Madeleine McCann

The cadaver dog in question has a 100% record, apparently. Also, I found this, taken from an article about another case entirely



As for your second part, the friend who supposedly checked on the children has said he did so from outside, and didn't actually go in. If she had died, under whatever circumstances that may have happened, checking from outside wouldn't have uncovered her. The timelines reported also differ somewhat.

I don't know what I believe, it all seems strange with so many inconsistencies and contradictions in the stories told. I do find the "scent of death" stuff creepy, though.

That is ridiculously creepy and I find it very disheartening.

The thing that baffles me most about the whole thing is that if the parents did have something to do with her dying, even if it were by accident, surely they would want their daughter to have a proper burial or cremation and be given the respect she deserves in death as opposed to being bungled into some unmarked grave, never to be visited? The entire story is bizarre from start to finish. I can't remember a time being on holiday when my parents weren't within earshot of me and my brother and there isn't a cat in hell's chance we'd have been left in the hotel room on our own, while our parents went for a meal and I think the same would go for the vast majority of parents.
 
Besides, if they caused her to die and disposed of the body in such a short amount of time they must have had some criminal instinct to bury it so well that it hasn't popped up in 6 years. It'd have had to be pre-planned for it to go so smoothly and it couldn't have been, otherwise it musr have taken an enormous amount of luck for them to get away with it.
 
The whole thing makes even less sense when you consider the fact that Gerry (father) went to check on the kids and found the door wide open apparently and he remember leaving it only slightly ajar before - how it didn't raise his concern beggars belief.

I could be wrong but I think one of their friends checked on the kids, previous to him going there, and attributed the door being more open to that. Another possibility could be Maddie went to get a drink or anything really.
 
I have done some work with search dogs here in the UK. Boy are they good, I've never seen one wrong in a murder investigation. Tonight is the first I read about the dog in the apartment, and for me, that is all I need to know.

Very telling. The dogs are brilliant.
 
Some are saying this friend (Matthew Oldfield) bears a resemblance to the suspect in the e-fit picture that was released.


A guy reported seeing someone who looked remarkably like Gerry acting suspiciously carrying a child that looked remarkably like Madeline in an area away from the hotel around the time of the disappearance, before he was aware of who Gerry was.
 
A guy reported seeing someone who looked remarkably like Gerry acting suspiciously carrying a child that looked remarkably like Madeline in an area away from the hotel around the time of the disappearance, before he was aware of who Gerry was.

It doesn't quite make sense though because he only left dinner for a few minutes before Kate went to check on the kids at 10 pm to find Madeleine's bed empty. It's not enough time to carry the body out of the apartment and get rid of it, especially as it's been 6 years already and she hasn't been found. No way you can hide a body in 5 minutes so well that it doesn't appear in 6 years and I doubt they'd have had the time to deal with it the following day as they were clearly put under a lot of scrutiny.
 
It doesn't quite make sense though because he only left dinner for a few minutes before Kate went to check on the kids at 10 pm to find Madeleine's bed empty. It's not enough time to carry the body out of the apartment and get rid of it, especially as it's been 6 years already and she hasn't been found. No way you can hide a body in 5 minutes so well that it doesn't appear in 6 years and I doubt they'd have had the time to deal with it the following day as they were clearly put under a lot of scrutiny.

The child will have died much earlier. It's unlikely that when Kate 'went to check' on her that this was the first time the McCanns realised the child was dead. The corpse of a three year old could easily be stashed away in the suitcase or large backpack and hidden anywhere in the area to be removed and more thoroughly disposed of at a later date.
 
It doesn't quite make sense though because he only left dinner for a few minutes before Kate went to check on the kids at 10 pm to find Madeleine's bed empty. It's not enough time to carry the body out of the apartment and get rid of it, especially as it's been 6 years already and she hasn't been found. No way you can hide a body in 5 minutes so well that it doesn't appear in 6 years and I doubt they'd have had the time to deal with it the following day as they were clearly put under a lot of scrutiny.

I can't remember when they hired the hire car - it was obviously after Madeline disappeared, but the dogs also picked up the scent from that car too - suggesting that the car had had a dead body ion it at some point.
 
