The mad old cow has been eating those funny mushrooms again. Remember, kids, just say NO
A delighted Textusa shares the results of her recent IQ test
With the visit to INML in Coimbra on 16OCT2014, SY has put forensics back on top of the table in the Maddie case.
In our post “SY’s Significant Moves” we said that in our opinion the Met wanted to bring greater visibility to forensics about Maddie. We are here to help that effort. Do our part.
We have delved extensively into the subject. We have shown that the UK was not only an uncooperative party during the investigation in 2007/2008 but in our opinion was a hinderance.
We have to agree that PJ not having sealed off apartment 5A immediately on the 4th was a mistake. But we shall not cast any stone about it because we fully understand that no one could then possibly realise the true proportions of events.
That night and following day, we think authorities were convinced they were considering a case of a child having wandered off more than of an abduction. We think they thought abduction was just being used by the parents and friends in an effort to minimise their guilt. The guilt they surely would be feeling for having left their children on their own in an apartment in a foreign land for 5 nights in a row.
Only there never was any negligence so there wasn't any guilt.
But authorities then didn’t know that and there was no way to know. In fact, we think all those around the authorities in PdL made sure they didn't know. The T7, Ocean Club, guests and ex-pats, assured that PJ was kept in that ignorance.
The assurance this ignorance was kept was reinforced by the UK's MSM, UK's government and UK's police authorities and agencies. None wasted a minute in invading PdL to help keep PJ in ignorance.
The Portuguese MSM and Portuguese Government soon helped cement this impenetrable blockade to the truth.
You haven't been taking your tablets, have you Textusa?
To not blame PJ of anything is not being condescending but blaming them would be simply unfair and unjust.
One area UK hindered the investigation was forensics.
In our opinion, it hindered the investigation by having the apartment forensically cleaned after the night Maddie disappeared, NOT during it, and before the Portuguese forensic experts first arrived at the crime scene.
Analysing what the PJ Files say about forensics one can easily see how intentionally confusing and specious the UK was when it came to the matter.
We have written to date 8 posts covering the subject:
For us, the only possible explanation was that the room had been subject of a forensic cleansing to erase the presence of people who weren’t supposed to have been there, more specifically, adults who had engaged in adult activities, in the context of swinging, during that week.
2. In our “Super-Kid” post (30AUG2013), we showed how a 2 yr old boy, CG, 87 cm tall (32 in) couldn’t possibly leave any of his DNA on a stain (stain #9) located 1.50m (5ft 11in) high on a wall in a corner cluttered with furniture of apartment 5A’s living room.
According to FSS, it was CG’s DNA that was found in the semen/saliva stain ('crime stain 1') on the bedspread in the kids' bedroom. Because it was CG’s, according to FSS, then what was found couldn’t have been semen.
It’s the blog’s opinion that CG was used to invalidate the presence of semen in the stain found on the bedspread of the kids’ bedroom.
We showed why the stains could only have come from sweat, saliva or blood as there’s only so many body or biological fluids with which one can contaminate a surface with one’s DNA.
The question is, if not blood, then what are those 15 made of? The location of some of the stains do rule out sweat and saliva.
Really? Well, that just shows how little you know, doesn't it? DNA can be obtained from most cells in the body, including skin cells which are constantly shed. Sweat and saliva can be transferred pretty much anywhere. Your earlier, equally loopy, post claimed that certain deposits were impossible because they were behind the curtains, or near the floor. They could be anywhere, you daft old bat.
4. In our “Remarkable Marksmanship” post (28OCT2013) we showed how statistically impossible (we didn’t do the math because there was no need to do so, so obvious it is) it would be for two or more people to splatter their DNA in the exact same spots where others had splattered theirs before on the walls and couch.
Only 3 stains, out of a possible 15, had a single person DNA in them. A staggering 47%, almost half of the tiny, little and invisible to the eye stains had DNA from more than one person in them. And 1 stain, stain #15, had AT LEAST 3 people’s DNA.
5. In our “DNA – The Bar Code” post (01NOV2013) we started to expose the specious language with which the FSS reports were written.
When it’s said “[sample] apparently originating from more than one person” is to hide speciously the fact that a sample can be from 1 and only 1 DNA. Because sample partial, it’s possible it may share characteristics of more than 1 DNA. But sample compared is from ONE person and not from two or more people. It may be person A OR person B but never person A AND person B.
