kind let alone ones which had melted out of a decomposing frozen corpse. It is complete fantasy and very sick fantasy at that.
And a very significant propaganda point is just how long you have allowed these particular shots within your video.
In comparison to other sections they hold their position on screen far longer. Why, I wonder might that be?
3.58 Having spent 10 full seconds on the 15 words about the curb and something falling on the wheel, you now only allow 4 seconds for the 18 word screen explaining that even Amaral only considers this frozen body scenario to be SPECULATION.
That is an extremely telling time allocation, something that matters to video makers, something they spend a lot of time deciding.
Your time priorities for the screenshots are very good indicators of your bias.
4:10 Further circumstantial claims about the car boot being seen open are not developed beyond saying that there was a possible reason given by Sandy Cameron about blood having seeped from a plastic bag and the car was aired after this.
4:19 2 second shot of the car with its boot open. Could have been at any time for any length of time but your insinuation is that it was part of some cover up to justify the blood and smell in the car as you lead on to ...
4:21 Amaral speculating on this possibility. And him claiming that the boot of the vehicle was left open overnight.
Is there any reference to this boot being open overnight in the files or is this something only Amaral knows about?
Or is it just a media story like so many others? I genuinely do not know so would appreciate a pointer to the source.
4:28 You then introduce your climactic point about this open boot, that cadaver and blood dogs only detect human odour and fluids.
Since you have gone from the speculation about the reason for the boot being open to this it seems you are pointing us towards a very illuminating claim.
But, you then spoil it again with your reliance on those old news reports.
4.32 Sky again saying a full match and a partial match of DNA was recovered after the dog alerts.
Unfortunately for your propaganda that was proven to be completely wrong by the reports. It is very strange that you missed those reports from John Lowe which utterly debunk this claim on Sky and are still propagating these myths. One could almost believe it was deliberate.
5:04 A man on the Sky report says the parents will be worried. Innocent or guilty they would be worried. If they know they are innocent, even without the FSS report they will know that the claims are ludicrous (as Kate stated in your video).
And of course once they read the files and saw the Lowe report they knew how justified in their worry they were and how right they had been to be worried.
I believe it both to be sad and at the same time shameful that having had time to digest the full forensic reports you continue to peddle this speculative nonsense in the way you do.
Again if I have made any errors in what I have claimed about the video I stand to be corrected.
-
Goodness me !
I have never viewed any of these videos in question, but I think I will make a journey to youtube ... to check out what deserves such forensic dissecting
-
Snort. Sorry, sorry. Couldn't help myself.
-
Goodness me !
I have never viewed any of these videos in question, but I think I will make a journey to youtube ... to check out what deserves such forensic dissecting
I find it hard to credit that someone who has followed the case for any length of time has not come across these videos. One thing Hideho is not short of is self-publicity.
-
Goodness me !
I have never viewed any of these videos in question, but I think I will make a journey to youtube ... to check out what deserves such forensic dissecting
I find it hard to credit that someone who has followed the case for any length of time has not come across these videos. One thing Hideho is not short of is self-publicity.
Well it's true gilet
Apart from this one, the only forum I post on is digital spy
It's ages since the McCann case was discussed there, and ages since I contributed to the debate ... there was no mention of videos at that time
I will look them up now though
-
You will need plenty of time to go through them. I think there are about 300 - 400 minutes in total.
I would normally say, "Enjoy" but not in this case.
-
Back on topic.
Was Madeleine's hair found in the Scenic?
No:
There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.
Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of
insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.
Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10-10.html
-
Was cadaver odor detected in the Scenic?
NO.
BOth Eddie and Keela reacted. Blood was found in the car ( Gerry's). So no detection of cadaver odor.
-
No identification of material from Madeleine was found in the Scenic:
Task Portugal
From: "Prior Stuart" <Stuart.Prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
To: "Task Portugal" <Task.Portugal@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence
---
>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
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html
-
Was cadaver odor detected in the Scenic?
NO.
BOth Eddie and Keela reacted. Blood was found in the car ( Gerry's). So no detection of cadaver odor.
