Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

**kitti** Sun 21 Oct - 22:11

I would like to know why the Mccanns washed the curtains and why they washed the wall behind the settee which incidentally happened to have blood specks on and also the floor.

I would Also like to ask mr Amaral a question .....

'Was there bleach JUST behind the settee on the wall and floor or was there bleach In other parts off the floor or walls in the apt'?

**Panda** Sun 21 Oct - 22:57

tigger wrote:
mossman wrote:Dazedandconfused, thank you, you are very kind. My opinion is an uneducated one, with some interesting facts thrown in, nothing more. I do not believe we have been told the truth about the DNA results. What a mistake the PJ made not keeping some samples in their own laboratories. They unfortunately bowed to what they felt was a superior testing method in the UK, were they not described as the best in the world or something. Then the samples destroyed because the PJ never asked for them back. That I cannot understand at all, dna has been held on file and subsequently used years later when new testing has been invented to solve old cases. Yet, luckily in this instance it is just gone, whooshed, unobtainable for ever. That surely must set alarm bells ringing somewhere in Scotland Yard or am I wrong in thinking that ? Are dna samples just thrown into the bin every day ?

That has to be a lie (from the FSS?) the excuse was that they were contaminated with DNA from the staff!!! All the DNA from the staff is on record just for the purpose of avoiding contamination and indeed detecting it quickly and easily. They were thrown out because of contamination. Which is rubbish because contaminated samples have been held for decades because future techniques may be able to get better results. As in the Lawrence case where one speck of blood has jailed the killers over a decade later.
No, imo the FSS were leant on, I even heard they had a personal visit from the great and good mr. Brown, who did so much for the McCanns from the word go but never met them or was photographed with them, even if at the time it would have netted him a lot of votes. Why not Mr. Brown?

tigger, the excuse the FSS made for disposing of the samples was that the Portugese never asked for their return!!!. I don't know who chose the FSS but even back then their reputation was so bad that many Police Stations had their own facilities. the FSS was later sold to an American Firm.

I think that there simply isn't a totally reliable sample of Maddie's DNA to be had. The easiest way to get one would have been the blood from the heel prick that every baby is given at birth.

the slave Sun 21 Oct - 23:07

kitti wrote:I would like to know why the Mccanns washed the curtains and why they washed the wall behind the settee which incidentally happened to have blood specks on and also the floor.

I would Also like to ask mr Amaral a question .....

'Was there bleach JUST behind the settee on the wall and floor or was there bleach In other parts off the floor or walls in the apt'?

I hope they used Luminol. That would show exactly where they'd cleaned up any blood. Signs of a clean up are even more revealing.

**HiDeHo** Mon 22 Oct - 2:31

For those that haven't seen these before...

Incredible PROOF that CADAVER dogs DO NOT alert to ROTTING MEAT (Despite McCann's Claim)

MCMINUTES: CADAVER dogs IGNORE rotting meat and find BODY 10ft UNDERGROUND!

**kitti** Mon 22 Oct - 7:27

the slave wrote:
kitti wrote:I would like to know why the Mccanns washed the curtains and why they washed the wall behind the settee which incidentally happened to have blood specks on and also the floor.

I would Also like to ask mr Amaral a question .....

'Was there bleach JUST behind the settee on the wall and floor or was there bleach In other parts off the floor or walls in the apt'?

I hope they used Luminol. That would show exactly where they'd cleaned up any blood. Signs of a clean up are even more revealing.

That's what I would like to know.....was it a coincidence that the dogs alerted in the places were there was also bleach used behind the settee?

If your cleaning the floor you would use bleach on all off it, not just one part , unless there was a reason.

Why would you use bleach anyway especially as it's got a very strong smell , was it bleach or cleaning fluid.

**Panda** Mon 22 Oct - 8:14

HiDeHo wrote:For those that haven't seen these before...

Incredible PROOF that CADAVER dogs DO NOT alert to ROTTING MEAT (Despite McCann's Claim)

MCMINUTES: CADAVER dogs IGNORE rotting meat and find BODY 10ft UNDERGROUND!

Thanks HiDeHo , wonder if the McCann spies will see this. $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 25346$ Great Music ....I've heard it before but no idea what it is called.

