By May I
The final report of the Portuguese Police was published in June 2008. It comes to some conclusions about the scientific evidence, dismissing the relevance of a certain stain.
I am not qualified to dispute scientific evidence, but there are some intriguing questions which merit further investigation.
This is what the report had to say about the stain. “A stain on the cover of one of the beds in Madeleine’s room (not the one it was reported she slept in) which raised some suspicions, should be pointed out. Duly analysed, the stain consisted of a biological residue (saliva) that belonged to the child- Craig G who had been on holiday earlier, with his parents, in the same apartment” (Although the name of the child is contained in the PJ files, I’ve opted to use the pseudonym, Craig G, in this quote).
Returning to newspaper reports, there was an article in the. Mail Online, June 1st 2007, which seems to be a reference to this finding: “Madeleine: “Mystery DNA” found in her bedroom” “Police searching for Madeleine McCann have found DNA from a mystery “Sixth” person was in the bedroom where she was abducted, it has been claimed. The Portuguese police, Policia Judicaria, have handed the sample to the national forensic laboratories, the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, according to local newspaper 24 Horas. It does not match the DNA of Mr or Mrs McCann or their 3 children, the paper said. Neither does the DNA match that of the only named suspect in the case, property developer Robert Murat, the paper added...”
Other newspapers reported this finding and added that there were no matches to the other members of the “Tapas” group. This was subsequently confirmed in the PJ files as they show that DNA profiles were obtained for all of the group and Robert Murat. In the PJ files, there is a photograph of a bedspread, taken on May 4th (2317) Vol 1X.
The cover is purple/white and there is an exhibit number 5, marking the area of the stain. On May 9th, the Portuguese Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) is sent 1 piece of cloth in envelope 5. “ from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children’s’ room- not the bed M slept in. …fragment of mauve/violet cloth with square motifs, circular in form about 10 cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a crime light. Acid photophase test to detect semen en. 5. Semen needs to be detected by other means. Result weakly positive.” Then “Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children’s bedroom: positive."
So far, we can deduce that semen would rule out Craig G, aged 3 as the source. Unlike Craig’s saliva deposit, which had apparently survived a wash, Madeleine’s DNA was, amazingly, nowhere to be found at the apartment.
Not a toothbrush, a hairbrush for her long hair, the clothes she wore that day, her toys?
Jose De Freitas, an officer from the Metropolitan Police, not the Leicestershire Police, was despatched to Rothley to return with a sample from M’s pillowcase.
Her DNA sample was later labelled SJM/1 by the FSS in Britain on May 22nd. The twins were labelled SBM /2 SBM/3 because there was originally some confusion about whether it was their or Madeleine’s DNA on pillowcase/cases obtained from Rothley.
The bed Madeleine was reported to have slept in was not the bed under the window, which is the bed referred to in this report. I presume this would be the bed Kate said she slept in after her argument with Gerry.
It was reported in 24 Horas that the cleaners had washed sheets, blankets and pillowcases in the McCanns’ apartment after they left.
If this was the normal procedure between guests, can we assume that the bedding had been washed twice since the saliva/semen was deposited?
If it wasn’t the normal procedure, why was it carried out following the McCanns’ departure?
The report continues “Autosomic STR’s were obtained from the following vestigios: root of 1 of the hairs collected from the bedroom floor of the Burgau apartment (Vg3), and in the lower zone of the fibre from the car boot. Table 1 also includes the profile of the spot from the counterpane, already sent previously."
The report then identifies 3 male DNA samples. On September 4th Goncalo Amaral (3252/3) sent 3 unidentified male profiles to the INML to check with the British database, delivered on the 9th and analysed on October 4th.
He was taken off the investigation on Oct 3rd, but this line of enquiry was continued by Paulo Rebelo when he took over the investigation on October 8th.
On 12.12.07.he asks for a forensic examination from the INML of ; “ A natureza da mancha (encontrada na colcha de uma das camas do apartamento 5A…) e que permitiu a indentificacao pela letra L. “
I’ll refer to them as Male 1, Male 2 and Male 3.
Male 3 is profile L, so I’ll call him Leo, to make it easier to see him as a person and not a letter Male1 sample is found in the car boot (the car rented by the McCanns) (1)
Male 2 is found in Burgau (Vg3) (2)
Male 3 = Leo is found on the bedspread and also hair roots - 1 at entrance to bedroom at Ocean Club, 2 in the entrance hall, 4 on the floor next to the window= 8 samples in total.