The child will have died much earlier. It's unlikely that when Kate 'went to check' on her that this was the first time that McCanns realised the child was dead. The corpse of a three year old could easily be stashed away in the suitcase or large backpack and hidden anywhere in the area to be removed and more thoroughly disposed of at a later date.

:(
 
great read that

It is very interesting - for anyone who hasn't read it, here's the intro:
http://www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm


At around 10.00pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007, in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, Dr Kate McCann claimed that she had walked up to her apartment to do a ‘half-hourly check’ on her three children, found the Madeleine was not in her bed, and immediately reported that her daughter Madeleine had been abducted. There then began the most famously publicised effort in world history to find an allegedly missing child. Four months later, in September 2007, the Doctors McCann were made ‘arguidos’ by the Portuguese police in the disappearance of their daughter. The term ‘arguido’ does not have an exact English equivalent, but may be translated: ‘provisional suspect’.
But in July this year (2008), the Portuguese authorities announced that they had insufficient evidence to bring any charges against either Doctor concerning their daughter’s disappearance. Their status as suspects was therefore ended. The McCanns proclaimed themselves ‘cleared’ - though in fact the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance has merely been ‘shelved’, not abandoned.
For most of the 18 months since Madeleine ‘went missing’, the British media - TV, radio and newspapers - have continued to portray Madeleine and the McCanns as ‘innocent’ victims of an evil abductor. In addition, they blame an incompetent, bungling, malicious Portuguese police force for even thinking of suspecting the parents of involvement in Madeleine going missing. This is despite the fact that police forces throughout the world who are called on to investigate alleged child abductions of young children from their own homes always fully investigate the parents - and those close to them - bearing in mind the strong probability that the parents’ abduction claim may be false.
Amongst all the media hype and debate on the likely fate of Madeleine, and the claims of those involved, we have lost sight of the fact that littleMadeleine, even if she was abducted, is no longer with us because her parents deliberately chose to leave their three children, all aged under four, unsupervised, so they could enjoy another night out wining and dining with their friends, over 100 yards’ walk away, unable to see or hear their three young children.
Indeed, it is known that on one occasion, they were called back to their apartment by Mark Warner staff to attend to one of their children (probably Madeleine) who had been crying out in distress for at least an hour and a quarter, apparently pleading: ‘Daddy, Daddy’. Leaving their children unattended whilst out at the nearby Tapas restaurant with their friends is something they have publicly admitted to doing for either five or six nights in a row, for example in a long article in The Independent on Sunday on 5th August 2007.
The accounts given by the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends of how often they checked their children, and about what really happened on 3rd May, contain numerous contradictions (see for example Reason 20 below) and have frequently changed over time. These varying accounts made things more difficult for the Portuguese police as they tried to investigate Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’. For example, they originally claimed that they were ‘checking their children every hour’, then we heard ‘every 15 minutes’, and finally they settled on ‘every half hour’. To put it mildly, there are many doubts as to whether the McCanns were checking their children regularly while they were dining out, if at all.