When FSS says “apparently originating from at least two people”, “two persons” and “more than person”, as is said often, it’s being specious, playing with words so that your brain assumes that the“two people” referred are ALWAYS from sample found and NOT about the DNA with which the sample, or samples, was, or were, compared with.
The whole idea behind "FSS’ Specious Style" is to deceive using the truth with the objective of having what the deceiver says appear to be what the deceiver wants the deceived to hear what the deceiver has said.
FSS didn’t want to clarify. On the contrary, their intent was to mystify.
For example, there’s absolutely no conclusion about whether the McCanns may have contributed to stain #1 although it was determined that it originated “from a male individual but not matching any other profile obtained in this case”.
Stain #14 is "not adequate for comparison purposes" (JUN2008) although it was determined it was "from more than one person" (SEPT2007)
To use “my opinion”, “indications”, “justify” and “theory” in the same sentence, meant to be precise and conclusive, isn’t exactly in our opinion, appropriate use of words in a scientific report by someone bearing the titles of BSc, CBiol, MBiol and RFP. Like hearing from your doctor “Well, maybe, it may be that you might perhaps not have cancer.”
We also showed how FSS was inexplicably sloppy in writing the September 2007 Interim Report but then tried to blame Portuguese forensic experts for being sloppy and tainting evidence.
7. In our “FSS – It’s Maddie’s Blood” post (22NOV2013) we showed that FSS, in their reporting, is very clear in saying that with ref to stain #3 “all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann”, FSS confirms that stain #3 is from Maddie.
Both FSS interim and final reports are, in our opinion, purposely “either-way” documents, serving 2 purposes. To allow the McCanns to get off the hook – having their arguido status lifted – without really ever getting off and for them to be used at a later date when the opportunity arises. That opportunity will arise.
8. In our “Does Size Matter?” post (07DEC2013) we showed how the stains found were far from being tiny, little and invisible to the eye dots. They were perfectly visible to the naked eye. Some even as big as 1 cm, like stain #3.
With that size they should have easily produced clear and definitive DNA results.
The fact they apparently didn’t can only mean one of 2 things: either the composition of the vestige was tampered with by chemical cleansing or FSS didn’t exactly report what it found. It’s the blog’s opinion that both happened.
Rather an extensive work on the subject we would say. Unfortunately our “swinging leprosy” scares the bejeebers out of many of the “courageous” stopping them to refer to us about this. As we've said it's a price we're used to pay and proud for having to pay it.
Our posts show clearly that whatever FSS had to say about forensics is highly questionable.
But what they also say is that what is there said can be used if and when opportunity arises. Nowhere are the McCanns taken off the hook.
Not even with John Lowe’s “in my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”. It's only an opinion and not a statement. And it leaves the door wide open to the possibility of a “however, new tests may prove the opposite” completing it.
All of the posts listed above referred to stains #1 to #15 found on floor, walls and couch of the living room of the apartment.
Today we will speak about the most fascinating “stain” of all: “stain” #16.
A piece of evidence that slipped through the cracks between the intentional and unintentional sloppiness, and became evidence itself and a very damning one against UK, in our opinion.
To start to understand the importance of this “stain” one has to realise that “stain” #16 is not a stain.
The confusion derives from the fact it has the same designation as its apparent “siblings”, stains #1 to #15. All these first 15 are referred to by 2 letters, A and B, e.g. stain #3 is referred to by CRL 3A & 3B.
As evidence 16 is referred to by CRL 16 & 16B, it's natural to assume it's also a stain.
The absence of the letter “A” goes unnoticed by the brain and the association with the first 15 numbers is, as said, natural. If from 1 to 15 there’s an A and a B, then 16 will appear to have both too.
It's so natural that even John Lowe of the FSS makes it: “on 9 April 2008, the DNA profiles obtained from the probatory components [objects] 286A/2007/CRL1A&B, 4A&B, 9A&B and 16A&B were submitted…” when he should have said “286A/2007/CRL1A&B, 4A&B, 9A&B and 16 & 16B”.
The letter B in evidence 16 does not have the same meaning as the same letter does in stains #1 to #15. In these letter A refers to the sample of a stain collected using a dry swab, while letter B is to a sample from same stain collected using a swab with distilled water. CRL 1A is dry swab from stain #1 and CRL 1B is its distilled water one.