So, can Craig be the source of the 8 samples? The stain on the bedcover is now said to be his saliva, but what about the 7 hair roots?
Rebelo sent the 3 profiles for analysis and asked for the profiles of two other guests, Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Singh Balu to be compared.
There is no result of this in the PJ files, as far as I have discovered.
Berry and Balu ordered Take–aways from the Tapas the night Madeleine disappeared. They were later asked to account for their movements between 6pm and 11pm that night.
Their rogatory statements are available but their initial statements to the UK police are not included in the publicly released files.
There is no date on the following correspondence from pages 3578-3582 or to whom it was addressed at the INML. “It was possible to define the autosomic STR profile of the sperm stain detected on the bedspread of one of the beds in the bedroom where the child went missing. It has already been checked that there is no matching between the obtained genetic profile and the profile of various samples of reference, which includes the ones of parents, friends and others.”
Could "others" be Balu and Berry? We don’t know. The request goes on to ask for this to be tested against the 3 previous occupants of the apartment. Simon Andrew Fawkes, Carlo D’Ambrosio and Paul Anthony Gordon with the DNA profile L.
This is L’s profile D3S1358 15-18 CSFIPO 10-11 HUMTHOI 9.3 Penta D9 D21511 29-32 VWA 18 D18551 17-18 D8S1179 12-13 Penta E 7-8 TPOX 11 D5S818 12-13 Fibra 20-24 D13S317 12-14 D2S1338 18-25 D78520 10-12 D19S433 13-15 D16S539 11 XY
“We also request a reply as regards the previous queries concerning the collected mouth swabs from Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Sing Balu as well as their DNA profiles.”
It seems Rebelo was not receiving the information he needed as promptly as he should have? I made note of some comments on blogs, some of which are now defunct, relating to the semen/saliva debate, as some people appeared to have inside knowledge.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the date of the first comment: “My source tells me that the Portuguese used the wrong chemical to identify semen before it was sent to the FSS. They used a saliva identifier and not semen. The chemical corrupted the sample and rendered it useless and this degradation was the reason it was sent to the FSS”
Second comment on 14.2.10. “The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved” This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..
Raymond Hewlett’s estranged son Wayne claimed to have a letter from his now deceased, formerly estranged father in September 2010, denying his involvement in Madeleine’s death, but claiming she had been taken by gypsies.
But… wait for it … the son had destroyed it, in what was derided by many wise commentators as ”the dog ate my homework” excuse.
In February 2011, Kate McCann wanted Hewlett’s German widow to tell her what she knew and Mrs Hewlett was reported as being very resentful about this intrusion.
Kate dismisses Hewlett as a suspect in her book and the Hewlett story now seems to have died with him.
To date, there has been no attempt to link Profile L/Leo to him, but we now have a pending review by Scotland Yard. It will be interesting to see where that goes!
Could Leo’s profile may be the result of some other adult activity on the bed in question? Or the stain may indeed been from the child’s saliva, but how does that explain the 7 hairs of the same profile? What about the stain on the mattress; was that also from profile L?
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I’m implying Leo was the abductor, I can only say that I’m sure the McCanns would have been the first people to come to such a conclusion on reading the PJ files.
However, this evidence doesn’t even merit a mention in Kate’s book.
Their own timeline places an intruder in the apartment when Gerry said he made his check and hardly gives any time for any molestation of the child before the alleged abduction. I agree with the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral and others; that the evidence suggested that Madeleine died as the result of an accident in her parents’ apartment.
Paulo Rebelo seems to have suffered the same foot-dragging behaviour from the UK on providing the information he requested as his predecessor, Goncalo Amaral.
As a consequence, we may never know for certain who Profile L was. Rebelo had FAR more to investigate before the case was shelved.
Notes:
(1) These vehicles were checked out by Rebelo:
- Audi model A4 10-91-PF Malinka
- Renault Kangoo 07-20-UI Luis Antonio
- Volkswagen Passat 57-12-HP L Antoni
- There was also a Volkswagen camper van 44-77-KD - Jenny Murat/ Robert Murat – car 6 of the 10 searched by the dogs in the garage in Portimao.
