Madeleine McCann

[Darryl Kenyon]

Have the Mcanns made any response to Dr Mark Perlin's claims that he could crack the DNA evidence with the advancements in technology his lab as made?

[JeffHamm]

no evidence of Madie having been in the car,

I thought the DNA evidence proved inconclusive?

They found no match with Maddie's DNA. From a scientist's perspective, such as an expert witness, finding no evidence is inconclusive because it is possible for her to have been in the car but left no trace evidence, or the trace evidence wasn't found, etc (but given we're talking a body 3 weeks dead, that was supposedly in a freezer, that's extremely implausible, to the point "inconclusive" is being overly cautious). With today's ability to recover DNA sufficient for analysis from the tiniest of samples, it's getting to the point where finding a match will also be inconclusive because, unlike fingerprints, biological material (hair, skin cells, etc) can be transferred without the person being there (secondary transfer), so finding a match has to be viewed as "is there an innocent explanation for finding a miniscule amount of material" - in this case they're not at that point as they simply have the "no match was found". But if she was never in the car, no match is what you would get. To conclude she was in the car, but left no trace material, is a long shot argument against the odds. Even the Portugese Lead Investigator went for "lab manipulated the results" rather than "didn't find it" or "she didn't leave any trace evidence".

They did find a mix of material from the other family members, which would partially match Maddie's DNA because that's how family DNA works, but they did not match with hers.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

They found no match with Maddie's DNA.

They did find a mix of material from the other family members, which would partially match Maddie's DNA because that's how family DNA works, but they did not match with hers.

- Jeff

Jeff The report says yes, it could have been a mix of other family members DNA but also Maddie's DNA could have been in there as well . The samples had also degraded. Thus inconclusive.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Also wasn't the twins DNA ruled out? Not totally sure on this

[JeffHamm]

Jeff The report says yes, it could have been a mix of other family members DNA but also Maddie's DNA could have been in there as well . The samples had also degraded. Thus inconclusive.

Yes, I suppose it could have been, but they didn't match with it or find it but they acknowledge that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and they rightly report limitations. But to base a conclusion of guilt on "could haves" and "but maybe ifs" to dismiss what amounts to evidence pointing towards innocence is ignoring what the evidence most simply leads one to conclude; That there was no large presence of Maddie's DNA in the car, which is what you would expect to have found if her 3 week old body had been put in the trunk. Sure, maybe they could have found a way to hide her DNA without making the car suspiciously clean. Or maybe they didn't find it because she was never in the car in the first place. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence of guilt in the DNA results and they shouldn't be presented as if they contain incriminating evidence.

- Jeff

[Paddy]

Did the dog find cadaverine in the car? Or was it just a blood dog that checked the cars? Pat

[JeffHamm]

Did the dog find cadaverine in the car? Or was it just a blood dog that checked the cars? Pat

They did not find a cadaver, or any evidence to suggest a cadaver was at one time present, in the car. But I believe it was the cadaver dog that alerted to the car, but a dog alert is not evidence of a cadaver having been present, it is only a lead that suggests that searching a spot might be useful. Just like when someone suggests that Person X might have had reason to commit a crime, that is not evidence they did, it is a lead that needs to be followed up to see if it goes anywhere. When nothing is uncovered to corroborate a dog alert, the alert is deemed a false alarm because they occur with sufficient frequency that the alerting alone is not reliable. False alarms are far more likely when searching for a signal that is not present (meaning, if there is a signal present, it attracts the searcer, in this case the dog, to it and reduces the liklihood of a false positive being made elsewhere - in part because less time is spent away from the attracting signal. When there is no signal, but a searcher is looking for one they expect to find, they are more likely to false alarm. This happens with humans and identifications during lineups as well; if you give people a line up of photos that do not contain the suspect, the rate of false alarms is much higher than when you have the actual guilty party in the line up. People, and dogs, are less prone to "say" (sorry for the anthropomorphism here) "there's no signal here despite you telling me to find one". It's a basic principle of signal detection and decision making. With line up identifications there are methods that can be used to reduce that problem somewhat, without reducing the correct identifications (the "hits" as they are referred to), one being not to show a line up with a bunch of people, but to show the photos or people one at a time and get a decision for each independent of the others and also, not telling the witness how many photos/people are going to be shown in total, and also, not stopping the identification "parade" at the first "that's them" response. Can't really do that with a dog which is sent in to search around an area, but from watching the video of those searchers, the dog is not free to search and find, rather, the handler directs the dog to places to search, and if the dog doesn't search long enough to satisfy the handler, the handler redirets the dog back to search again. This looks to me like a procedure that can only increase the chances of a false alarm in situations when no signal is present - so if the McCann's are not involved, that entire search procedure looks like one that is likely to produce a lot of false alerts. And the blood dog false alerted a lot (the lab results found no evidence of any blood at all - those blood dog alerts were all false alarms); and so it is entirely plausible, even probable, that the cadaver dog was also false alarming.