**AnnaEsse** Mon 22 Oct - 8:17

HiDeHo wrote:For those that haven't seen these before...

Incredible PROOF that CADAVER dogs DO NOT alert to ROTTING MEAT (Despite McCann's Claim)

MCMINUTES: CADAVER dogs IGNORE rotting meat and find BODY 10ft UNDERGROUND!

Thanks HiDeHo. Brilliant videos and interesting when one of the women talks about how they train the dogs. For anyone who hasn't watched the videos, the trainers collect road kill, which they lay out in their target field: "The dogs don't get rewarded for telling us."

mossman Mon 22 Oct - 10:43

I went back to the question of the DNA to re-read everything to see if I can get a better understanding of what happened. I have firstly come across a letter from FSS , I have put an extract below, but full details can be read on http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm.

Am I reading this incorrectly, or is it up to the defence to request the samples are retained and if that is so are the McCanns not the defendants in this case ??

Date 2007.08.21

Letter from the FSS

Destruction of Samples

Investigating officer. Stuart Prior

A - Perishable samples.

Certain samples constitute a potential health risk. With the concurrence of the Home Office, it has been decided that such samples will not be submitted to the courts unless specifically requested by the Defence. (This is an extension of the procedures for the disposal of blood samples previously agreed by the Lord Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

The laboratory has examined one or more of the samples listed below. They will not be returned to you but will be destroyed in due course unless we are requested by the Defence to preserve them. You should notify the Defence solicitors in accordance with Home Office circulars 40/73 and 74/82 which allow a period of 21 days in which notice in writing must be given, by the defendant or his legal representative to the laboratory to prevent the samples being destroyed.

- Blood samples.
- Saliva samples.
- Swabs from body orifices.
- Other swabs bearing potentially hazardous material.
- Vomit, faeces, urine, etc.

The above list includes perishable personal samples, the destruction of which is required by Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984).

**kitti** Mon 22 Oct - 11:52

Well it wouldn't look very good if the Mccanns used the DNA or swabs Which showed them to be guilty off a serious crime for the defence, would it...if it showed the opposite they would off JUMPED to keep them locked away till the time is right.

So i think they were told to destroy them.

**Panda** Mon 22 Oct - 13:19

Hi mossman, that report is misleading because the samples sent to the FSS were for analysis only , there was never a suggestion that they would be used in a Court because no charge had been made.The FSS was a U.K. Government dept , incompetent, now sold to an American Co. The original report by John Lowe showed 15 of 19 alleles matching, but John Lowe later retracted that finding.

I can't understand why the Portugese did not ask for their return, they have their own Forensic Dept and could have double checked.

**kitti** Mon 22 Oct - 13:51

Why didn't they send the samples to spain....were they advised to send them to the UK?

**Panda** Mon 22 Oct - 14:25

kitti wrote:Why didn't they send the samples to spain....were they advised to send them to the UK?

The FSS was considered the most experienced with up to date equipment and either "Stu" or maybe Gordon advised the Portugese to send the samples there. I think that even though Lowe disputed the accuracy of the first test, the PJ should have asked for their return and sent them to the U.S. .

There was a report that the PJ had sent other samples to the FSS and noted they took too long to report their findings.As an experiment the PJ sent not too important samples simultaneously to the FSS and the Portugese Forensics. The Portugese had the samples tested and the Report delivered to the PJ in two weeks, the FSS took much longer.

tigger Mon 22 Oct - 15:05

NBCI report July 2006:

Retaining DNA samples from individuals is not necessary in order to avoid miscarriages of justice, because a second DNA sample is always taken from someone being prosecuted, to confirm the match with the DNA profile from the crime scene. This second match, rather than that in the NDNAD, is used in court proceedings. The stored DNA samples are also not used in criminal investigations, because it is the DNA profile from the NDNAD that is used for comparison with the DNA profile from the crime scene.