But the biggest question of all is this: was Madeleine really abducted, as the parents claim, and as the British media seem to believe? We don’t think so, and in this booklet we lay out 60 different reasons for doubting their claim. A key reason for writing our booklet is the fact that the British media have consistently failed to offer us either full information about the case or any serious analysis of what might really have happened. The Madeleine Foundation’s view on what really happened to Madeleine is precisely the same as the view held by the senior Portuguese detective who initially led the complex investigation, Mr Goncalo Amaral. He was removed from the investigation on 3rd October 2007, due to intense British government pressure, a matter we deal with in Appendix 1.
Some will say: ‘The McCanns are innocent until proven guilty’. Others will say: ‘Leave this to the proper authorities, and let them do the investigating’ or: ‘The Portuguese police didn’t find enough evidence to charge then, leave them alone’.
We say simply that the British public is entitled to a fair presentation of the facts, and an analysis of them, which point not to Madeleine having been abducted, but in an entirely different direction.
In the Madeleine McCann case, we have a truly extraordinary example of a couple, suspected of a serious crime against their child, not only being protected by our government, but also being lauded in the British press at the same time - and even, in the case of Dr Gerry McCann, receiving a ‘bravery medal’ at a police ceremony. Those who seek out information about the case, have used their minds to try to understand what might really have happened to Madeleine, and who have reached the conclusion that the McCanns and their friends are clearly failing to tell the whole truth about Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’, have been dubbed ‘McCann-haters’ or worse. These facts alone suggest that there are major issues surrounding this case that every British citizen should be aware of.
We assert therefore that the British public is entitled to examine whether the McCanns’ claim of abduction stands up. You have been invited to give generously to find Madeleine. Many of you have done so, including some - like pensioners who donated their weekly pension - who could ill afford to do so. Many children gave up their pocket money for weeks to ‘help find Madeleine’. The British media have repeatedly promoted the claim that Madeleine really was abducted. Equally, and especially since the McCanns succeeded in winning over £½ million libel damages against several British newspapers, the British media have avoided printing stories that conflict with Madeleine having been abducted.
The key question, which we address in this booklet, is: was she really abducted? Or did she die as a result of an accident, perhaps from over-sedation, or from another crime? We are now in a much better position to examine the evidence in the case than three months ago, now that the Portuguese police have revealed many details about their investigation, placing literally thousands of documents and other evidence online. Much of what was previously merely press speculation and rumour - such as the breathtaking and sinister evidence provided by the British cadaver dog, Eddie, and blood-hound, Keela - has now been confirmed. These two highly-trained dogs, who have never been wrong in detecting the scent of death and blood, found both the smell of human cadaverine, the so-called ‘smell of death’, and of blood, in the McCanns’ apartment, and in the Renault Scenic car they hired in late May 2007. Eddie found the ‘smell of death’ on the clothes of Dr Kate McCann and Madeleine, and on the pink soft toy, Cuddle Cat (which was regularly carried by Dr Kate McCann when she did TV interviews) at the McCanns’ rented house in Praia da Luz, in July 2007.
Other forensic evidence has now been disclosed. Recent revelations of witness statements made to the police provide proof, for example, that the McCanns and their friends have given very conflicting and changing accounts of events in Praia da Luz in May 2007. What is most important in this case is the truth - the whole truth. Only if we all know the truth, or we can get as close to it as those involved in Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’ will allow, can we respond accordingly - and make the right decisions about this case, and learn the right lessons for the future.
We invite you to consider carefully the 30 main reasons set out here (and a further 30 subsidiary reasons we’ve added at the end) for doubting the claim that Madeleine was abducted. We hope they will help you to understand what may really have happened to Madeleine McCann in Praia da Luz on 3rd May 2007.
 