The car hired by the McCanns was a Renault Scenic reg: 59 DA 27
(2) The Burgau apartment is the Solimar/ Sol e Mar where DNA profiles of a person of the maternal line of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found on 5/5/07.
The report explains why these profiles do not prove they were the profiles of RM or JT, merely a person of the same maternal lines - cousin, child, sibling, aunt… A subject for a post in its own right.
The final report of the Portuguese Police was published in June 2008. It comes to some conclusions about the scientific evidence, dismissing the relevance of a certain stain.
I am not qualified to dispute scientific evidence, but there are some intriguing questions which merit further investigation.
This is what the report had to say about the stain. “A stain on the cover of one of the beds in Madeleine’s room (not the one it was reported she slept in) which raised some suspicions, should be pointed out. Duly analysed, the stain consisted of a biological residue (saliva) that belonged to the child- Craig G who had been on holiday earlier, with his parents, in the same apartment” (Although the name of the child is contained in the PJ files, I’ve opted to use the pseudonym, Craig G, in this quote).
Returning to newspaper reports, there was an article in the. Mail Online, June 1st 2007, which seems to be a reference to this finding: “Madeleine: “Mystery DNA” found in her bedroom” “Police searching for Madeleine McCann have found DNA from a mystery “Sixth” person was in the bedroom where she was abducted, it has been claimed. The Portuguese police, Policia Judicaria, have handed the sample to the national forensic laboratories, the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, according to local newspaper 24 Horas. It does not match the DNA of Mr or Mrs McCann or their 3 children, the paper said. Neither does the DNA match that of the only named suspect in the case, property developer Robert Murat, the paper added...”
Other newspapers reported this finding and added that there were no matches to the other members of the “Tapas” group. This was subsequently confirmed in the PJ files as they show that DNA profiles were obtained for all of the group and Robert Murat. In the PJ files, there is a photograph of a bedspread, taken on May 4th (2317) Vol 1X.
The cover is purple/white and there is an exhibit number 5, marking the area of the stain. On May 9th, the Portuguese Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) is sent 1 piece of cloth in envelope 5. “ from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children’s’ room- not the bed M slept in. …fragment of mauve/violet cloth with square motifs, circular in form about 10 cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a crime light. Acid photophase test to detect semen en. 5. Semen needs to be detected by other means. Result weakly positive.” Then “Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children’s bedroom: positive."
So far, we can deduce that semen would rule out Craig G, aged 3 as the source. Unlike Craig’s saliva deposit, which had apparently survived a wash, Madeleine’s DNA was, amazingly, nowhere to be found at the apartment.
Not a toothbrush, a hairbrush for her long hair, the clothes she wore that day, her toys?
Jose De Freitas, an officer from the Metropolitan Police, not the Leicestershire Police, was despatched to Rothley to return with a sample from M’s pillowcase.
Her DNA sample was later labelled SJM/1 by the FSS in Britain on May 22nd. The twins were labelled SBM /2 SBM/3 because there was originally some confusion about whether it was their or Madeleine’s DNA on pillowcase/cases obtained from Rothley.
The bed Madeleine was reported to have slept in was not the bed under the window, which is the bed referred to in this report. I presume this would be the bed Kate said she slept in after her argument with Gerry.
It was reported in 24 Horas that the cleaners had washed sheets, blankets and pillowcases in the McCanns’ apartment after they left.
If this was the normal procedure between guests, can we assume that the bedding had been washed twice since the saliva/semen was deposited?
If it wasn’t the normal procedure, why was it carried out following the McCanns’ departure?
The report continues “Autosomic STR’s were obtained from the following vestigios: root of 1 of the hairs collected from the bedroom floor of the Burgau apartment (Vg3), and in the lower zone of the fibre from the car boot. Table 1 also includes the profile of the spot from the counterpane, already sent previously."
The report then identifies 3 male DNA samples. On September 4th Goncalo Amaral (3252/3) sent 3 unidentified male profiles to the INML to check with the British database, delivered on the 9th and analysed on October 4th.
He was taken off the investigation on Oct 3rd, but this line of enquiry was continued by Paulo Rebelo when he took over the investigation on October 8th.