How can you know, with certainty, that Eddie the cadaver dog was not alerting to cadaver odor ?
If there was both blood and cadaver odor, then both dogs would alert, wouldn't they ?
( genuine question, because I'm not sure of the answer )
-
Mr. Lowe sold himself short.
-
Mr. Lowe sold himself short.
Mr. Lowe understands Forensics and DNA. You obviously don't.
-
Back on topic.
Was Madeleine's hair found in the Scenic?
No:
There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.
Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of
insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.
Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10-10.html
You do need to re-read the files - the appearance and coloring of the hair was consistent with Madeleine McCann's, however the best laboratory in the world was unable to even determine if the hair was from a dead or alive person, when all it takes is a very simple look at a microscope.
Look, we know what FSS stands for nowadays, a Fraud. So you better find other excuses.
-
Mr. Lowe sold himself short.
Mr. Lowe understands Forensics and DNA. You obviously don't.
Yes, I believe he does. But even if I am not a scientist as the Portuguese president of the Legal Medicine Institute is, I understand enough to see the obvious. And the obvious is that what was provided by the reports is "CRAP".
-
Back on topic.
Was Madeleine's hair found in the Scenic?
No:
There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.
Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of
insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.
Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10-10.html
You do need to re-read the files - the appearance and coloring of the hair was consistent with Madeleine McCann's, however the best laboratory in the world was unable to even determine if the hair was from a dead or alive person, when all it takes is a very simple look at a microscope.
Look, we know what FSS stands for nowadays, a Fraud. So you better find other excuses.
The hairs found in The Scenic were short, and almost certainly from haircuts received by the twins shortly before.
-
Mr. Lowe sold himself short.
Mr. Lowe understands Forensics and DNA. You obviously don't.
Yes, I believe he does. But even if I am not a scientist as the Portuguese president of the Legal Medicine Institute is, I understand enough to see the obvious. And the obvious is that what was provided by the reports is "CRAP".
So your definitive evidence for this is? Or is it just presumption and biased opinion?
Personally I prefer to take the report of John Lowe, the reputable scientist who handled the forensic material (which you did not, but still see fit to pronounce on) and his remarks rather than your less than polite and rather unsupported statements that Lowe sold himself short and his report is to quote you, "CRAP".
I wonder who others who genuinely seek the truth will choose to trust, you or the respected scientist who actually dealt with the material and who provided a full and detailed report into his tests?
-
Was cadaver odor detected in the Scenic?
NO.
BOth Eddie and Keela reacted. Blood was found in the car ( Gerry's). So no detection of cadaver odor.
How can you know, with certainty, that Eddie the cadaver dog was not alerting to cadaver odor ?
If there was both blood and cadaver odor, then both dogs would alert, wouldn't they ?
( genuine question, because I'm not sure of the answer )
WE do not know there was no cadaver odor, but we have no more reason to believe c weaver odor was there AFTER the dogs went in than BEFORE.
Let us simplify.
WE have two detecting machines, one called an Edifier can detect either poisons or sugar. The other called a Keelifier detects only sugar.
WE have a series of boxes about which we know nothing of the contents. We use the machines to detect their contents.
BOx 1 both E and K react. So it contains sugar only (within the accuracy of the detectors)
BOx 2 e reacts but k does not- we can expect that it contains poison (within the accuracy of the detectors)
Box3 k reacts and e does not- this is logically impossible (within the accuracy of the detectors)
BOx 4 neither react no sugar, no poison.(within the accuracy of the detectors)
-
Back on topic.
Was Madeleine's hair found in the Scenic?
No:
There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.
Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of
insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.
Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10-10.html
You do need to re-read the files - the appearance and coloring of the hair was consistent with Madeleine McCann's, however the best laboratory in the world was unable to even determine if the hair was from a dead or alive person, when all it takes is a very simple look at a microscope.
Look, we know what FSS stands for nowadays, a Fraud. So you better find other excuses.
SO you are unable to backup your assertion that the two reports were contradictory.