I find it quite hard to believe that either one or both of them could sit at the meal all night, knowing their daughter was dead and not arouse suspicion, or that she could have been found dead, hidden until they were able to dispose of her permanently, again all without arousing suspicion or being seen. And the idea that they were able to put her in the rental car a month later, despite being under intense scrutiny and with the obvious decomposition that would have occurred to the body in the interim, I don't know, it seems fanciful.
 
Here is the section that quotes the report on what the dogs identified:​
So what did Mr Martin Grime’s cadaver dog and blood-hound find?
According to the official police summary report released in July this year - and confirmed by video evidence of the dogs in action in Praia da Luz, widely available on the Internet - Eddie, the cadaver dog, found the ‘smell of death’ in the following places. We quote the exact words of the report:
a) in the McCanns’ apartment, Apartment 5A, Eddie the cadaver the dog detected the scent of a human corpse (human cadaverine):
  • in the couple’s bedroom, in a corner, around a wardrobe, and
  • in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment.
Also, a ‘lighter’ scent of death was found in the flower beds in the back yard, near the foot of the steps leading down from the patio.
b) on family items of clothing, Eddie found the scent of a corpse as follows:
  • on two items of Kate McCann’s clothing, and
  • on one item of Madeleine’s clothing - a T-shirt.
c) in addition, Eddie the cadaver dog was taken to the house that the McCanns rented, in a different part of Praia da Luz, after they left Apartment 5A. Eddie found cadaverine on what was said to be Madeleine’s favourite pink soft toy, ‘Cuddle Cat’, which Dr Kate McCann always had with her when being interviewed by the media - but which Eddie detected lying in an otherwise empty cupboard. Here it should be noted that, earlier, Eddie had found Cuddle Cat in the living room at the McCanns’ rented home, tossed it in the air, but not actually ‘marked’ it by barking. He later marked it when the police re-located it in the cupboard.
d) on top of all that, Eddie, sniffing the car from the outside only, detected cadaverine in the car the McCanns hired on 22nd May, less than three weeks after Madeleine ‘disappeared’ - a Renault Scenic:
  • on the car key
  • around the door of the front driver’s seat.
These findings, supported by other forensic evidence, show that a dead body must have begun to emit cadaverine in Apartment 5A - the McCanns’ apartment. That body must have lain dead in that apartment for at least 90 minutes, probably two hours or more. Once that ‘smell of death’ - cadaverine - had begun to be produced, it could then be transferred to other locations such as the hire car, Madeleine’s clothes, Dr Kate McCann’s clothes and Cuddle Cat.
That means that a corpse - that must have been dead for approximately two hours (in order for cadaverine to have been produced) - must have been in direct contact with all of these locations - floor, wardrobe, car, clothes etc. If the body had subsequently been moved, it would still emit cadaverine as it was decomposing. Meanwhile, Keela, the blood-hound, found the smell of blood - note, blood, not just ‘body fluids’:
a) in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment (exactly where Eddie had found the scent of human cadaverine), and
b) in the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic:
  • on the car key
  • in the interior of the car boot.
We should note three very important things here. The dogs alerted to the smell of death/blood, separately, in exactly the same places in the apartment. Eddie the cadaver dog only alerted to the smell of death to the McCanns’ apartment, out of all the other ones he was taken to.
Similarly, the McCanns’ car was the only one in the car compound that Eddie alerted to. Let us be very clear about where the dogs’ evidence takes us. Records have been checked by the Portuguese police, going back years. No-one else has ever died in Apartment 5A. No-one else has ever died in the Renault Scenic. There was a dead body in Apartment 5A. There was a dead body in the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns. That dead body could only be one individual - already dead - who could have been in both Apartment 5A and in the Renault Scenic. It must have been Madeleine McCann.
 
I find it quite hard to believe that either one or both of them could sit at the meal all night, knowing their daughter was dead and not arouse suspicion, or that she could have been found dead, hidden until they were able to dispose of her permanently, again all without arousing suspicion or being seen. And the idea that they were able to put her in the rental car a month later, despite being under intense scrutiny and with the obvious decomposition that would have occurred to the body in the interim, I don't know, it seems fanciful.

It's less fanciful than the abduction theory though when you consider the evidence at hand.
 
The child will have died much earlier. It's unlikely that when Kate 'went to check' on her that this was the first time the McCanns realised the child was dead. The corpse of a three year old could easily be stashed away in the suitcase or large backpack and hidden anywhere in the area to be removed and more thoroughly disposed of at a later date.

She was clearly alive around 6 PM because that's the last time anyone other than them saw her. The first or second check was done by someone other than them, Oldfield I think, and although he didn't enter the room and only checked from the outside, there was every possibility that he might have gone in and found Madeleine missing at that point.

Unless of course we give a consideration to the possibility of their friends being involved in hiding the truth in some capacity by confirming false version of events surrounding the disappearance. Again it's hard to believe that 9 people would remain silent for 6 years although after a certain amount of time it was apparent that anyone who admitted to being involved in any way would get done and get a sentence for his part in commited crime so it was in their interest to keep their lips tight.

This thing about blood trace in a car hired nearly a month later is utterly bizarre. Their reluctance to look into it and provide a plausible explanation (like investigating whoever had rented the car before them to get answers) isn't a natural reaction either. The timeline of events still suggests that McCanns would have found it very difficult to arrange everything.
 
It's less fanciful than the abduction theory though when you consider the evidence at hand.