On 12.12.07.he asks for a forensic examination from the INML of ; “ A natureza da mancha (encontrada na colcha de uma das camas do apartamento 5A…) e que permitiu a indentificacao pela letra L. “
I’ll refer to them as Male 1, Male 2 and Male 3.
Male 3 is profile L, so I’ll call him Leo, to make it easier to see him as a person and not a letter Male1 sample is found in the car boot (the car rented by the McCanns) (1)
Male 2 is found in Burgau (Vg3) (2)
Male 3 = Leo is found on the bedspread and also hair roots - 1 at entrance to bedroom at Ocean Club, 2 in the entrance hall, 4 on the floor next to the window= 8 samples in total.
So, can Craig be the source of the 8 samples? The stain on the bedcover is now said to be his saliva, but what about the 7 hair roots?
Rebelo sent the 3 profiles for analysis and asked for the profiles of two other guests, Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Singh Balu to be compared.
There is no result of this in the PJ files, as far as I have discovered.
Berry and Balu ordered Take–aways from the Tapas the night Madeleine disappeared. They were later asked to account for their movements between 6pm and 11pm that night.
Their rogatory statements are available but their initial statements to the UK police are not included in the publicly released files.
There is no date on the following correspondence from pages 3578-3582 or to whom it was addressed at the INML. “It was possible to define the autosomic STR profile of the sperm stain detected on the bedspread of one of the beds in the bedroom where the child went missing. It has already been checked that there is no matching between the obtained genetic profile and the profile of various samples of reference, which includes the ones of parents, friends and others.”
Could "others" be Balu and Berry? We don’t know. The request goes on to ask for this to be tested against the 3 previous occupants of the apartment. Simon Andrew Fawkes, Carlo D’Ambrosio and Paul Anthony Gordon with the DNA profile L.
This is L’s profile D3S1358 15-18 CSFIPO 10-11 HUMTHOI 9.3 Penta D9 D21511 29-32 VWA 18 D18551 17-18 D8S1179 12-13 Penta E 7-8 TPOX 11 D5S818 12-13 Fibra 20-24 D13S317 12-14 D2S1338 18-25 D78520 10-12 D19S433 13-15 D16S539 11 XY
“We also request a reply as regards the previous queries concerning the collected mouth swabs from Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Sing Balu as well as their DNA profiles.”
It seems Rebelo was not receiving the information he needed as promptly as he should have? I made note of some comments on blogs, some of which are now defunct, relating to the semen/saliva debate, as some people appeared to have inside knowledge.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the date of the first comment: “My source tells me that the Portuguese used the wrong chemical to identify semen before it was sent to the FSS. They used a saliva identifier and not semen. The chemical corrupted the sample and rendered it useless and this degradation was the reason it was sent to the FSS”
Second comment on 14.2.10. “The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved” This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..
Raymond Hewlett’s estranged son Wayne claimed to have a letter from his now deceased, formerly estranged father in September 2010, denying his involvement in Madeleine’s death, but claiming she had been taken by gypsies.
But… wait for it … the son had destroyed it, in what was derided by many wise commentators as ”the dog ate my homework” excuse.
In February 2011, Kate McCann wanted Hewlett’s German widow to tell her what she knew and Mrs Hewlett was reported as being very resentful about this intrusion.
Kate dismisses Hewlett as a suspect in her book and the Hewlett story now seems to have died with him.
To date, there has been no attempt to link Profile L/Leo to him, but we now have a pending review by Scotland Yard. It will be interesting to see where that goes!
Could Leo’s profile may be the result of some other adult activity on the bed in question? Or the stain may indeed been from the child’s saliva, but how does that explain the 7 hairs of the same profile? What about the stain on the mattress; was that also from profile L?
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I’m implying Leo was the abductor, I can only say that I’m sure the McCanns would have been the first people to come to such a conclusion on reading the PJ files.
However, this evidence doesn’t even merit a mention in Kate’s book.
Their own timeline places an intruder in the apartment when Gerry said he made his check and hardly gives any time for any molestation of the child before the alleged abduction. I agree with the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral and others; that the evidence suggested that Madeleine died as the result of an accident in her parents’ apartment.
Paulo Rebelo seems to have suffered the same foot-dragging behaviour from the UK on providing the information he requested as his predecessor, Goncalo Amaral.