Now, it's a very different situation when cadaver dogs are searching in an area where there actually is a body. They are very good when the cadaver signal is very strong (i.e. a body is actually in the shallow grave; or it was in the grave for a long period of time so fluids and decomposition has been going on for weeks or months before the body was removed; those situations leave a very strong signal for the dog to find, and those situations leave lots of corroborating evidence to be found that confirms the lead as reliable). However, Maddie, if she died in the apartment, would only have been there an hour or so apparently, which is going to leave next to no signal for the dog to find even if she was dead and there. There isn't time for the process of decomposition to get very far, and that is what the signal the dog's detect. Now if her frozen body was put in the trunk of the car, it would start to thaw during transport, liquid containing biological material would then contaminate the trunk, leaving a deposit of her DNA to be found (there's no evidence or even suggestion that the McCanns cleaned the car - a common behaviour of offenders who have transported a body). But they did not find a match to Maddie's DNA in the car (or the apartment), which is highly unlikely under the circumstances that are suggested. Not impossible, but highly improbable, and when viewed as being entirely consistent with the alternative explanation that she was never in the car in the first place, means the DNA is more consistent with the alternative and the dog alert is a false alarm.

To be honest, I'm a bit surprised Maddie's DNA was not found in the apartment. She was, after all, there. This fact could be viewed as a concern with regards to the lab results. Why didn't they find Maddie's DNA in the apartment given that it is known she was in there when she was alive? If they can't show she was there when alive, one might not be so concerned that the lab also doesn't show that she was there when dead. And that's fine, but again, I'm not saying the DNA proves she wasn't there, I'm just saying there is no evidence she was there and the DNA results do not inform us as to guilt or innocence. My personal view, all of the above having been considered, is that the pattern of results is far more easily explained by an innocent interpretation than a guilty one, but that's only my personal view and it means squat and people are free to view otherwise. But we are not free to say that dog alerts are evidence of anything, or that blood was found - particularly Maddie's blood - or that Maddie's DNA was found in the car, because none of that reflects what was found.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Did the dog find cadaverine in the car? Or was it just a blood dog that checked the cars? Pat

Hi paddy
despite what the mcann enablers will try to lie about, both cadaverine, which is the scent of death, and blood, and then later possible DNA were found by the professional scent dogs in the Mcanns car. But of course its probably nothing.

and all were also found on and near the couch in the apartment. But of course its all a huge conspriacy to frame the mcanns.

i feel so sorry for them, i consider sending them a free coupon to Parenting Magazine.

[JeffHamm]

Hi paddy
despite what the mcann enablers will try to lie about, both cadaverine, which is the scent of death, and blood, and then later possible DNA were found by the professional scent dogs in the Mcanns car. But of course its probably nothing.

and all were also found on and near the couch in the apartment. But of course its all a huge conspriacy to frame the mcanns.

i feel so sorry for them, i consider sending them a free coupon to Parenting Magazine.

Abby, it wasn't a plot to frame the McCann's, it was the press misrepresenting what the evidence was and overstating the importance of the dog alerts. Those initial reports of the dog alerts were reported as if those alone are indications of blood and/or a cadaver, they are not. When the actual lab results came back, no blood at all was found anywhere. Moreover, the DNA results did not come back with a match for Maddie. I know you want to say there was blood found, and I know you want to say they found Maddie's DNA, but just because I want a pony doesn't mean I'll get one. The only police officer I've mentioned as biased is the fellow who wrote the book. He was under investigation for mishandling another missing child case and was found to have coerced a false confession in that case, a story which is striking similar to what he proposes happened with Maddie (body stored in freezer, later disposed of). His career was ended early as a result, and he has tried to restore his reputation by continuing to push the theory he held at the time. A court banned his book from publication because it was found to be a misrepresentation of the McCanns, but that was later overturned by a higher court because the importance of free speech to express his opinion was considered to be of higher legal importance - it was not overturned because the book was considered factual. He has a known history of resorting to pressuring people into confessions because he believes no innocent person would confess (this, however, is known to be an erroneous belief, and false confessions are one of the top 3 reasons for miscarriages of justice as determined by the innocence project, where DNA clears wrongfully convicted people - the most common is erroneous eye witness identifications and the second is misleading forensic testimony - perhaps now my insistence on reporting the dog alerts with respect to their reliability and the lab test results for what they actually say is becoming clear).