The abduction theory isn't really that far fetched. The first theory which had Jane Tanner down as a person who sighted the abductor at 21.15 was pretty inaccurate and had lots of discrepancies but if you consider the possibility of the Irish family seeing a man walking with Madeleine down to the beach around 22.00 then it leaves plenty of time for the abductor to enter the room during the time when no one checked on the kids and leave with Madeleine. According to these accounts the man carrying the child resembled Gerry but since he had a strong alibi provided by his friends he could hardly be considered a suspect at that point.

I find it very hard to believe that not only two but nine people would be able to enjoy a dinner knowing that one of the couples have just found their kid dead. McCanns would have had to be extremely cold blooded bordering on psychopaths to go through that without arousing suspicion.
 
She was clearly alive around 6 PM because that's the last time anyone other than them saw her. The first or second check was done by someone other than then, Oldfield I think, and although he didn't enter the room and only checked from the outside, there was every possibility that he might have gone in and found Madeleine missing at that point.

Unless of course we give a consideration to the possibility of their friends being involved in hiding the truth in some capacity by confirming false version of events surrounding the disappearance. Again it's hard to believe that 9 people would remain silent for 6 years although after a certain amount of time it was apparent that anyone who admitted to being involved in any way would get done and get a sentence for his part in commited crime so it was in their interest to keep their lips tight.

This thing about blood trace in a car hired nearly a month later is utterly bizarre. Their reluctance to look into it and provide a plausible explanation (like investigating whoever had rented the car before them to get answers) isn't a natural reaction either.

The various accounts of the Tapas 9 are questionable to say the least. That's not to say that the friends were directly involved in the disposal of the body of the child, just that they've proven to be unreliable witnesses who are economical and at times indecisive with the truth.
 
That is a fascinating read I was always of the opinion that the parents were just guilty of being terrible parents but after reading that report then they obviously know more than they are letting on.The little girl could have died much earlier and already been disposed of before the parents came up with the 'abduction' story whilst they had witnesses corroborating their whereabouts.It's horrendous when you think that parents may have been guilty of this crime but unfortunately it does happen.If you haven't done so and you have the time read it it's eye opening stuff.
 
The various accounts of the Tapas 9 are questionable to say the least. That's not to say that the friends were directly involved in the disposal of the body of the child, just that they've proven to be unreliable witnesses who are economical and at times indecisive with the truth.

Of course it's very unlikely that they had anything to do with the death or concealing of the body but if they'd only provided McCanns with false alibis fully conciously it would have made it much easier for McCanns to derail attention from them.
 
McCanns would have had to be extremely cold blooded bordering on psychopaths to go through that without arousing suspicion.

A severe cold blooded nature in the McCanns would be assumed in the guilty parents theory. Are you suggesting that cold blooded people do not exist, or that the McCanns cannot possibly be cold blooded?
 
It's less fanciful than the abduction theory though when you consider the evidence at hand.

I don't know, really. The 'evidence' of the cadaver dogs seems damning but, from memory, even at the time doubts were expressed about that due to how long after the disappearance they were actually used. Didn't some expert say at the time that the evidence at that point would be quite unreliable? I'd be interested to know if the dogs success rate was based on inspections situations like this where they were used well after the fact. Likewise, wasn't there quite a bit of scepticism about the Portuguese analysis of the alleged DNA in the car?

Obviously there are certain aspects that look odd, but I'm still struggling to see how either one or both of them could have carried this off in the time frame they had. And even more so when you consider that if the evidence relating to the rental car is true, that they didn't dispose of her body permanently for almost a month afterwards. I really struggle to see how that's possible, given the scrutiny they were under at the time.
 
The abduction theory isn't really that far fetched. The first theory which had Jane Tanner down as a person who sighted the abductor at 21.15 was pretty inaccurate and had lots of discrepancies but if you consider the possibility of the Irish family seeing a man walking with Madeleine down to the beach around 22.00 then it leaves plenty of time for the abductor to enter the room during the time when no one checked on the kids and leave with Madeleine. According to these accounts the man carrying the child resembled Gerry but since he had a strong alibi provided by his friends he could hardly be considered a suspect at that point.

