Well, it's that time again. Textusa has delivered her latest serving of utter bollocks and it falls to me to point out it's failings. Really I could just draw a big circle around it and write ''It's all complete wank'' across the middle, but I know you have grown to expect more of me than that, so read on.
The battle is raging.
There aren’t any cavalry charges yet or even artillery fire. Outside, the battlefield appears to be calm. Only troop movement breaks the stillness.
Pieces on the board are being moved, placed where they progressively eliminate the opponent’s possibilities, tightening the circle.
The quiet battleground contrasts with the noise and confusion that we’re certain must be going on inside the walls of the respective HQs.
Now is the time to guess where the enemy will attack. To guess what forces he’ll use. To try to determine when the D-Day is, and when the H-Hour will come. Now is the time to decide which manoeuvres are diversion and which ones aren’t.
Tension is in the air. One can feel it.
Every move the opponent makes that is missed is a mistake unable to be rectified. Every reaction to a distraction is an unforgivable revelation that will not go unnoticed.
The way the hate-campaign ended abruptly with Brenda Leyland’s death, has given the Government BHs the upper-hand. Not only that, it has taken away completely the initiative from the Swinging BHs.
Their September counter-offensive was to stall. Now they fight desperately for the same objective. The difference? They no longer control timelines. The initiative has passed completely to the other side and SY is clearly showing that.
For example, one telling sign, in our opinion, is how SY suddenly started to show very little interest concerning the pending decision on its 5th rogatory letter. The “burglar” story has been put on hold for now.
It has advanced straight towards the 6th rogatory letter even before it is written. What is the 6th about? FORENSICS.
This month SY has “surprisingly” doorstepped the INML and blurted out for all who could hear that they wanted to review all the 2007 forensic evidence on the Maddie case. Not the one eventually found in the 2014 Praia da Luz Humiliation Week.
No, they want new results from “old” evidence that was collected in 2007.
Forensics. The word that scares most BHs. Not because it may incriminate the McCanns, as it may, but because that incrimination and subsequent charging of the couple will open wide, as we have explained, the MADDIE’s PANDORA’s BOX. Forensics is the key to that box.
Forensics was the word we highlighted back in our “SY’s Significant Moves”. And we narrowed that word down to “curtains” in our “Sweet 16” post.
Oh yes, we remember. Umpteen pages of highly concentrated cack. It took ages to get the whiff out of the servers, I can tell you.....
Since then curtains and DNA on curtains have filled the MSM headlines on the issue.
DNA in hairs, hairs on curtains, curtains of the kids’ bedroom it’s been said. Curtains that are supposedly currently stored in INML it’s also said.
Much has been mystified in this case. For example, all blonde little girls can be confused with Maddie. Apparently, every little blonde 3/4 yr old girl looks alike. One cannot tell one aprt from the other. Even if one has taken care of them for 3 or 4 days in a row, one was still unable to tell them apart. I’m sure when Gerry or Kate went to pick Maddie up from the crèche, the nanny on the front desk asked if they could point her out because, you know, for us they all look the same. But that is not for this post.
Another myth in this case is that the samples with DNA are microscopic in size. We debunked that in our “Does Size Matter?” post.
Did you bollocks. You pointed to a circled mark and declared it was ample to provide lots of DNA, which was absolute horseshit. They all tested negative for all the usual - blood, saliva, semen, etc. For all you know, they were sodding ketchup. And no amount of ketchup is going to yield human DNA. Well, not unless their hygiene routines are very suspect, anyway.
The sample may be small, tiny or even minuscule but is never microscopic.
DNA itself is invisible.
The result (DNA) is of microscopic proportions but the sample from which it originates from is not.
A sample has to be able to be physically collected. A fingerprint leaves a mark. So do palm-prints. Is it possible to extract DNA from fingerprints? “To answer this question, consider this: when people touch things, they may leave behind DNA from cells sloughed off upon contact. How many cells are sloughed off depends on various factors, including how much they sweat. A number of scientific investigators have observed that DNA can be obtained from a wide array of fingerprints, but not all fingerprints give DNA profiles. The amount of DNA associated with a fingerprint will vary from person to person and can vary within the same person.”
