Capabilities of the Dogs

dogs don't lie wrote:Was there blood found that seeped through the tiles? Genuine question

This link appears to cover all the blood issues

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm

So far as I can see, Keela found blood spots in half a dozen places on the floor tile grouting ("cement glue")

Neveronasunday wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Was there blood found that seeped through the tiles? Genuine question

This link appears to cover all the blood issues

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm

So far as I can see, Keela found blood spots in half a dozen places on the floor tile grouting ("cement glue")

The above tiles were lifted and swabs sent off for forensics and swab 3a (dry swab) came up with this from FFS:

"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."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

In these photographs, the arrows in numbers 1, 2 and 3 are said to indicate blood spots found by Keela on the floor



http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm

The fact that number 2 was under the tile embedded in the adhesive makes me wonder if it came from the tiler!

In his summary of 6th September 2007 Lowe states this:

"An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area. "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Lowe's report also seems to indicate that all the other blood spots that Keela found were so small that no information could be obtained from them, but as this is your department Seahorse, I will leave further analysis to you in case I misinterpret the findings!

So we have:

one blood spot on the floor - in the adhesive under the tile. No way that could be Maddie's

another spot - mixed blood so could be a squashed mosquito that bit more than one member of the family

the other spots - so minute that no information was forthcoming

I do think we have been fed a lot of false information over the years by certain people on certain forums (not this one, whose members are in my opinion contributing in good faith)

But false information leads to false conclusions, and suggestions in the past elsewhere that large deposits of blood were found on the floor or had seeped though the grouting are wrong

Keela had an amazing nose and did a great job, but the important places are the ones where Eddie detected something but Keela didn't (cadaver scent)

Thanks everyone for your replies. So much confusion in this case.

Neveronasunday wrote:Lowe's report also seems to indicate that all the other blood spots that Keela found were so small that no information could be obtained from them, but as this is your department Seahorse, I will leave further analysis to you in case I misinterpret the findings!

So we have:

one blood spot on the floor - in the adhesive under the tile. No way that could be Maddie's

another spot - mixed blood so could be a squashed mosquito that bit more than one member of the family

the other spots - so minute that no information was forthcoming

I do think we have been fed a lot of false information over the years by certain people on certain forums (not this one, whose members are in my opinion contributing in good faith)

But false information leads to false conclusions, and suggestions in the past elsewhere that large deposits of blood were found on the floor or had seeped though the grouting are wrong

Keela had an amazing nose and did a great job, but the important places are the ones Eddie detected something but Keela didn't (cadaver scent)

I'm no expert, just quoting from the PJ files.

I doubt Lowe and his 29 assistants would have been covering things up though.

They could have missed stuff of course and didn't have a great reputation from years before:

"The FSS suffered damage to its reputation following the failure to recover blood stains from a shoe in the murder of Damilola Taylor.[5] Further damage occurred when the FSS failed to use the most up-to-date techniques for extracting DNA samples in cases between 2000 and 2005.[6] This led the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to advise all police forces in England and Wales to review cases where samples had failed to give a DNA profile.[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_Science_Service

i don't think Lowe or the FSS were covering up but I think they spun the not able to isolate results. I left a link above which iam sure could be of interest to you as it deals directly with what FSS report says. perhaps you would read it and give us your opinion?

Bampots wrote:i don't think Lowe or the FSS were covering up but I think they spun the not able to isolate results. I left a link above which iam sure could be of interest to you as it deals directly with what FSS report says. perhaps you would read it and give us your opinion?

What part of the link do you want me to look at?

At the moment I'm looking at this part and I can understand the confusion but will point out why there is confusion imo:

From Textusa's link ( http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html ) . Comments by Textusa in green.

“286A/2007-CRL 3A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

An incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from the cellular material present in the dry swab (3A). The attempt to obtain a result from any cellular material that may have been in the same area and present in the wet swab (3B) was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN tests.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL [b]3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.

A low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL [b]3B). In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.”

Excuse me?!?

So, according to Lowe, it could be from Maddie (if single source) or it could be linked to Kate and Gerry (if more than one person) BUT it’s in no way linked to the McCann family?!?

Where is the logic in that?
"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinion on the above:

Textusa doesn't distinguish between the sample 3A (dry swab) and 3B (wet swab) from what Lowe is saying.

To summarise what Lowe says:

3A: If from single source --> DNA belongs to Madeleine.
     If from multiple sources --> DNA could be mixture of Gerry and Kate's DNA.

3B: No member of the McCann family contributed to this sample.