In evidence 16, the letter B has nothing to do with how samples were collected or even with samples. It's about objects: CRL 16 is not a stain but living-room curtains.
Paulo Rebelo in an undated doc where he lists the vestiges collected from 5A and examined by FSS describes CRL 16 as:
“16. Two curtains made of blue fabric.
16B. One curtain made of white fabric, and a blue coloured tieback.”
This is confirmed in the delivery note 286-A listing 33 swabs of stains/evidence collected from 5A (English) - signed for by FSS on 7 August 2007
“16. Blue curtain
16. Blue curtain.
16B. White curtain behind blue curtain and armband.”
The two “16. Blue curtain”, probaby referring to the left and right pieces of the blue curtains.
John Lowe in the final report describes CRL 16 as “286A/2007-CRL 16 & 16B Two blue curtains and one white curtain”
However, Lowe in that report adds another curtain to the list: “286B/2007-CRL 1 One white section of a curtain”
He had already said the same in the 06SEPT2007 report that “the curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.”
So to clarify, CRL 16 Is made up of 2 blue curtains (CRL 16), 1 white curtain and 1 armband (CRL 16B).
CRL 1 is a piece of white curtain which we believe to be part of CRL 16B.
To avoid confusions, when we speak of evidence 16, CRL 16 or CRL 16B we are referring to the living-room curtains.
Just like how they were the day these items were collected, by a report dated 14 August 2007 was made about the evidence collected by the Police Scientific Laboratory (LPC) from Apartment 5A on 04AUG2007:
“On 4 August there were collected at [the above address]:
- Two blue curtains with white curtain lining from one of the windows of the living room, numbered as trace evidence 16.”
There are 4 reports, 06SEPT2007 or interim report, 06MAY2008, 22MAY2008 and 18JUN2008 or final report, in which evidence 16 is referred to by the FSS and that’s where things become interesting:
The first one is the 06SEPT2007 FSS interim report:
“A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only two unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material recovered from the hem of one of the blue curtains 286A/2007-CRL(16(2)) from the apartment.”
Low level incomplete DNA results, which in certain circumstances showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person were obtained from biological material on the following swabs: 286A/2007 CRL 14a, 14b, 15a; the swab from the hem of the curtain 286A/2007 CRL 16 curtain 2; the swabs from the tile pieces 286/2007 CRL 2 areas 1 and 2 and 3 area 1. In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone from the McCann family contributed their DNA to them results.”
The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.”
Can anyone explain how is it possible for “two UNCONFIRMED DNA components” to show “a contribution of DNA from more than one person”?
It’s either DNA or it isn’t. Lowe says it’s unconfirmed, so it isn’t. If it isn’t DNA how can it be a DNA contribution?
The amazement about evidence 16 begins.
Also, how is it scientifically possible to ascertain “in my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone from the McCann family contributed their DNA to them results” from two UNCONFIRMED DNA components?
From this interim report, we can conclude that:
1. Even if it doesn’t make any sense, two unconfirmed DNA components were found and showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person,
2. The DNA (unconfirmed?) was found in the HEM of one of the curtains: “material recovered from the hem of one of the blue curtains 286A/2007-CRL(16(2))” and “the swab from the hem of the curtain 286A/2007 CRL 16 curtain 2”.
Let’s now move to the second document where FSS speaks of the curtains. It’s a report dated 06MAY2008 and comprises two pages and talks about work performed within the scope of the case:
“On 9 April 2008, the DNA profiles obtained from the probatory components [objects] 286A/2007/CRL1A&B, 4A&B, 9A&B e 16A&B were submitted with a request to the National DNA Database(R).
Various matches were obtained with the results of 286A/2007/CRL4A&B; the majority of them were eliminated based (…)
Various matches were obtained with the results of 286A/2007/CRL9A&B; the majority of them were eliminated based (…)
All matches obtained from other samples were eliminated.”
From this report one can conclude that 4 samples produced results strong enough to be able to be compared with the National DNA Database.
One of them was our CRL 16A&B. The one from which only two UNCONFIRMED DNA components had been found in SEPT2007. Maybe between then and MAY2008 FSS had found something more that wasn’t reported in the interim report. Maybe.
The report doesn’t explain why matches to CRL16A&B were eliminated. It simply says they were. A very scientific way of doing it we must note.
