If the DNA results are inconclusive again & could be linked to?

Question

Madeleine's sweaty plastic beach sandals or the twins' diapers or a sick bag...would you still use it as "significant evidence"???

Answer 1

No. It's completely expected that some of Madeleine's DNA will be found in the hire car from transference from her possessions.
To be significant, the forensic evidence would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the fluid or hairs came from a dead person AND contain Madeleine's DNA.
Body fluids from a corpse have a distict chemical profile, and hairs have a "tide-mark" from shrinkage of the scalp (I am sorry to talk this way about a child who's still officially "missing"). If the forensics don't show this, then the presence of her DNA alone in the car isn't enough to confirm her body was there.

Answer 2

You miss the one point that the Portuguise are using. The car was a hatchback, and when you carry stuff in a car like this, items would be placed in the back of the car in the boot which has a fitted carpet. If dna had transferred from the little girls belongings, the dna sample would come from the topside of the boot carpet, and not underneath the carpet which you would only need to ever lift for two reasons.

Either to get at the spare wheel if a puncture occurs, or you want to hide something in the boot underneath the carpet after first removing the spare wheel.

Think about it.

Answer 3

Fluids can transfer from items of clothing etc but allegedly the sample was from fluids involved in the decomposition of a body...and clumps of hair (post mortem) are allegedly typically the result of the skin shrinking in the decomposing corpse.

Answer 4

would it be allowed? or would it be inconclusive?

Answer 5

what are you on about?
DNA from who and where? testing against who or what or where?