The NDNAD Board argues that samples must be kept for quality control and to check for errors. However, samples need not be kept permanently; they could be stored for only a limited time until an investigation is complete. The board also argues that keeping samples allows the NDNAD to be upgraded to use more detailed profiles in the future. Although this was necessary when the NDNAD was first set up, it is likely to be costly and impracticable given its current size, and would make the NDNAD incompatible with other databases internationally. It is also always possible to obtain a more detailed profile from the second DNA sample that is taken from the defendant for use in court. The UK government's advisory body, the Human Genetics Commission, concluded that the reasons given for retaining individuals' samples are not compelling (Human Genetics Commission, 2002), and has argued that samples from those who are arrested but not charged or convicted should be destroyed when a successful profile has been obtained (Human Genetics Commission, 2005).
unquote

**Panda** Mon 22 Oct - 15:23

Thanks tigger, but this is rather a different case, there is no Trial and the only way the McCanns could have been charged was if the sample taken from the car proved conclusively to match Madeleine's DNA in the wheelbase.

The FSS said there was insufficient evidence.

mossman Mon 22 Oct - 15:51

Panda wrote:
kitti wrote:Why didn't they send the samples to spain....were they advised to send them to the UK?

The FSS was considered the most experienced with up to date equipment and either "Stu" or maybe Gordon advised the Portugese to send the samples there. I think that even though Lowe disputed the accuracy of the first test, the PJ should have asked for their return and sent them to the U.S. .

There was a report that the PJ had sent other samples to the FSS and noted they took too long to report their findings.As an experiment the PJ sent not too important samples simultaneously to the FSS and the Portugese Forensics. The Portugese had the samples tested and the Report delivered to the PJ in two weeks, the FSS took much longer.

Hi Panda, thanks for replying. You seem to know about this dna thing, so maybe you can help me.

Are there still samples of the dna in existance ? I cannot understand a system whereby samples are sent somewhere then destroyed before the closure of a case. I know, as you say, no charges had been made, but surely that is the point - retain the samples until such time as the case is properly closed ?

For example, if this case were to be re-opened and the prosecution asked for the samples to be re-tested, on the basis that there are more accurate tests available now, can this ever happen ?

Why is it up to the defendants to say whether or not the samples should be retained, that seems very odd to me. That said, the McCanns are certain they are innocent, that the dogs are inaccurate, why not keep them and get their own tests done.

Sorry for these questions, maybe I am having a bad day or Im just stupid $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 284844$

**dazedandconfused** Mon 22 Oct - 16:15

mossman wrote:
Panda wrote:
kitti wrote:Why didn't they send the samples to spain....were they advised to send them to the UK?

The FSS was considered the most experienced with up to date equipment and either "Stu" or maybe Gordon advised the Portugese to send the samples there. I think that even though Lowe disputed the accuracy of the first test, the PJ should have asked for their return and sent them to the U.S. .

There was a report that the PJ had sent other samples to the FSS and noted they took too long to report their findings.As an experiment the PJ sent not too important samples simultaneously to the FSS and the Portugese Forensics. The Portugese had the samples tested and the Report delivered to the PJ in two weeks, the FSS took much longer.

Hi Panda, thanks for replying. You seem to know about this dna thing, so maybe you can help me.

Are there still samples of the dna in existance ? I cannot understand a system whereby samples are sent somewhere then destroyed before the closure of a case. I know, as you say, no charges had been made, but surely that is the point - retain the samples until such time as the case is properly closed ?

For example, if this case were to be re-opened and the prosecution asked for the samples to be re-tested, on the basis that there are more accurate tests available now, can this ever happen ?

Why is it up to the defendants to say whether or not the samples should be retained, that seems very odd to me. That said, the McCanns are certain they are innocent, that the dogs are inaccurate, why not keep them and get their own tests done.

Sorry for these questions, maybe I am having a bad day or Im just stupid $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 284844$

Don't be sorry - I'm also having a bad day/being stupid as I can't understand it either.

**AnnaEsse** Mon 22 Oct - 16:18

mossman wrote:
Panda wrote:
kitti wrote:Why didn't they send the samples to spain....were they advised to send them to the UK?

The FSS was considered the most experienced with up to date equipment and either "Stu" or maybe Gordon advised the Portugese to send the samples there. I think that even though Lowe disputed the accuracy of the first test, the PJ should have asked for their return and sent them to the U.S. .