The third and very significant document is a report of 22MAY2008.
“The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of several information searches conducted using the National DNA Database and the use of a control database.
The LCN DNA profile previously obtained from the following submitted data were subjected to a single search of the National DNA Database.
286A/2007/CRL1A & B
286A/2007/CRL4A & B
286A/2007/CRL9A & B
286A72007/CRL16A & B
Numerous similarities were returned by the National DNA Database for the DNA profile obtained from 286A/2007/CRL4A & B (…)
Numerous similarities were sent [returned] by the National DNA Database for the DNA obtained from 286A/2007/CRL9A & B (…)
Numerous similarities were sent [returned] by the National DNA Database for the DNA profile obtained from 286A/2007/CRL16A & B, however, I used additional information in the results that was not included in the search parameters to eliminate those similarities.
For information only, a database of voluntary samples was constructed for the purpose of control information. In accordance with available records, the database comprised samples from 286 volunteers, four of which were rejected. The DNA profiles from volunteers were compared with the following samples:
286A/2007/CRL1A & B
286A/2007/CRL4A & B
286A/2007/CRL9A & B
286A/72007/CRL16A & B
The voluntary samples were also compared with 'crime stain 1', a DNA profile obtained by Portuguese scientists using their DNA profile system. The profile was recovered from suspected semen on a blanket in the apartment 5.
I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with C****** G***** (bar code 51156964). I believe that Charlie Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.”
This report had, in our opinion, the primary purpose of attributing stain #9 to CG, then to link this stain #9 to 'crime stain 1' to invalidate the presence of semen on the bedspread of the kids’ bedroom, as we explained in our “Super-Kid” post.
But Lowe makes two big mistakes. One, which needs to be made clear, was to make stain #9 one of stains with strong and clear results.
Only if the information returned from this stain was sufficiently strong and clear would the confirmation of CG being its contributor be credible when the comparison with ‘crime stain 1’ was made. Stain #9 was said to have produced sufficiently readable and unquestionable results.
Lowe does this by “electing” 4 stains as the ones that produced results with enough strength to be compared with others: CRL1A & B, CRL4A & B, 9A & B and CRL 16A & B.
These 4 were sent not to one but to 2 data bases. He had already spoken of having them sent to one, National DNA Database, on the 06MAY2008 report. But now he speaks of a second database, one created out of 286 volunteers.
See the second mistake Lowe makes? By needing to justify a way of linking CG to ‘crime stain 1’ via stain #9, he fills the report with other data.
But in doing so he was sloppy and let the evidence 16 slip through the cracks.
For example, his unintentional sloppiness shows when a piece of evidence that doesn’t exist is referred to: CRL 16A. As we’ve seen, there are only CRL 16 and CRL 16B. There's no CRL 16A.
By electing CRL 16&16B (to use the proper terminology) as one of the four that produced sufficiently good results to be compared he makes it sound absolutely ridiculous after this report to refer to the DNA found in CRL 16 and CRL 16B as unconfirmed DNA.
If that was the case, why send it for comparison to the National Database? And how could National Database return matches to unconfirmed DNA? Does the National DNA Database keep a register of unconfirmed DNA? What for, if it's useless as means of proof?
If it returned matches, then it can ONLY be because there were DNA matches to be returned.
Here one has to ask another very relevant question: what made Lowe think the DNA sent for comparison could ONLY be from a British citizen?
The samples had been collected in Portugal, the abductor could have been of any nationality but Lowe decides that samples need only to be compared with the British database. Why? Why not send it to Interpol? Wouldn't that make much more sense?
Let’s look now at the fourth document, the FSS final report of 18JUN2008.
“FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 21
286A/2007-CRL 16 & 16B Two blue curtains and one white curtain
286B/2007-CRL 1 One white section of a curtain
These curtains were analysed for traces of blood, semen and saliva, none of which were detected. The hem of one of the blue curtains (16) was swabbed to collect any cellular material that might exist. An incomplete, inconclusive DNA result consisting only of two unconfirmed DNA components was obtained. In my opinion the result is not adequate for comparison purposes. The sample was submitted for LCN analysis.
An incomplete, low-level DNA result, comprising only some DNA components, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material recovered from the hem of one the curtains. In my opinion, this result contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.”