I find it very hard to believe that not only two but nine people would be able to enjoy a dinner knowing that one of the couples have just found their kid dead. McCanns would have had to be extremely cold blooded bordering on psychopaths to go through that without arousing suspicion.


You could argue that a child being abducted from their home/place of residence is more far-fetched than the family of the child being involved in their disappearance, purely going by number of instances of either being reported. As the article states, often instances of children being abducted turn out to be murder cases involving family of the child.

As for your last comment:

"McCanns would have had to be extremely cold blooded bordering on psychopaths to go through that without arousing suspicion."

I completely agree.
 
She was clearly alive around 6 PM because that's the last time anyone other than them saw her. The first or second check was done by someone other than them, Oldfield I think, and although he didn't enter the room and only checked from the outside, there was every possibility that he might have gone in and found Madeleine missing at that point.

Unless of course we give a consideration to the possibility of their friends being involved in hiding the truth in some capacity by confirming false version of events surrounding the disappearance. Again it's hard to believe that 9 people would remain silent for 6 years although after a certain amount of time it was apparent that anyone who admitted to being involved in any way would get done and get a sentence for his part in commited crime so it was in their interest to keep their lips tight.

This thing about blood trace in a car hired nearly a month later is utterly bizarre. Their reluctance to look into it and provide a plausible explanation (like investigating whoever had rented the car before them to get answers) isn't a natural reaction either. The timeline of events still suggests that McCanns would have found it very difficult to arrange everything.


I agree - and think had he gone in he would have found an empty bed.

I don't know about anyone else on here, but if I was given the task of checking on friends kids in that situation, I would actually check that they were there. I find it equally astounding that Gerry, when he went to check on the kids, didn't even go in Madeline's room to check on her. Instead, he noticed that the door was open wider than he remembered it being. :confused:

If I am home late from work, I will always go into the kids rooms - not to check they are still there, as I assume the wife would have noticed them leaving - but more just to see them! Maybe I will check that their duvet is covering them, or their cuddly toy is in bed with them still. Pretty standard things I would have thought.




But to check on the kids, and not actually go into their room and see them? Unbelievable.
 