There was a report that the PJ had sent other samples to the FSS and noted they took too long to report their findings.As an experiment the PJ sent not too important samples simultaneously to the FSS and the Portugese Forensics. The Portugese had the samples tested and the Report delivered to the PJ in two weeks, the FSS took much longer.

Hi Panda, thanks for replying. You seem to know about this dna thing, so maybe you can help me.

Are there still samples of the dna in existance ? I cannot understand a system whereby samples are sent somewhere then destroyed before the closure of a case. I know, as you say, no charges had been made, but surely that is the point - retain the samples until such time as the case is properly closed ?

For example, if this case were to be re-opened and the prosecution asked for the samples to be re-tested, on the basis that there are more accurate tests available now, can this ever happen ?

Why is it up to the defendants to say whether or not the samples should be retained, that seems very odd to me. That said, the McCanns are certain they are innocent, that the dogs are inaccurate, why not keep them and get their own tests done.

Sorry for these questions, maybe I am having a bad day or Im just stupid $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 284844$

As in "Who wants to be..." I'm going to have to ask a friend about this. I've seen so many stories on video where samples that have been stored for years have been re-tested when new technology came along or when a cold case was re-opened or both. I'm wondering if it's up to the police to store the samples they want to retain? I'm sure it can't, in any case, be up to suspects to decide what happens to samples.

The friend I shall ask was telling me some time ago about the forensic lab next door to his lab. He said that the forensic lab does a lot of police work and is audited very regularly. The auditors come in and check mainly in two ways. 1) Find samples and ask the staff to find the records. 2) Select a record at random and ask staff to find all the samples that have been stored. This implies that that particular lab retains and stores samples for some time.

mossman Mon 22 Oct - 17:20

That would be very helpful AnnaEsse, thank you.

Another thing that strikes me though, surely it is not what the law in the UK allowed for at that time, what do the laws in Portugal say about the retention of evidence ? Just because an English laboratory was used, the law in Portugal should be have taken precedent, imo.

**Panda** Mon 22 Oct - 18:05

mossman wrote:
Panda wrote:
kitti wrote:Why didn't they send the samples to spain....were they advised to send them to the UK?

The FSS was considered the most experienced with up to date equipment and either "Stu" or maybe Gordon advised the Portugese to send the samples there. I think that even though Lowe disputed the accuracy of the first test, the PJ should have asked for their return and sent them to the U.S. .

There was a report that the PJ had sent other samples to the FSS and noted they took too long to report their findings.As an experiment the PJ sent not too important samples simultaneously to the FSS and the Portugese Forensics. The Portugese had the samples tested and the Report delivered to the PJ in two weeks, the FSS took much longer.

Hi Panda, thanks for replying. You seem to know about this dna thing, so maybe you can help me.

Are there still samples of the dna in existance ? I cannot understand a system whereby samples are sent somewhere then destroyed before the closure of a case. I know, as you say, no charges had been made, but surely that is the point - retain the samples until such time as the case is properly closed ?

For example, if this case were to be re-opened and the prosecution asked for the samples to be re-tested, on the basis that there are more accurate tests available now, can this ever happen ?

Why is it up to the defendants to say whether or not the samples should be retained, that seems very odd to me. That said, the McCanns are certain they are innocent, that the dogs are inaccurate, why not keep them and get their own tests done.

Sorry for these questions, maybe I am having a bad day or Im just stupid $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 284844$

Hi mossman, I don't know anything technical , like what alleles are or even how long samples last....but if the

Portugese was asked if they wanted the samples returned and did not reply , either they knew the lifespan of the samples would be too short for them to be retained in the hope of a breakthrough or the FSS did not in fact ask the PJ if they wanted them returned. Considering the FSS said 15 0f 19 markers were found , then changed their mind saying of the Blood in the Car, it was proven that the twins were a match with their Parents , but not Madeleine, they don't seem too efficient. Stuart Prior, the leading Detective assigned to help the PJ was furious, he said 15 of 19 markers would be enough to go to Trial in any U.K. Court.