So imo Textusa is confusing 3A and 3B. She treats it as 1 sample.

but correct me if I'm wrong,is 3a and 3b just exactly that,the same sample except one is a wet swab and the other a dry swab,but essentially the same spot...hence what applies to one.....applies to the other. Indeed the same sample.
The chance of an outcome maybe better or worse wet or dry but results should be the same?

Bampots wrote:but correct me if I'm wrong,is 3a and 3b just exactly that,the same sample except one is a wet swab and the other a dry swab,but essentially the same spot...hence what applies to one.....applies to the other. Indeed the same sample.
The chance of an outcome maybe better or worse wet or dry but results should be the same?

Yes that's also how I understand it. The wet swab is taken with distilled water, so perhaps because of that it is too diluted to get any results from it.
Logically there must be DNA in 3B, but dilution may have made it too weak to get any information from it.

But that doesn't mean Lowe is confusing the issue. He is just stating facts based on what his analysts found.

There is plenty of information out there on the double swab technique. From what I've quickly read they tend to first wet swab, and then dry swab. But it's not clear how they did it in this case and looking at the A (dry) and B (wet) they did it the other way around in this case. But I have no way of knowing.

And it also follows that textusa is not confusing as she is correct in treating it as one sample with two references 3a and 3b.
And from that we can assume John Lowe is obsfucating by trying to imply both a and b could have different origins when in fact they were exactly the same!

Bampots wrote:And it also follows that textusa is not confusing as she is correct in treating it as one sample with two references 3a and 3b.
And from that we can assume John Lowe is obsfucating by trying to imply both a and b could have different origins when in fact they were exactly the same!

Of course 3a and 3b were not exactly the same.

One was taken after the other. Perhaps the first swab already took all the available DNA with it and there was none left to take for the second swab. Or the 3B sample was too diluted to retrieve any information from.

Yes ok isee where your coming from seahorse but essentially we are talking about the same spot and if it was Madeleines as spot A,its sure as hell Madeleines as spot B no matter how convoluted you be in the names you give it!

Bampots wrote:Yes ok isee where your coming from seahorse but essentially we are talking about the same spot and if it was Madeleines as spot A,its sure as hell Madeleines as spot B no matter how convoluted you be in the names you give it!

Maybe it's worth looking at the methods in which the samples were taken. Below an excerpt about swabbing:

"1.Moisten first swab with water, buffered saline, or lysis buffers; allowing dried samples to become rehydrated. Collect sample.
2.Use dry swab to collect remainder of sample from same spot."

http://blog.puritanmedproducts.com/three-key-steps-to-effective-dna-swab-collection-at-crime-scenes

What confuses me is the order in which the samples were taken. I'm assuming the 3a swab (dry) was taken first, followed by the 3b swab (wet).

But everywhere I've read so far swabbing takes place in the order of wet first, then dry.

ETA when it came to the curtains they ran out of 'English police swabs'

"Finally, the search and identification of spots, in natural and altered-wavelength light appropriate for the job, was made on two (2) blue curtains. Several spots were found. Because there were no further English police swabs available, the [blue] curtains, together with their white lining, were taken and put into a paper package referenced as trace evidence number 16."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm

Seems a bit sloppy.

But whoever the blood came from, the fact that we are talking about a few microscopic spots must surely be enough to refute the theory that Maddie died behind the sofa in a spectacular fountain of the stuff?

Or even to suggest that these minute traces of blood indicate in any way that she died there at all

Yes, Eddie told us that someone died, and it was probably her, but we mustn't be distracted by the wrong location because that would confuse all the timelines and alibis

The fact that there was a miniscule spot of blood embedded in the adhesive beneath one of the tiles (a place that M could not possibly have accessed) suggests to me that these things must happen all the time

This is a really fascinating debate, but I do feel the wood is being obscured by the trees. To me logic and common sense seems to have been thrown out the window with all this (a legal thing, I guess?)

I assume Eddie and Keela searched all apartments/cars/clothes/what have you, equally. What are the chances two highly trained dogs that had never knowingly made a false positive would all of a sudden make so many mistakes?

What are the chances that no other apartment/car/clothes of anybody else in PDL the dogs checked got a hit? I think this comes down to how the dogs are deployed and used by Martin Grime. Eddie seems to have been the dog that always checked first. If he found cadaver odour or blood then Keela is sent to check that area only to confirm which. If Keela hits then it is definitely blood and possibly cadaver odour too. If Keela doesn't hit it is definitely only cadaver odour.

Martin Grime has always gone out his way to point out material has to be found to back up the dogs and here samples were recovered but the FSS testing came back inconclusive either because of aggressive clean up, sloppy collection methods or for more sinister reasons.