Also from the article - this regarding the traces of blood found in the apartment and the car:
4. The forensic evidence of the DNA of blood found in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment, and in the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns, analysed by the Forensic Science Service here in England
There have been claims and counter-claims about the significance of the forensic evidence obtained by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in Birmingham on samples of blood or body fluids found in the McCanns’ apartment and in the boot of the car they hired. The McCanns and their spokesmen have claimed that the FSS results did not confirm that it was Madeleine’s dead body in the apartment and in the car. So let us look carefully at what the FSS found.
In Apartment 5A, the apartment the McCanns rented for the week, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’, both clearly - and independently from each other - marked precisely the same location, behind the sofa in the living room (which had been moved by the McCanns from its original location). The tiles where Keela scented the blood were carefully removed, first analysed by a Portuguese laboratory, and then sent to FSS. The blood found by Keela was by then degraded, quite probably, it was said, due to cleaning agents having been used to clean the area where the dogs detected the corpse scent and the blood.
As a result, the FSS lab was able to check only 5 markers from that site. Each one of those 5 markers matched Madeleine's DNA. Or, to re-phrase this a different way, there were no markers that could not have come from Madeleine, so the idea that it was her blood could most certainly not be ruled out.
Far more conclusive evidence was found in the Renault Scenic, registration no. 59-DA-27 - the car hired by the McCanns. Eddie, the 'cadaver dog', and Keela, the 'blood-hound’, both clearly marked the same car and the same location within the car. The blood found there by Keela (beneath the carpeting in the well of the car) was also degraded. But the FSS lab was able this time, on its first analysis, to find 19 markers, of which 15 markers matched Madeleine's DNA - again, meaning that there were no markers within these 15 that could not have come from Madeleine. With 15 markers out of 19 all matching Madeleine’s DNA, that would give analysts 99.9% confidence that the blood samples were from Madeleine. The DNA of the degraded blood was found not to match with the DNA of the twins, Sean and Amelie, a further indication that the blood was Madeleine’s. These were the initial results that the FSS initially communicated to senior investigating officer Goncalo Amaral and his team.
The law differs from country to country as to how many out of an individual’s 19 or 20 DNA ‘markers’ are needed by the courts to prove that any DNA sample comes from that individual. Many countries accept 15 markers out of 19 as sufficient proof. Under Portuguese law, however, the courts require all 19 markers to be confirmed. This was what is called ‘Low Copy Number’ DNA and so all 19 markers could not be obtained.
We might add here that when the British police cross-check the DNA of a suspect with its database (said to consist of 2.5 million people) of people who have been arrested on suspicion of a crime, they use only 10 markers out of 19 in order to establish a DNA ‘match’.
The scientist who invented DNA fingerprinting two decades ago, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, said however that using 10 markers to obtain a sufficiently reliable ‘match’ was insufficient proof. He went on to state that 15 markers would provide sufficient evidence to be conclusive. He said: “The current DNA database uses 10 distinct markers to obtain a match and this means there is still a residual risk of a false match. They should use about 15 markers; 15 markers would close the possibility that the match from a crime scene sample is genuine but a fluke”.
To find 15 out of Madeleine’s 19 markers present means that the chances that the traces of blood in the hired car came from anyone other than Madeleine were fewer than only 1 in 1,000.
The key point to be made is this. These initial FSS results, on their own, showed a better than 99.9% chance that the blood in the McCanns’ hired car was Madeleine’s. For some experts, and under Portuguese law, 15 markers out of 19 - bearing in mind the high level of proof required in a criminal trial - stops just short of providing absolute proof that the blood is that person’s. But we must take these strongly indicative results (with all 5 markers in one sample and 15 in another that could not have come from Madeleine) together with all the other evidence in this case. We can surely say with confidence that the chance of those 15 markers belonging to someone other than Madeleine is next-to-nothing, especially when we take into account other significant forensic and circumstantial evidence. These initial DNA results, then, amount to more evidence in the case pointing very strongly in the direction of Madeleine being dead in her holiday apartment on 3rd May 2007, the day she ‘disappeared’, and then her body being transported in the Renault Scenic at least three weeks later.
In a case reported in October this year, a killer was convicted thanks to relative's DNA. The Forensic Science Service and police used ‘familial searching’ to uncover a close relative of Craig Harman, from Surrey, who had a criminal conviction and was on the DNA database. The relative's profile matched the DNA on the brick by 16 out of 20 points. This led police to Harman, whose DNA gave a perfect match. He eventually confessed to the drunken act of violence.
It must be said, however, that this first analysis, given to the Portuguese and Leicestershire detectives in June, was overridden a month later when the FSS issued a more detailed report. By now, as the former senior investigating officer Goncalo Amaral confirms in his book, political interference in the case had begun, with successful attempts being made to get the FSS to water down their initial conclusions. By July, the initial samples had been re-tested and were now found to contain 37 markers, or ‘alleles’, not just the original 19. The sample appeared to have been contaminated by staff of the FSS laboratory. Though there were now reported to be 37 ‘markers’, there were still, of course, 15 that were a match to Madeleine’s DNA. That fact that the FSS appear to have contaminated the sample does not negate the match. It simply makes it somewhat less certain that the blood was Madeleine’s.
By the time they issued their more detailed report, the FSS said that they were only able to confirm that the results of the analysis were ‘indicative’ that the blood found was Madeleine’s. They later added that the results were ‘too complex for meaningful analysis’. We need to bear in mind that whilst the Portuguese police have released some FSS analyses and statements, they have not yet released others to the public, including the reports of their first tests, which gave the strongest indications that the blood was Madeleine’s. The leading Portuguese detective on the case is clear that intense political pressure was successfully brought on the FSS to modify its earlier results, whilst the leading British detective on the case, Stuart Prior, was overheard to be ‘furious’ with the FSS when he learnt of their watered-down opinion. It seems he also believed that there had been political interference to secure a less conclusive result.
 