Coming back to the dogs, and I'll focus on the blood dog alerts because those are indisputably all false alarms - every last alert by that blood dog was wrong so every place you want to say they found blood based on that dog's alerting did not contain blood. The lab results did not find blood, from anyone, anywhere in any of the samples they tested. That means there was no blood for that dog to detecct. And yet, it undeniably did alert. And those alerts were wrong, they were false alarms. I have been stating that dogs false alert all along, and the lab reports confirm that. Now we know that blood dog false alerted many times, and so we should right there be very concerned about the cadaver dog's alerts too because we've already proven beyond a doubt just how unreliable the blood dog was in this case.

And the lab results did not find a match with Maddie in the car or, apparently, in the apartment, and that I do find odd since we know she was there - but then, maybe she did not go behind the couch, or in the cupboard, you know, maybe she was never in any of the places where the death was supposed to have happend, or her body stored, because, just maybe, that whole hypothesis is wrong - none of the predictions it makes, like biological material from the body will get transferred, ever gets confirmed - they all get "no results" - and that's exactly what you would expect if she was abducted.

Now I've been clear about that too, that a lack of a match is not definitive proof she wasn't there. A perfect example is, they didn't find her DNA in the apartment but we know for a fact she was in that apartment. I believe they took samples from the bedroom, and while I could understand her not leaving traces behind the couch or in the cupboard, I would think her DNA would be likely to be found in the bedroom where she slept. And I've fully agreed, that not finding her DNA in the car is not absolute proof she wasn't in the car, but the result cannot therefore be presented as if it is evidence she was in the car. Basically, the DNA does not allow a 100% definite conclusion in either direction. My own personal view, though, is that if she had been behind the couch, stored in the cupboard, and moved in the car that the probability of none of those locations showing a match for her DNA is extremely low, particularly because the deposit in the car should have been large enough for them to find it, so the lack of that evidence tends to be in favour of her not being behind the couch, in the cupboard, or in the car, but I fully have acknowledged it is not proof of absence. There is a small possibility they just got unlucky every single time - but it's exactly what you would expect to find if she was never there in the first place.

Also, as I clearly pointed out above, the cadavar dog was the one I was sure alerted to the car, I wasn't sure about the blood dog, so accusing me of lieing is, I believe, incorrect. But again, since the blood reports came up completely negative for actual blood, if the blood dog also alerted to that car then that is even more of an indication that the dogs were false alarming to that car in particular - remember now, there was no blood found for that dog to scent. Something else was causing at least the blood dog to alert, probably, as I have suggested many times, the fact they were being redirected back time and again to re-scent areas, and they eventually alerted in error. That's why they had to have a lab test to verify if blood was actually present so they could distinguish a hit (an alert to actual blood) from a false alarm (an alert when there is no blood). The lab results showed there was no blood present, hence every last one of those blood dog alerts is wrong. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Maybe my suggestion about re-direction is wrong too, maybe it was something else causing the dog to false alarm, I don't know, but that to me seems the most plausible explanation for why they were false alarming because they were false alarming (the blood dog absolutely, and the cadavar dog most probably because again, they did not find a match to Maddie's DNA in the car, from blood or anything else. They found no physical evidence of a cadavar in the car at all, nor in the apartment. Without physical evidence to back up the alerts, the alerts are shown to be false, not "suggestive evidence", but false).