As a consequence, we may never know for certain who Profile L was. Rebelo had FAR more to investigate before the case was shelved.
Notes:
(1) These vehicles were checked out by Rebelo:
- Audi model A4 10-91-PF Malinka
- Renault Kangoo 07-20-UI Luis Antonio
- Volkswagen Passat 57-12-HP L Antoni
- There was also a Volkswagen camper van 44-77-KD - Jenny Murat/ Robert Murat – car 6 of the 10 searched by the dogs in the garage in Portimao.
The car hired by the McCanns was a Renault Scenic reg: 59 DA 27
(2) The Burgau apartment is the Solimar/ Sol e Mar where DNA profiles of a person of the maternal line of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found on 5/5/07.
The report explains why these profiles do not prove they were the profiles of RM or JT, merely a person of the same maternal lines - cousin, child, sibling, aunt… A subject for a post in its own right.
Tudo isto arrepia. Tudo o que aqui está escrito.
ReplyDeleteO sémen; a não colaboração e o boicote de UK; as amostras de DNA que " tiveram de vir de fora".
A história, deste casal e seus companheiros daqueles dias , é uma história de horror.
Pobre Menina !
******
All this shiver. Everything that is written here.
Semen, the non-cooperation and boycott of UK, the DNA samples that "had to come out."
The story of this couple and their friends from those days, it is a horror story.
Poor Girl!
So someone turned tricks on the mattress.
ReplyDeleteWho?
When?
Why, when they had so much bedrooms at their collective disposal?
By the way: who put that mattress there in the first place?
For instance: would KM schlepp a filthy mattress down to a room where her three minor children were billeted?
Just to avoid GMs snoring, which she of course would have been accustomed to, since Dinosaurs roamed the Earth?
No. She did not sleep there.
But the mattress was there all the same.
So the mattress was used someplace else. For reasons unknown.
And dragged to the kinds room at some point in time
To create an impression.
By whom? By the persons using it and trying to keep their sport undetected?
CLUEDO is a baby, compared to all of this.
Compliments to May.
Magnificent researching!
Portia
Which one?
A few points.....
ReplyDelete''I am not qualified to dispute scientific evidence''
Quite right. You're not.
''So, can Craig be the source of the 8 samples? The stain on the bedcover is now said to be his saliva, but what about the 7 hair roots?''
What about them? Of course they are a match to him. If they have only been matched to his mitochondrial DNA they could also originate from someone else of his maternal line. So a sibling or his mother. The saliva is his though.
Really, don't quote other blogs. Someone who knows nothing quoting people who know even less? I don't think so, do you?
''Could Leo’s profile may be the result of some other adult activity on the bed in question?''
No, it couldn't. Unless he was a very very precocious 3 year old.
''Or the stain may indeed been from the child’s saliva, but how does that explain the 7 hairs of the same profile? ''
Same DNA Do try to keep up.
''What about the stain on the mattress; was that also from profile L?''
No
''Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I’m implying Leo was the abductor, I can only say that I’m sure the McCanns would have been the first people to come to such a conclusion on reading the PJ files. ''
You think they were likely to accuse a boy even younger than Madeleine of being her abductor??
''As a consequence, we may never know for certain who Profile L was.''
We DO know who it was. A young boy who had stayed at the flat with his family shortly before the McCanns did. His DNA matches. So what are you on about?
Once again Textusa,I am amazed at your brilliant observations ,you never let us down,thank you .I have just sent Jeremy Vine,of BBC 2(re the Leverson fiasco) a rather irate e-mail following his one sided debate with a Nina Mishkow,where she implied people like myself must be a little short in the" mental department" to question the beautiful Kate,s angst regarding media intrusion in their "stressful times" following the "abduction" of their little daughter!!!! I hope I get a reply,I,ll let you know!!He usually has 2 people in to "discuss" anything topical,but for some strange reason ,it was just Nina and him agreeing with each other,a few people,s e-mails were thrown in at the end ,but that was it .I have taken huge offence and feel better for saying so!!!!
ReplyDeleteSeems that our good friend Insane is back on stage. Questioning the legitimation of the doubts doesn't transform them in "irrelevant material".
ReplyDeleteCongratulations May 1. I think, you bring here a very important clue to be discussed. The absence of normal sources for Madeleine DNA on that flat is really a mystery. She disappeared without leaving a trace and she lived without leaving traces.