That’s it. Nothing else.
Now all of CRL 16 “too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation”.
What had been strong enough for comparison in the National DNA Database has, less than a month later, again become “incomplete, inconclusive DNA result consisting only of two unconfirmed DNA components”. What was the word we used? Ridiculous, wasn't it? Yes, it was.
So, on APR2008, FSS sent to the National DNA Database some UNCONFIRMED DNA components that were“too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation” for comparison and the National Database was able to return matches!! Isn’t science just marvellous?
Yes, science is. You're not.
In our opinion it’s evident that FSS did find some meaningful DNA in CRL 16 and CRL16B. It just didn't report what it found.
We stand corrected but it would be very interesting to have access to the mail exchange about this matter between FSS and the National DNA Database. Something COMPARABLE was sent. Something good enough to allow for, as said in the 22MAY2008 report: “numerous similarities were sent [returned] by the National DNA Database for the DNA profile obtained from 286A/2007/CRL16A & B”.
Not us saying so. It's what is on the files.
All of the above, as we have said and is confirmed in the final report is from the hem of a curtain. Biological human material right on the ground or very near it. Referring to our “DNA is… DNA” post, what human biological fluid can be found, so near the floor, in a hem of a curtain behind a couch. Saliva? Sweat? Really?
But the scandal around evidence 16 doesn’t stop here.
What is completely scandalous is FSS simply ignored all that was found and signalled by the Portuguese forensic experts on CRL 16&16B.
On that day 5 visible stains were clearly marked:
Biological fluid, via alternate forensic lighting, was found at least in 3 of them:
Fact is FSS ignored these 5 stains.
Only thing that can be related to them is what is said in the interim report “The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.”
FSS has run tests on curtains, without specifying these stains, together with fragments of bush and has concluded “no blood was found”.
It didn't even search for DNA. Just for blood.
An interesting question as a sidenote: if FSS searched for blood on the curtains and because it found none, apparently, it concluded then that there was no need to continue any further forensic testing, namely for DNA, then can one assume that any DNA testing was only done where blood was found?
Back to the issue, why were these stains 5 stains signalled (3 of them photographed under alternate forensic light) on the living-room curtains ignored by FSS?
They weren't. See my quote above.
In the testing of stains #1 to #15, some, apparently didn’t return any results or returned meaningless ones. For example, for stains #6 and #8 the results were “too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison” and for stains #11 and #13 they were “unfruitful”. But these fruitless results were reported. At least they were tested. If there were tests done on the curtain stains, why weren’t they reported even if fruitless?
About these stains, specifically, FSS says nothing. FSS simply decided, apparently, to ignore forensic evidence from the exact same area of the stains on which it decided to run extensive tests for DNA.
The reasons for this “oversight” might explain why 5 stains and 1 stained hem returned, offcially, only 2 unconfirmed DNA components.
In our post, “SY’s Significant Moves” we spoke of hairs that we think are in Portugal and that can be retested to confirm the presence of Maddie’s DNA.
Today we say there is also a piece of curtain. Mr Amaral assured that happened via letter dated 28 August to the Police Science Laboratory asking them to preserve curtaining from apartment 5A (10 Processos Vol X Page 2528):
“To: The Director of the Police Scientific Laboratory Lisbon
Date: 28 August 2007
The present inquiry deals with the investigation into the disappearance of the British girl, Madeleine McCann, a fact that occurred on 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Lagos.
During the course of the investigation diverse material/articles and objects susceptible to containing biological vestiges have been collected.
At the beginning of this month of August a curtain was collected from the living room of the apartment including a portion from the same pair of curtains, materials that were sent to England with other articles/objects for subjection to examination.
With the aim of preserving and maintaining the CHAIN and CUSTODY of evidence during the lack of conclusion from the examinations that are being carried out in England, the remaining inferior part of the curtain was collected.
Date and time of collection: 28th August 2007 06.35 hours
Place: Apartment 5 A, Ocean Club Resort, Praia da Luz
Accordingly we request that the piece collected and delivered to the Police Scientific Laboratory be PRESERVED for the eventual carrying out of complementary examinations.
The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation”
Yes, there is another piece of curtain. And your point is?
SY, from where we stand, there’s much you can do if you really want to do something.
We have realised that a long time ago. In fact, the question was never about what you could do but about what you want to do.