Remember, the complete lack of any blood being found means that blood dog got it wrong each and every time it alerted. That is how fallible they are, particularly when there is no signal to be found. One has to separate out their emotions about the case, and look at the evidence without a bias forcing the evidence to fit the bias. Right now, the evidence does not indicate a case against the McCann's can be made, it so far is consistent with them being innocent of her dissappearance, and other avenues of investigation are available. A known sexual predator was entering holiday rooms and abusing young children in that time frame, a series of offenses never solved, which sounds familiar. Was it this guy? I don't know, it's not solved, but to me that seems a far more likely suspect than continuing to suspect parents against which there is not a single bit of physical evidence. Yes, parents are, in the majority, the offender. But not always. The evidence does not link them to the disappearance, making the less common abduction explanation the more probable. It's not rocket science. They looked for evidence that the theory they had predicted, they did not find it, they withdrew the "named suspect" status from the McCanns, dropped the case against them, and the Portuguese Attorney General publicly said there was no evidence against them. How much more one needs to justify considering that maybe the McCann's are not guilty and maybe justice requires looking elsewhere, is beyond me.

- Jeff

P.S. Have a look at the abstract of this paper. They tested scent dogs, and in some conditions the handler's believed scents were present. Guess what, despite scents never being present, the dogs falsely alerted over 225 times, and it was more likely when the handlers believed a scent was present (we cannot help it, we give off subtle cues of our beliefs, and the dogs pick up on it - and they false alarm as a result). This isn't my opinion, it's just how dogs and people work.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/

[Sunny Delight]

Hi paddy
despite what the mcann enablers will try to lie about, both cadaverine, which is the scent of death, and blood, and then later possible DNA were found by the professional scent dogs in the Mcanns car. But of course its probably nothing.

and all were also found on and near the couch in the apartment. But of course its all a huge conspriacy to frame the mcanns.

i feel so sorry for them, i consider sending them a free coupon to Parenting Magazine.

Enablers? Get a grip. As for your facts you only embarrass yourself.

[Harry D]

Wasn't there a child abuse case number registered against Gerry McCann? It's number 19309 in the CATS system.

What was it for? No one knows. The case appears to be empty... or wiped.

There's also the pedophillic comments that David Payne and Gerry were alledgely making about their daughters.

Considering how quickly the British cabinet were to step in and protect the McCanns, it makes you wonder if the whole pedophillia mob are behind this cover up.

[Darryl Kenyon]

A British scientist from the now defunct FSS, John Lowe, came back to Portugal’s detectives with forensic results that appeared inconclusive but open to interpretation.

In an email dated 03/09/07 , Lowe stated the swab taken from behind the sofa produced an “incomplete DNA result”.

However, Lowe continued: “All of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline"

Lowe said his testing of the swab from behind the sofa could not determine what kind of bodily fluid made up the DNA sample.

But, as would be later noted by the handler of sniffer dog Keela, his canine was only trained to alert to human blood, nothing else.


Now this reads to me that the DNA sample taken from behind the sofa was too degraded to say if it was blood or not.
But since the dog Keela alerts to blood and nothing else, well make up your own mind on what it may have been.

Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

A British scientist from the now defunct FSS, John Lowe, came back to Portugal’s detectives with forensic results that appeared inconclusive but open to interpretation.

In an email dated 03/09/07 , Lowe stated the swab taken from behind the sofa produced an “incomplete DNA result”.

However, Lowe continued: “All of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline"

Lowe said his testing of the swab from behind the sofa could not determine what kind of bodily fluid made up the DNA sample.

But, as would be later noted by the handler of sniffer dog Keela, his canine was only trained to alert to human blood, nothing else.


Now this reads to me that the DNA sample taken from behind the sofa was too degraded to say if it was blood or not.
But since the dog Keela alerts to blood and nothing else, well make up your own mind on what it may have been.

Regards Darryl

Thanks for posting this Dk
ive always manintained that her death/ murder happened on or near that couch and that the overdosing may have something to do with it. I think a possible scenario is with that morning of maddie asking her parents why didnt you come when we cried last night led the mccams to beleive they needed to give her either more or some medication that would make her sleep through the night and not wake up. It seems to have worked with the twins who apparenly slept through all the commotion and even into the next day. But when it came to maddie she had some kimd of reaction, or perhaps refused to take it which led to her being struck. Or she fell off the back of the couch and hit her head. Or of course she was being sexually/ physicaaly abused on the couch which led to her death and had nothing to do with the any medication. One thing is clear to me is she died on or near that couch.

whats also clear is that the different detections of blood, death and dna corroberate one another on the couch and in the car.