From what we can see in the PJ files, I think a strong evidence raises the day light and cannot be irrelevant to solve that case: THE ADULT ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE OC.
The Tapas 9 is far bigger then the 9 friends who travelled from UK to spent a week together. They meet others in PDL, previously known or recently added to the group. They shared the same behavior, the same creche, the same nannies, the same "good nights" and of course the same Pact.
The Portuguese papers, while reporting the movements of Paulo Rebelo in PDL doing a reconstruction of the events ( where we can see him testing the abduction theory on the window, reported also that P Rebelo believes the children where all together in one flat, which cannot be the 5A. If that is true, this can explain perhaps the lack of Madeleine DNA in the 5A. She was with other children and just pontually came to the 5A.
The 5A could being used for adult nights. Was more close to the street, then less disturbance inside the resort for the guests who don't share that activities.
I found also amazing the absence of evidences from D Payne. They don't exist or they were not disclosed by the police? I go with second possibility.
In the 5A, were found a lot of samples of hair belonging to Kate in the living room, entrance and less in the room. Samples of one of the tapas 7, a man(not Payne or Gerry) where also found in the same location. Samples of Gerry hair where found in the room near the window and the bed. All that people were able to leave traces behind but an active girl wasn't. Very suspicious.
Insane,
ReplyDeleteFirst, thank you for your comment. We expected it, and you didn’t disappoint us. You are a true “Jack-in-the-box” that signals everyone what are true VIPs (Very Important Posts).
Second, thank you for holding us in such high consideration. Your “Really, don't quote other blogs. Someone who knows nothing quoting people who know even less?” is a huge compliment that we wouldn’t like for you to think that it went unnoticed.
As we didn’t exactly refer which blogs we were quoting, according to you, all other blogs know less than us, which, logic says, makes us the blog that that knows the most.
I repeat that it’s your opinion, not ours. Ours is that, as you know, we are simple, but committed, truth-seekers, not truth-beholders. But your compliment was nice. Thank you.
About the “content” of your comment, once again very revealing, for now I’ll leave for the readers to give their opinion, if they wish to do so.
A repeated warning Insane, remember the language if you don’t want your comments partially or totally censored.
Insane’s censored comment:
ReplyDeletePosted by Anonymous to Textusa at Dec 1, 2011 7:53:00 AM
Another (censored), with no understanding of how a crime scene is processed.
First of all - all those hairs you describe as belonging to Kate? They came from her or from someone from the same maternal line. So, in other words, her or any of her children, including Madeleine.
Secondly, the crime scene was processed as crime scenes are - looking for and collecting biological residues. Their brief was not to prove Madeleine was there in order to satisfy (censored). Everything you have ever read about the flat having been meticulously cleaned of every trace is absolute (censored). As in all (censored) nonsense about her ''not leaving a trace''
May I was absolutely right when she said she was not qualified to question the forensic evidence. To question it one needs first to understand it. And she clearly doesn't. Nor do you.
Lynn
ReplyDeleteThis is the response I received from the BBC.
Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC Radio 2’s ‘Jeremy Vine’, broadcast on 24 November.
I understand that you felt that the coverage was biased in favour of the McCanns.
Our presenters are expected to put their own views to one side when carrying out their work for the BBC. They seek to provide the information which will enable listeners to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. Senior editorial staff, the Executive Committee and the BBC Trust keep a close watch on programmes to ensure that standards of impartiality are maintained.
In dealing with any controversial matter the BBC is required to give a fair and balanced report. Balance cannot simply be judged on the basis of the time allocated to the representatives of either side of an argument however. One spokesperson may make his or her points concisely while another needs rather longer to explain a point of view. Account also needs to be taken of the way a subject is covered over a period of time; perfect balance is difficult to achieve on every single occasion while overall it is a more achievable goal.
We’re guided by the feedback we receive and I can assure you I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's made available to all BBC staff, including members of the ‘Jeremy Vine’ team, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards Kevin Freeburn BBC Complaints www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
Insane, how do you know this?
ReplyDelete"Everything you have ever read about the flat having been meticulously cleaned of every trace is absolute (censored)"
Were you there or did you JUST READ IT?
