mazza2000

 

pages 39 and 40

* NOTHING was detected by either dog;

9. In all the vehicles that were used by arguido ROBERT MURAT and persons that are close to him;

* NOTHING was detected by either dog.

(in a total of ten vehicles, the cadaver odour dog and the blood odour dog only signaled the vehicle that belonged to the MCCANN family, which was rented on the 27th of May)

On the locations and the pieces that were marked and signaled by the blood dog, forensics tests were performed, especially at a reputed British laboratory (Forensic Science Service �?check Appendixes I and VII �?FSS Final Report) but also, some of them at the reputed National Institute of Forensics Medicine (check Appendix I), whose final results did not corroborate the canine markings, which is to say, cellular material was collected that was not identified as pertaining to anyone specific, and it was not even possible to determine the quality of that material (v.g. whether it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).

But during a first scientific approach (pages 2617 and following), the possibility of a match between the DNA profile of MADELEINE and some of the collected residues (among which those that existed in the Renault Scenic that had been rented by the McCANN couple were abundant) was raised; a match which, as can be verified in the aforementioned final report from the FSS, failed to be verified, after the execution of long and complex testing.

On pages 2461 and following, the translation of the comments that were made by the dog handler, during the inspection actions, was appended.

Based on the action of the canine team and the aforementioned initial scientific approach, which revealed the possibility of the existence of a cadaver inside the apartment and in the vehicle that was used by the MCCANN family, and in order to allow for GERALD McCANN and KATE HEALY to see their position within the process safeguarded, they were made arguidos, in face of the mere possibility of their involvement with the possible cadaver. During the questioning as arguidos, they denied any responsibility in the disappearance of their daughter.

It may be questioned that KATE HEALY was not immediately made an arguida, but rather inquired, as a witness, and only afterwards, following said inquirition, did she assume that quality.

Therefore, the constitution of KATE HEALY as an arguida was made when she was confronted with concrete elements that might lead to her incrimination, a fact that, within the terms of the penal process law, would officiously force that constitution.

Returning to the description of the pieces of the process, on page 2294, there is a note of the delivery of four (04) photographs, which were printed by an employee of the resort, AMY TIERNEY.