[Sunny Delight]

Thanks for posting this Dk
ive always manintained that her death/ murder happened on or near that couch and that the overdosing may have something to do with it. I think a possible scenario is with that morning of maddie asking her parents why didnt you come when we cried last night led the mccams to beleive they needed to give her either more or some medication that would make her sleep through the night and not wake up. It seems to have worked with the twins who apparenly slept through all the commotion and even into the next day. But when it came to maddie she had some kimd of reaction, or perhaps refused to take it which led to her being struck. Or she fell off the back of the couch and hit her head. Or of course she was being sexually/ physicaaly abused on the couch which led to her death and had nothing to do with the any medication. One thing is clear to me is she died on or near that couch.

whats also clear is that the different detections of blood, death and dna corroberate one another on the couch and in the car.

In that scenario there would have been a lot of blood. Very difficult to remove all that evidence. Impossible even. The blood samples sent to the UK for analysis would have been 100% conclusive and we would have something to go on. But we don't. As for overdose or being struck again no evidence forthcoming for that scenario. You also change your analysis frequently. Firstly Gerry was seen by the Smiths. You didnt think they stored the body but Gerry threw it in the sea but now the couch and car DNA(inconclusive) and cavader dog are linked and corroberate each other. So which is it?

Here is what we know from the Police investigations.

5:30pm- Madeleine McCann is alive and well and collected at the creche. She goes back to the apartment with her mother and siblings.

7pm- Gerry McCann finishes playing tennis according to his coach. He goes back to the apartment

7pm-8:30pm- The McCanns claim they got ready for dinner. They had a shower and a beer and a wine. They put the children to bed reading them a story. It is between this time period where some believe an accidental overdose was administered.

8:30pm- The McCanns are the first to arrive for dinner at theTapas bar. The others arrive in dribs and drabs over the next 15 minutes.

9:05-9:10pm- Gerry McCann checks on the children. He claims all is well. The children are asleep.

9:15pm- As friend Jane Tanner goes to check her children she notices Gerry speaking to another guy he plays tennis with at the front of his apartment. Tanner then sees a man cross the road up ahead. He is carrying a child. A young girl wearing pink pyjamas. She doesn't think much about it but later fears she may have seen the abduction taking place. Years later this man is eliminated from enquiries as a ln innocent father who had collected his daughter from the nearby creche.

9:25-9:30pm- Matthew Oldfield offers to check the McCanns children as he checks his own. He notices the door open to a 50 degree angle but thinks nothing of it. On reflection he thinks there may have been more light than was to be expected. However he listens outside the door and all seems still. With the door ajar he can see the twins but not Madeleines bed. He can see the curtains as well and is certain they were not rustling(it was a windy night). He was certain the shutters were not up.

9:35pm- Oldfield tells the McCanns all is quiet.

10pm- Kate goes to check on the children. She notices the door completely open- not in the same position as Oldfield had described. According to her the shutters were open and the window was open both as far as possible. Madeleines bed covers were pulled back and her comforter lay on the bed. Madeleine is nowhere to be found.

10pm- The Smith family are walking home from a bar in Luz when they encounter a man carrying a young girl. She is aged between 2-4 wearing pink pyjamas and is barefoot. She has blond medium length hair. The man is 5ft 9 or so- aged between 30 and 40, clean shaven but is walking normally although in the middle of the road. He is walking normally. This sighting takes 500 yards from the Ocean club apartments.

10pm onwards- After Kate raises the alarm the Tapas group and the workers there search throughout the complex, look in all buildings and swimming pools and tennis courts then fan out across the rest of the resort to search. The Police are informed at 10:40pm and a car containing two officers is sent to the scene. They arrive around 11pm. By 2am the PJ have been informed that a serious crime may have occured and the investigation begins.


So that is the timeline. That is according to the Police files.

[JeffHamm]

Apparently there's a new suspect (the article actually indicates more than one). They're now investigating a foreign peodfile who was known to be committing offenses in the area at the time. Portugese Police are increasing the investigative team and Scotland Yard has asked for 12, rather than 6 months, extension to follow this up. Who knows, could be another lead that fizzles, or maybe it's a break in the case? Hopefully the latter.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/new-suspect-in-madeleine-mccann-disappearance/ar-AAATVtp?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=mailsignout

- Jeff