If one doesn't forget that the Ocean Club cleaners aren't exactly "expert cleaners"one must ask why also the lack of expected amount of forensic data from former tourists in that apartment and, in particular, in that room?We have, as far as we know, the evidence of the stain attributed to a 3 yr old.
The wall and floor stains 9a&b are also attributed to him, which would contradict the blood splatters being fromPaul “Labrador” Gordon in the living room who is said to have walked around the apartment trying to staunch bleeding after cutting himself shaving.We call him Paul “Labrador” Gordon like aLabrador he seems to shake his body with such energy that sprays walls with his blood. But that's hearsay and you know what we think about hearsay.But if you look at the cleansing of the kids room under the "Clean Party Floor” phenomenon perspective then suddenly you may understand many things.What if they weren’t cleaning Maddie’s DNA in that room but cleaning all traces of those who had been present in that room in the last days?
A few points, dimwit
- There were no ''blood splatters'' recovered from apartment 5a
- I am happy to amend this to acknowledge that a later analysis links samples 9a and 9b to the young boy who was the source for the saliva spot. These stains are not, however, recorded anywhere as blood. No blood was recovered from the apartment.
- The fact that there were hairs found which were shed by previous residents also gives the lie to the bollocks about the flat being subject to ''exaggerated cleaning''
- Where do you get the idea that there was less DNA from former residents than expected? Support this claim with references please (she can't, so don't get your hopes up)
- You can't ''selectively clean'' a room of the DNA of one individual whilst leaving others behind.