-
Back on topic.
Was Madeleine's hair found in the Scenic?
No:
There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.
Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of
insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.
Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10-10.html
You do need to re-read the files - the appearance and coloring of the hair was consistent with Madeleine McCann's, however the best laboratory in the world was unable to even determine if the hair was from a dead or alive person, when all it takes is a very simple look at a microscope.
Look, we know what FSS stands for nowadays, a Fraud. So you better find other excuses.
THat is directly from the files. No match found.
-
Back on topic.
Was Madeleine's hair found in the Scenic?
No:
There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.
Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of
insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.
Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10-10.html
You do need to re-read the files - the appearance and coloring of the hair was consistent with Madeleine McCann's, however the best laboratory in the world was unable to even determine if the hair was from a dead or alive person, when all it takes is a very simple look at a microscope.
Look, we know what FSS stands for nowadays, a Fraud. So you better find other excuses.
THat is directly from the files. No match found.
It appears that non-scientist Luz is claiming that scientist John Lowe does not know how to handle a microscope. Like Hideho in another context she is telling us that she knows better than the actual experts who handled the material and have genuine experience to base their comments on.
It is difficult to refrain from making such ad hominem comments as this because the whole thrust of Luz's argument is about herself knowing better than Lowe and there is no evidence for her claims in her posts which can be discussed.
-
Was cadaver odor detected in the Scenic?
NO.
BOth Eddie and Keela reacted. Blood was found in the car ( Gerry's). So no detection of cadaver odor.
How can you know, with certainty, that Eddie the cadaver dog was not alerting to cadaver odor ?
If there was both blood and cadaver odor, then both dogs would alert, wouldn't they ?
( genuine question, because I'm not sure of the answer )
WE do not know there was no cadaver odor, but we have no more reason to believe c weaver odor was there AFTER the dogs went in than BEFORE.
Let us simplify.
WE have two detecting machines, one called an Edifier can detect either poisons or sugar. The other called a Keelifier detects only sugar.
WE have a series of boxes about which we know nothing of the contents. We use the machines to detect their contents.
BOx 1 both E and K react. So it contains sugar only (within the accuracy of the detectors)
BOx 2 e reacts but k does not- we can expect that it contains poison (within the accuracy of the detectors)
Box3 k reacts and e does not- this is logically impossible (within the accuracy of the detectors)
BOx 4 neither react no sugar, no poison.(within the accuracy of the detectors)
Thank you for the simplification ... but an even simpler 'yes or no' answer would be welcome
If both blood and cadavour odor were present ... would both dogs alert ?
-
Was cadaver odor detected in the Scenic?
NO.
BOth Eddie and Keela reacted. Blood was found in the car ( Gerry's). So no detection of cadaver odor.
How can you know, with certainty, that Eddie the cadaver dog was not alerting to cadaver odor ?
If there was both blood and cadaver odor, then both dogs would alert, wouldn't they ?
( genuine question, because I'm not sure of the answer )
WE do not know there was no cadaver odor, but we have no more reason to believe c weaver odor was there AFTER the dogs went in than BEFORE.
Let us simplify.
WE have two detecting machines, one called an Edifier can detect either poisons or sugar. The other called a Keelifier detects only sugar.
WE have a series of boxes about which we know nothing of the contents. We use the machines to detect their contents.
BOx 1 both E and K react. So it contains sugar only (within the accuracy of the detectors)
BOx 2 e reacts but k does not- we can expect that it contains poison (within the accuracy of the detectors)
Box3 k reacts and e does not- this is logically impossible (within the accuracy of the detectors)
BOx 4 neither react no sugar, no poison.(within the accuracy of the detectors)
Thank you for the simplification ... but an even simpler 'yes or no' answer would be welcome
If both blood and cadavour odor were present ... would both dogs alert ?
My answer to that would be yes they would both alert.
But it would not be possible to determine what Eddie had alerted to unless a cadaver or part cadaver was found because he may have simply alerted to blood like Keela.
-
@Gilet
COrrect