Despite all their hard work, Textusa's teachers discover she still doesn't know what year it is. The files show there was no searching for fingerprints or palm-prints on the living-room walls around the couches. And the stains and smudges that were found there do not look anything like finger or palm-prints, as we showed in our “Does Size Matter?” post.
A hair may be caught on the fabric of a curtain. Could a burglar, carrying Maddie have left a hair clinging to the curtain because he was a sweaty man wearing a short-sleeve shirt on a chilly night? Before you go and say Bundleman was wearing a coat, for SY he doesn’t exist. We’re speaking about second man, Burgundyman, at the same location and around the same time carrying a blonde little girl.
Maybe he brushed his head against the curtains and left some hair there. A hair that went undetected by the LPC forensic experts who combed that room the next day.
A hair SY thinks may have been left because a man passed, allegedly, ONCE through that window carrying a child and MAY have brushed against the curtains. Yet the fact 3 little children dressed and undressed in that room for days in a row and have left only small quantities of their hair there is not thought by the Met to be suspicious.
Small quantity? It wasn't a small quantity. There were 53 hairs containing mitochondrial DNA which matched Kate and all her children, so they could have come from any of them
The first question one has to ask is, from where did SY get the idea there may be overlooked DNA from the abductor on those curtains? After all, that window area was looked at with a very, very fine tooth comb by LPC .
Firstly, it appears to be the living room curtains not the bedroom, and a forensic review is a normal procedure. There is nothing out of the ordinary at all
And if the curtains are supposedly at the INML, how does SY know of this? Has someone been fiddling with them there and leaked this to the Met?
We can’t see what possible new information could lead to having SY suspecting that the kids’ bedroom curtains may contain a hair, undetected up to now, that may prove to be the crucial clue. So it must be a hair collected in 2007.
CdM article says 444 hair-strands were found. Cutting to the chase, 98 had no correspondence with any DNA profile and in 19 partial results were obtained. That means we have 117 unidentified hair-strands.
Where is the link between these 117 hair-strands and the curtains from the kids’ bedroom? We haven’t seen anything that may suggest that.
Is SY throwing around wild cards in the hope one of them turns out to be an ace?
But the biggest problem this “hair-in-curtain-of kids' bedroom curtains” presents to SY is the curtains themselves.
They are not at the INML. In fact , if they haven’t been replaced, they are where they’ve always been, in apartment 5A.
The files detail every single item that was collected on 04MAY2007 from the kids' bedroom. Every single sample. The kids’ bedroom curtains are not among them:
“In this search the following was recovered:
- Yadda yadda
All vestiges from the kids’ bedroom were collected back in May 2007. And the curtains weren't included. They were not collected. They remained where they were.
If now these curtains appear at the INML, someone has some serious explaining to do as to why their collection wasn’t mentioned
But all this isn't ridiculous. Yes it is. It may appear to be, That's because it is but in our opinion is very far from being ridiculous. And you're wrong
To understand its importance, one must understand the communication systems being used. These articles, or better said, these information leaks, are NOT written for you and me. We are simply stokers who keep the fire alive. Snort
The war, let us be very clear, is between Government BHs and Swinging BHs. Oh what a load of shit. Again. Only between them. PJ is a passive player. Not the submissive, subservient one of 2007 but a passive one nonetheless.
So the communication is between the 2 players. Let’s recap on the communications between them:
On 02OCT2014, the Swinging BHs told the Government BHs, we don’t care if you’re not interested. We are going to continue with the hater-campaign and if you so much as lift a finger against the McCanns we will assure you will be considered a hater yourselves.
Sorry, can we go back to the ''Government Black Hats '' for a minute - how did they ''signal'' their lack of interest in your preposterous idea, again?
On 16OCT2014, when SY doorstepped the INML, the Government BHs told the Swinging BHs, we’re going for the kill, we’re dropping burglar and going after forensics.