I have always wondered if T9 said they all went for lunch at Payne's apartment to explain all the childrens' DNA being found there. Were they really just sleeping there with the 'sick' person babysitting. That would also explain RO not hearing anything despite supposedly being in the apartment next door to M when she was supposed to be crying.
ReplyDeleteIs it realistic for DW to make sandwiches for lunch for everyone? Although it was said that some children had pasta for lunch so she must have been a busy woman and had a mess to clear up when everyone went back to their activities.
Where did everyone sit? Why no photos of these mammoth lunch sessions?
Another Insane’s censored comment:
ReplyDeletePosted by Anonymous to Textusa at Dec 1, 2011 10:33:00 AM
How do I know this? Because (censored) I have actually read and understood the forensic reports. Only someone who hadn’t could claim that the apartment had been meticulously cleaned. This information is all in the files. (censored)
I'm sorry, but am I wrong or the "maternal" linkage was only made about what was found at the Burgau apartment? And in relation with JT and RM, right? I might have missed something, and if I have please do correct me, but the traces found at the 5A were all clearly marked as belonging to specific individuals, except the profile L traces? If so, then saying that Kate's hair samples could be Maddie's is distorting facts intentionally, as is Insane's habit.
ReplyDelete“Madeleine’s DNA was, amazingly, nowhere to be found at the apartment. Not a toothbrush, a hairbrush for her long hair, the clothes she wore that day, her toys?”
ReplyDeleteOR her towel. As K says she bathed M and took the ‘bead’ out of her hair. As the bead looks like an elastic band there is no way you could get it out of her hair without taking some of it with the elastic. So where did the ‘bead’ go and the towel which would have had skin and hair if used to dry her hair?
Saying that. I don’t believe the ‘bead’ photo is genuine and think it may have come from a series of photos from home when she was riding her bike.
I would suggest that you go back and actually read the files, then you can withdraw your accusation
ReplyDelete53 hairs were recovered which, upon analysis of the mitochondrial DNA they contained, were shown to have come from Kate McCann or someone with the same maternal line. Mitochondrial DNA is passed unchanged from a mother to all her children, and is different to nuclear DNA which is derived from both parents.
So those 53 hairs could have come from Kate, Madeleine, Sean or Amelie.
Profile L, which was a full DNA profile was found to be a match to a young boy whose family stayed in the apartment shortly before the McCanns did. So it was clearly linked to an individual.
The Burgau apartment evidence has no connection with the evidence in Apartment 5A and the hair evidence is not significant, signifying as it does that Jane Tanner and someone to whom that hair belonged possibly shared a very distant ancestor. Unlike nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA passes from one generation to the other essentially unchanged. This result has no relevance to Madeleine or to her disappearance.
Now perhaps you would like to go back and correct your error?
Note to Textusa - just so you know, my posts are being published elsewhere, so everyone can see that the words you are censoring are not abusive.
ReplyDeleteEither publish them in full or do not publish them at all. This matter has also been taken up with your service provider. Have a nice day.
Insane, you read and understand the forensic report and come to the conclusion that the apartment flat was not meticulously cleaned of every trace. As is your trademark, you don’t explain why or how you reached that conclusion, only implying you did because you’re smarter than everyone else.
ReplyDeleteI read the files, and the fact that someone had to be dispatched to Rothley to get Maddie’s DNA samples where there should have been plenty in Apartment 5A, makes me conclude that, in fact, there was a serious attempt to clean every trace from apartment flat 5A.
Under the swinging scenario, Profile L makes perfect sense. Understand Insane's discomfort.
ReplyDeleteHave you read the forensic reports?
ReplyDeleteIf you have you will know that a number of samples of DNA were recovered, along with hundreds of hairs.
Kindly explain how that is consistent with an apartment which has been ''meticulously cleaned of every trace''?
You also misunderstand the reason why a DNA sample for Madeleine was obtained from Rothley. Where a surrogate sample has to be obtained it is standard practice to recover it from somewhere other than the crime scene. In doing so, the forensic teams were following what is accepted and standard practice. The problem is that you really do not understand how DNA analysis works or how a crime scene is processed.
To anon at 12.27
ReplyDeleteProfile L was a 3 year old boy who stayed in the apartment before the McCanns.