And yet despite evidence such as this, which does not prove guilt, but it does, in my opinion, mean that they should be considered suspects, they are able to sue a newspaper that suggests that police suspected them of being involved:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561795/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-to-sue-newspaper.html

LONDON, England -- The parents of missing British girl Madeleine McCann are suing a Portuguese newspaper which reported that police believed the couple killed their own daughter, according to The Press Association.
The Oporto-based Tal & Qual published two articles last Friday saying "police believe" Kate and Gerry McCann were responsible for the death of the four-year-old, and put forward the theories that she was killed either in an accident or with a fatal dose of a drug.
"The McCanns feel these allegations are very serious and highly damaging," a spokesman for the family said.
"The straightforward facts are Madeleine was taken from her bed on May 3 and she is still missing.
"Police have said time and again that Kate and Gerry McCann are not suspects."
The spokesman said the McCanns felt that the allegations were "a distraction from the investigation."


"The straightforward facts are Madeleine was taken from her bed on May 3 and she is still missing.
How is that possibly a fact? It is the testimony of potential suspects.

The spokesman said the McCanns felt that the allegations were "a distraction from the investigation.
Sorry?? They feel that the police suggesting that they could be suspects in the disappearance of their own daughter could be a distraction from the investigation?? That should exactly be the investigation.

I find it stunning that they are seemingly above reproach and the media doesn't seem able to question/investigate their role without potentially being sued by the people they suspect!


 
Sociopaths are more common than people think and are very much capable of keeping up the appearance. I'm not saying she is one, but the wife especially shows very little emotion in her facial expressions when talking, she's always looked forced.

Of course that could be due to her work and what she has to deal with on a daily basis, but then again her experience in the face of death could be seen as something that would have helped mask it all.


Besides, we already know they were perfectly happy to leave their kids in a creche all day and alone during the evening, so I don't think it's a stretch to suggest they certainly could put careers/lives first. It would explain, for example, why she wouldn't answer those question if indeed that happened. They were happy to neglect their children every night, so it makes sense she'd not be as worried as finding the girl as she was about being stitched up.
 
Sociopaths are more common than people think and are very much capable of keeping up the appearance. I'm not saying she is one, but the wife especially shows very little emotion in her facial expressions when talking, she's always looked forced.

I mentioned that the McCanns just don't come across well, and the Consultant I work for says that medics are very good at 'wearing a mask' due to the nature of their work. She reckons that Kate McCann looks 20 years older, and has been aged by the guilt of leaving the children alone. And as it's the McCanns who have constantly pushed for the investigation not to be closed, that surely proves they aren't responsible. Why else would they do that?
 
It's quite obvious to me that the smell has come from her line of work.


I'm not sure about this. She's a GP & gynaecologist, and he's a consultant cardiologist. Neither of these suggest much contact with the dead.
 
I mentioned that the McCanns just don't come across well, and the Consultant I work for says that medics are very good at 'wearing a mask' due to the nature of their work. She reckons that Kate McCann looks 20 years older, and has been aged by the guilt of leaving the children alone. And as it's the McCanns who have constantly pushed for the investigation not to be closed, that surely proves they aren't responsible. Why else would they do that?

I don't disagree and I'm not saying I do think they did it or are involved, just making a point that it is entirely possible for certain people to mask everything. As for the guilt, it could equally be because of the accidental death of their child and it's catching up with her. Who knows.

As for why they'd push it, they'd have to. Often the police would obviously be watching the family closely and they'd have to keep it all up and it's the perfect cover. Obviously it seems a little far fetched to the likes of you and I, but none of this whole thing is straightforward.
 
Certainly not enough to leave that sort of trace wherever she goes. Surely?

Exactly. And wouldn't they be wearing a gown etc if they are dealing with the dead - I can't see that making its way to their apartment on holiday and the hire car...
 
And the toy, especially the toy. She explained that she had sometimes taken it to work - what the actual feck?
 
But...wouldn't you want to keep it smelling of your daughter? :eek:
Maybe she had a habit of laundering Madeleine's clothes and toys every now and again and didn't want to alter it?