I believe the samples were destroyed , but I don't understand Forensics, Eli is the one to ask when he is about. I will never understand why Gerry was allowed to go with a Policeman to his home to pick up a sample of Madeleine's DNA and chose a Pillowcase. What if the Policeman waited downstairs and the Pillowcase was taken from Amelie's bed??? Madeleine's DNA would be all over the books etc in her room , so why did'nt they get some more samples.?

I think since no charge was brought against the McCanns, they had nothing to defend, the samples were used to isolate all the blood found in the wheelbase which Sandy said was rotting meat.

mossman Mon 22 Oct - 18:46

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 306321$ Panda

Thank you. I have been reading lots today, so am now neglecting my children.

However, I have started to see some light at the end of the tunnel in that I now understand some very important points. There are two issues with the dna and its destruction (not just in relation to this discussion). The first is when dna is taken from a suspect. It is a human rights issue when it comes to it being kept indefinately on police record. I am now assuming that is why they say the "defendant" has to order it to be retained - the owner of the dna must make the choice and give their permission for it to be kept.

The dna evidence found at a crime scene, which technically has no owner, until a suspect is arrested and charged and found guilty is different. That is why I could not understand why it appears acceptable to just throw dna in the bin in the middle of an investigation. It would seem these samples can be and are indeed held on file.

As regards lifespan, I have not found a specific timeframe for which the samples will remain usable, but it appears that if they are "correctly documented, collected and stored suitably" the samples can be presented as evidence "several" years later. They will not go off like a chicken in your fridge so it seems there was at least some scope for the car and apartment samples to be retained in this case.

All in all I think there is one great big gigantic muck up with this case.

Sorry for the annoying posts on this subject, I could not get to grips with it at all.

**Panda** Mon 22 Oct - 19:02

mossman wrote: $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 306321$ Panda

Thank you. I have been reading lots today, so am now neglecting my children.

However, I have started to see some light at the end of the tunnel in that I now understand some very important points. There are two issues with the dna and its destruction (not just in relation to this discussion). The first is when dna is taken from a suspect. It is a human rights issue when it comes to it being kept indefinately on police record. I am now assuming that is why they say the "defendant" has to order it to be retained - the owner of the dna must make the choice and give their permission for it to be kept.

The dna evidence found at a crime scene, which technically has no owner, until a suspect is arrested and charged and found guilty is different. That is why I could not understand why it appears acceptable to just throw dna in the bin in the middle of an investigation. It would seem these samples can be and are indeed held on file.

As regards lifespan, I have not found a specific timeframe for which the samples will remain usable, but it appears that if they are "correctly documented, collected and stored suitably" the samples can be presented as evidence "several" years later. They will not go off like a chicken in your fridge so it seems there was at least some scope for the car and apartment samples to be retained in this case.

All in all I think there is one great big gigantic muck up with this case.

Sorry for the annoying posts on this subject, I could not get to grips with it at all.

Hi mossman, you are welcome, although I am the last person to be putting you straight, I.m as thick as two planks about anything technical, $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 294124$

when you have an hour of so to yourself , go to mcannfiles.com ......it is a brilliant site containing all the info to date on the McCanns. type in the box Forensic evidence or FSS reports and all the info is there so you can print and read at your leisure.

**wjk** Mon 22 Oct - 20:21

Or go here where I think all the reports etc are filed.
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/f169-reports

**Panda** Mon 22 Oct - 20:29

wjk wrote:Or go here where I think all the reports etc are filed.
[url=https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/f169-reports

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/f169-reports[/quote[/url]]

See.....you learn something new every day., thanks wjk $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 25346$

I just checked and here's the link mossman

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8597-the-fss-lowe-report

**wjk** Mon 22 Oct - 20:40

Panda wrote:
wjk wrote:Or go here where I think all the reports etc are filed.
[url=https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/f169-reports
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/f169-reports[/quote[/url]]

See.....you learn something new every day., thanks wjk $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 25346$

I just checked and here's the link mossman

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8597-the-fss-lowe-report

Your welcome, Panda xx

mossman Mon 22 Oct - 20:47

Thanks everyone for the links. $\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 944533$

Sponsored content

\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ DNA - help

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

$\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales - Page 2 Empty$ Re: \dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales