Continuing from where we left off this morning, in this evenings blog we tackle the idiocy of what was said in part 3 of Sunday Night's 'Gone', a documentary that promised so much, and delivered nothing more than lies, smears, and misinformation.
PART 3
2m 32s: Rahni boldly, and incorrectly states that 'the substance behind the sofa couldn't even be determined to be human blood, let alone Madeleine's blood, and the evidence of the cadaver dogs, was questionable'
Oh Rahni, you pseudological scam artist, you make it too easy. Both Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa, and guess what - human cellular material was found. Swabs were taken and sent for forensic testing. Of the identifiable markers on sample 3a, all matched those of Madeleine McCann, now unless Madeleine shared the same DNA as a non human species, then perhaps you could explain how you came to the conclusion that what was found wasn't human?
John Lowe - the scientist who tested the samples taken from behind the sofa after Keela and Eddie's alerts - had this to say of a swab 3a, which was taken directly from the spot both dogs alerted to:
"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."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Yes he states that the cellular material couldn't be attributed to a particular bodily fluid, but given that Keela only alerted to human blood, and not other bodily fluids, and that DNA was present, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that blood may have been present, but it was the FSS who failed to find it, not the dogs.
Next up on the documentary we were treated to some truly inspired words from Professor Dave Barclay, here's what Dave had to say (try not to laugh).
"I don't put much faith in cadaver dogs, they will react to any decomposing material, be it human, animal, or badger (see how Dave places badgers into a whole new category - perhaps a mineral or vegetable, I don't know. Dave is a law unto himself) or even meat that you've spilt some blood from in the boot of your car and it's then gone off"
Anybody who has studied this case, could be forgiven for thinking that Dave is clearly part of the cover up - why? Because one of the McCanns' family members - Sandy Cameron mentioned the very same thing in his statement:
"On one occasion, I believe it was on July of 2007, I took Patricia to the supermarket. We carried bags in the boot (trunk) of the Renault Scenic; bought various items including fresh fish, shrimp and beef. When we unloaded the shopping bags, we noticed that blood has run out of the bottom of the plastic bag"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A-J-CAMERON.htm
The coincidence is quite uncanny, is it not.
Unfortunately for Dave, and Rahni, Eddie didn't alert to roadkill, dead animals, or indeed badgers. In fact the only things he did alert to, were the very things he was trained to alert to. Sick of the apologist's excuses, we covered, and thoroughly debunked them in a blog some time ago:
http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html
However, seeing as Dave brought up the subject of car boots, and Rahni failed to mention what Eddie and Keela alerted to in the boot, allow me:
Both Eddie and Keela alerted to the Renault Scenic; the car the McCanns hired 24 days after Madeleine was reported missing. Following an alert to the side of the boot, Martin Grime (the dogs' handler), instructed the forensic team to inspect further.
Using the following link from the PJ files as source:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/59-DA-27.htm
"From the observations made inside the vehicle several areas were detected containing stains that appeared to be of haematic origin, they were subjected to tests looking for peroxide existing in blood using the Kastle-Mayer test, all of them reacted negatively."
"After the examination of the vehicle was complete the human blood specialist sniffer dog was introduced along with Martin Grime of the British police who coordinated the dog?s movements. After a few moments Mr Grime informed the team that they should collect the key and other materials from zone M or from the interior of the luggage compartment given the fact that the dog in reference had identified these materials as places where eventual blood vestiges existed. The undersigned gathered these materials placing them in paper envelopes with the following references:
10. Parts of the vehicle luggage area.
12. Vehicle ignition key."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that Keela alerted to the boot (ref 10 on the photo below), and that Fernando Viegas Um Henriques, of the Forensic specialist team in Portugal, confirmed that areas of the vehicle contained stains that appeared to be blood, it was fair to assume that these stains/areas could have had the presence of blood. We can see from the link above, that a forensic light kit was used. This kit would have lit up bodily fluids such as saliva, semen, and vaginal fluids, as they contain natural fluorescents. This isn't the case with blood. Blood will actually show up as approximately four times darker.
The link below has more information on forensic light kits:
http://www.spexforensics.com/applications/category/forensic-light-sources
Also below, using the Huber murder case as a source:
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-22/news/mn-18567_1_murder-case
The Kastle-Mayer test, which was used in this case, whilst, not confirming the presence of blood, cannot rule it out.
http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/pdf/en/STR_validation_study.pdf
As can be seen from the above link, the Kastle-Mayer test, has known to give a negative, even when blood is present. A possible reasons for this, is that the test simply isn't sensitive enough.
Here is what Goncalo said regarding the DNA samples found in the boot of the car:
"In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!."
...and here is what John Lowe of the FSS said:
"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why?...
Well, lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample."
No misinterpretation there whatsoever. In fact, when we look at Goncalo Amaral's summary of the DNA, he confirms, exactly what John Lowe has told him:
"The preliminary results from FSS were enlightening in a way, and confirmed the information given by the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and the CSI dog.
- The CSI dog, Keela, signaled the presence of human blood where Eddie, the EVRD dog, marked the presence of cadaver odour - on the floor tiles behind the sofa in the lounge, on the key and in the boot of the Renault Scenic that was used by the McCanns from May 27th onwards.
- the bodily fluids, according to the FSS, contain markers from Madeleine's DNA profile.
These elements do not constitute concrete proof but simply clues to be added to those we already possess. In itself, the definition of a DNA profile from LCN is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation. In his report, the English scientist says that he cannot give answers to the following questions: when was the DNA deposited? In what way? What bodily fluid does the DNA come from? Has a crime been committed?
The scientific evidence is not enough and it has to be accompanied by other types of material, documented and testimonial evidence. It is only in this way that the entire puzzle can be reconstructed and certainties can be achieved, for the material truth to be established."
As for Snr. Amaral referring to the sample from the boot as blood, consider this:
Keela (blood only dog), alerted to the boot; specifically the area marked 10.
It was also visually thought to be blood.
DNA confirmed by John Lowe of FSS.
DNA can only come from tissues such as blood, sweat, skin, semen, saliva etc.
As all other fluids from the body would have glowed under inspection, anything other than blood can be ruled out.
The assumption that the sample was in fact blood, is a perfectly reasonable one to make, the failing therefore lies with the FSS.
Oh one more thing...
Stuart Prior of Leicestershire police force, who was with Goncalo Amaral, at the time they were discussing the DNA results, stated that in England, the results would have been enough to arrest the McCanns.
3m 30s: Back to Paul Luckman now, who when discussing Goncalo Amaral, had this to say 'I think he was fixated on one single solution when, clearly you have to look wider'
Oh dear oh dear, Luckman is again wrong. Goncalo Amaral did consider all possibilities, and discussed them in his book:
"At this stage of the investigation, the hypotheses are numerous, and each one must be considered. It is necessary to locate and identify all the paedophiles who live in or who have passed through the Algarve, in order to check that they were not in the proximity of Vila da Luz on the days preceding the disappearance.
The idea of a robbery gone wrong is not to be ruled out either. During the holidays, burglaries are not rare, and the police are not always informed, because hotels avoid spreading this kind of information. Even if the examination of apartment 5A reveals no trace of a break-in - contrary to what the parents insist and that Sky announced - we have to take stock of the petty crimes committed in the seaside resort and at the tourist complex. We are counting on the management of the hotel so that no incident of this nature remains hidden. Even if we don't have much belief in the scenario of a burglar who enters the apartment for a burglary and leaves it with the child, dead or alive, this hypothesis, as ridiculous as it may be, must not be neglected."
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20The%20Lie%20Chapter%2003
4m 47s: Rahni discusses a sighting from an Irish family, of a man carrying a small child toward the beach. What Rahni fails to say, is that the father of the family, Martin Smith, was between 60% and 80% certain that the man he saw was in fact Gerry McCann, and said so in his statement below:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
5m 14s: Dave Barclay is back, this time with a theory that Madeleine could have 'gone into the street, and just been knocked down by somebody who was drunk driving, that's an incentive for him to pick the body up and conceal it somewhere'
So Dave doesn't trust cadaver dogs, but is happy to throw a theory out there that has no evidential basis whatsoever. Nobody reported a noise, there was no report of blood out in the road, no reports of anyone driving erratically, nothing. Yet here we are, with Dave throwing it out there.
5m 45s: Here we have the introduction of criminal profiler Pat Brown. What is blatantly obvious to me, and many others, is that Pat's words were cut, swapped around, and she was misrepresented. The degree of which is utterly disgusting. I won't say any more on that matter as Pat Brown has announced that she intends to sue the production company, in a statement I will copy below:
"Pat Brown’s legal counsel, Attorney Brian Close, has identified multiple claims against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media – including intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation - based on the portrayals that took place in the Sunday Night promotional video and in the piece itself. He states: “The misleading edits portray Pat Brown in a false light by contorting her statements and changing their substance, and the broadcasts and publications have done and continue to do damage to Ms. Brown’s professional reputation wherever they are viewed around the world."All I will say on that matter is that whilst I don't know Pat personally, I wish her the best of luck, and hope she succeeds with her law suit. This entire documentary was an absolute disgrace, and those who made it should be held accountable.
Unfortunately (for the blog, and not for anybody outside of Australia), the production company have now pulled parts 3, 4, and 5. I will try to get a transcript of part 4 though, as it too has some whoppers included. For now though, I will leave you with the above. Please feel free to tweet the blog to @RahniSadler, and post it on the production team's facebook page https://www.facebook.com/7sundaynight/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf
Enjoy your evenings, and remember - beware of badgers.
Updated to include: Whilst writing this blog, I considered that Professor Dave Barclay may have also been misrepresented in the same manner that Pat Brown, Colin Sutton, and others were. In fact I'm sure the quotes used were presented in a way that suited the agenda of the production team. I sincerely hope if that is the case, Professor Barclay speaks up - as Pat and Colin have - and gives a full, frank explanation of the context of his comments. The media have twisted the words of the truth to such an extent, that this case has become a tangled web of deceit and lies.