This was all between them. We were just spectators. Some more attentive then others but all of us nothing but spectators.
You've never been anything BUT a spectator, you clown.
Now you may understand the importance of this most recent communications from GBH to the SBH, the28OCT2014 CdM article:
So you are saying that some imaginary group within the British government is communicating with another imaginary group consisting of hundreds of guests, workers, ex-pats, members of the press and the Pope by means of Portugal's answer to the Daily Mirror?
|It might not look like it, but this is apparently a secret UK government memo to the Pope. Go figure.|
In 2007, partial tests were done on 25 samples of blood and saliva.
By Rui Gomes Pando
Experts from the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) analysed 444 hair-strands that were collected by the PJ in following months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007, in Praia da Luz, Lagos. According to what CdM found, also subject to forensic testing were 25 samples of blood and saliva and three other vestiges found in the room from where the child disappeared and in the boot of a car. It’s some of these vestiges that Scotland Yard now wants to take to England to analyse again, in a British private laboratory.
The English, as CdM reported yesterday, still want to re-do examinations to a curtain from the room where Maddie slept, which was target of testing in the INML in 2007, and in which nothing relevant was found. The collection of the vestiges was made in homes, cars and couches by experts of PJ’s Laboratório de Polícia Científica (LPC). Among the vestiges there are also samples of hair and saliva from several people who were deemed relevant to the investigation. In the list of the 444 hair-strands subject to be tested, are 432 human and 12 nonhuman, 98 had no correspondence with any DNA profile and 19 partial results were obtained. The request for the re-evaluation of the vestiges will be part of a 6th rogatory letter. This despite a decision doesn't yet exist from the new prosecutor of the Public Ministry of Portimão, Inês Sequeira, for the 5th letter, sent by the British to Portugal.”
It contains, in our opinion, 3 very clear and damning messages to the Swinging BHs.
First message is the word BLOOD.
25 samples of blood and saliva. Now it's about DNA from blood. Not hairs but blood.
Blood, a word that sends shivers down the BH spines. If the majority of samples were of saliva, then the word order would have been “25 samples of saliva and blood”.
Outside the diligences that were done as result of the signalling done by the dogs, the PJ Files speak of blood in 2 places: Burgau and Quinta dos Figos.
In the Report of forensic examination carried out in an apartment situated in Aparthotel Sol e Mar, Apartment 2C, Burgau done on 05MAY2007:
Note the CdM article abandons “generic” forensics. Now it's about blood. Government BH answering the question we have put in our “DNA is… DNA” post: what are the stains made of? It’s blood.
Second message are the words CAR and BOOT.
The magical word “car” appears in the “collection of vestiges was made in homes, cars, and couches”.
Two cars had forensic evidence collected from them:
There now follows a huge cut and paste job of all the results from the cars. Or there would, had I not just deleted it all on the grounds of ''who gives a fuck?''
“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.”
So there is a link to be made between “blood”, “boot of car” and “forensics 2007”. And CdM has made it.
CdM is very clear “also subject to forensic testing were 25 samples of blood and saliva and three other vestiges found in the room child disappeared and boot of car”.
The main focus of this CdM sentence for target audience (once again be reminded, it’s not us) is exactly that: “blood” and “boot of car”.
Third message is LIVING-ROOM CURTAINS.
It's in this sentence “The English, as CdM reported yesterday, still want to re-do examinations to a curtain from the room where Maddie slept, which was target of testing in the INML in 2007, and inwhich nothing relevant was found”.
If the curtains from the room where Maddie slept never left Luz, then they couldn’t possibly be the target of any tests in Coimbra, where the INML is.
But what matters is, there were curtains that were indeed tested at LPC and in which nothing relevant was found: the white curtains of the living-room, that we spoke of in our “Sweet 16” post:
This is what the report had to say:
The 29OCT2014 article from Express speaks only of “curtains hanging in the Algarve apartment where she vanished”. It doesn’t say the bedroom.
Add all of the above and make of it what you will.