I can think of two cases where dog(s) have indicated cadaver odour where nothing else was found that have been used in court to help conviction. Bianca Jones (Martin Grime dog) and Suzanne Pilley (SYP dogs).

Thank you the TTWO, that's the way I see it too.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:This is a really fascinating debate, but I do feel the wood is being obscured by the trees. To me logic and common sense seems to have been thrown out the window with all this (a legal thing, I guess?)

I assume Eddie and Keela searched all apartments/cars/clothes/what have you, equally. What are the chances two highly trained dogs that had never knowingly made a false positive would all of a sudden make so many mistakes?

What are the chances that no other apartment/car/clothes of anybody else in PDL the dogs checked got a hit? I think this comes down to how the dogs are deployed and used by Martin Grime. Eddie seems to have been the dog that always checked first. If he found cadaver odour or blood then Keela is sent to check that area only to confirm which. If Keela hits then it is definitely blood and possibly cadaver odour too. If Keela doesn't hit it is definitely only cadaver odour.

Martin Grime has always gone out his way to point out material has to be found to back up the dogs and here samples were recovered but the FSS testing came back inconclusive either because of aggressive clean up, sloppy collection methods or for more sinister reasons.

I can think of two cases where dog(s) have indicated cadaver odour where nothing else was found that have been used in court to help conviction. Bianca Jones (Martin Grime dog) and Suzanne Pilley (SYP dogs).

Good post. As I said a few posts back, these dogs are so reliable, police obviously have great faith and trust in them. Let's face it they even flew them out again last year to PDL.......... now why would they do that if the were so useless.

Nobody is saying the dogs made mistakes, please re-read the last two pages. I trust the dogs explicitly

Therefore I doubt that Eddie made any mistakes, same with Keela

Eddie detected cadaver odour, so someone died. Who? Circumstances suggest probably Maddie (though not 100 per cent certain, I'm prepared to assume Maddie)

Keela detected blood. Whose blood? Maybe Maddie's, maybe not. That wasn't Keela's job

If it was Maddie's blood it doesn't necessarily indicate the specific location of death. The fact that the spots were microscopic endorses that

If it was somebody else's blood, it's irrelevant

I don't think either of the dogs made errors, but we are in danger of making errors if we make too many assumptions and join the dots in the wrong order

I ask you: why do you think that a few microscopic spots of blood from persons unknown would ever indicate death?

I agree with you TTWO but you forgot what is, for me, the most damning proof that the dogs had picked up the scent of Madeleine's corpse. On seeing the video of the dogs indicating, Kate wrote, "I felt myself starting to relax a little".

An innocent mother wouldn't relax but a mother who was expecting worse evidence of her actions would.

I always felt the mothers response was rather odd., I think you have hit the nail on the head poe. I just cant imagine that the police have not sussed all this out ,but just not good enough evidence to take into court ,and if its not found enough by now ,I don't think it will ever come to a conclusive correct end . joyce1938

Agree with all above TTWO CF,Poe,and of course Costello. Dogs are right and the Lowe reports are deliberately ambiguous but point hugely in Maddies direction. I say again read Textusa blog don't be put off because its her.....

Further to that Candyfloss, surely those dogs rechecked 5A while there?

@Neveronasunday.

Look at the two cases I mentioned. I think the McCann case has the most "evidence" out of the three on the issue yet those two resulted in a conviction.

This is grossly unfair to me. All should be treated and tested equally. I can't see they have been here.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:This is a really fascinating debate, but I do feel the wood is being obscured by the trees. To me logic and common sense seems to have been thrown out the window with all this (a legal thing, I guess?)

I assume Eddie and Keela searched all apartments/cars/clothes/what have you, equally. What are the chances two highly trained dogs that had never knowingly made a false positive would all of a sudden make so many mistakes?

What are the chances that no other apartment/car/clothes of anybody else in PDL the dogs checked got a hit? I think this comes down to how the dogs are deployed and used by Martin Grime. Eddie seems to have been the dog that always checked first. If he found cadaver odour or blood then Keela is sent to check that area only to confirm which. If Keela hits then it is definitely blood and possibly cadaver odour too. If Keela doesn't hit it is definitely only cadaver odour.

Martin Grime has always gone out his way to point out material has to be found to back up the dogs and here samples were recovered but the FSS testing came back inconclusive either because of aggressive clean up, sloppy collection methods or for more sinister reasons.

I can think of two cases where dog(s) have indicated cadaver odour where nothing else was found that have been used in court to help conviction. Bianca Jones (Martin Grime dog) and Suzanne Pilley (SYP dogs).

Who is saying the dogs made mistakes?