I should be very careful of accusing him or his family of being involved in swinging, if I were you. The stain turned out to be saliva, incidentally.
Again, had you read the files you would know this, as the information is in there.
"I would suggest that you go back and actually read the files, then you can withdraw your accusation"
ReplyDeleteInsane, I don't see any accusation in the post.
I'm extremely pleased to know you are posting your comments on other forums and I'm sure Textusa would not censor your words in full if they were not abusive, rude or gratuitous swearing.
Here you go once more getting irate about a blog you find amusing. You don't sound amused to me so maybe your own bloggers are laughing butI very much doubt that. Well, that's assuming your secret blog really exists.
What is so obvious is people who are trying to make a valid point ot ask serious questions do not resort to anger and rudeness like you do. Profile L is obviously causing you gteat concern.
Note to Textusa
ReplyDeleteAlso worth remembering that my readers can see all the posts and that includes the ones answering the questions posed which for reasons of your own you appear to be reluctant to publish.
Are you too scared of the truth to let your readers read my responses? We are running a book at the moment on the ones you will allow through. Much amusement....
There was a clear accusation in the post timed at 11.57 that I was ''distorting the facts''
ReplyDeleteThese facts are all drawn directly from the forensic reports and there is no distortion. It would not appear that the person making the accusation has actually read the reports in question.
I like it, a lot! : Anon from Dec 1, 2011 12:27:00 PM
ReplyDelete"Under the swinging scenario, Profile L makes perfect sense. Understand Insane's discomfort."
Meu caro, a coisa continua um pouco para além dos nossos piores pressentimentos, mas não creio que as suspeitas andem longe das verdadeiras verdades :-)
ReplyDeleteTextusa, you are absolutely brilliant when the Mccanns are finally brought to justice your name will go down in history as part of the team that brought justice for Madeleine.
ReplyDeleteWell done and thanks xx
I think Insane needs to watch this if he thinks contacting Textusa's SERVICE PROVIDER will be the way to go. It's now our turn to laugh. He may be an 'expert' in science but knows nothing about the internet. I'll give him some clues ISP or host ...blog or website...UK based or offshore.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9574&wfs=true
May I has requested to publish the following:
ReplyDeleteIt has been declared by someone more intelligent and qualified than we are, and perhaps also better informed, that the stain is saliva, that the saliva was that of Craig, aged 3, that profile L belongs to Craig and that the 7 hairs found in apartment 5A also belong to him. Therefore Profile L is not from an abductor.
Well, thank goodness for that. Can we now rest assured that there will be no attempt in the future to link Profile L with a named offender in a police database?
The post poses questions rather than gives answers.
We now think that the reference to a stain on a mattress was a mistranslation and should refer to a counterpane, so we are happy to remove the mattress reference, which we were fortunately intelligent enough to do without any help from our commentator above.
It did not make any specific reference to Kate's DNA.
Vg3 sample from apartment in Burgau should not be confused with the McCanns' apartment 5A.
Vg3 is linked with the fibre from the car boot and the counterpane with the stain by Dr Paulo Rebelo in Table One for reasons only he could explain. I can't.
One would expect the apartment and bedding to be cleaned after the departure of Craig's family, before the arrival of the next guests. The cleaning of bedding after the McCanns left is reported in 24 Horas. Hence my figure of 2 washes of bedding.
Regardless of bedding being washed or not, Craig left hairs behind and Madeleine didn't.
There is no analysis of Craig's hair in the released files that I can find. If anyone can, please let me know.
The results of any analysis may be held in the UK, where Craig's family were interviewed and may or may not have been given to Rebelo. Samples may or may not have been taken,as requested by Rebelo.
The same applies to samples which may or may not have been taken from the 2 residents who stayed before Craig's family.
There is one very simple fact you seem to be overlooking
ReplyDeleteThe 53 hairs containing DNA from Kate or those of her maternal bloodline could be from Kate, Madeleine, Sean or Amelie. As many were collected from the area around Madeleine's bed, it is perfectly possible that they are hers, but there is no way to distinguish between the DNA and say which member of the family shed those hairs
So it is quite wrong to say ''Craig'' left behind hairs and Madeleine didn't.
The stain which was identified as being ''craig's'' DNA was on the counterpane/bedspread. That presumably was not laundered between guests
Once the hairs were identified as his there would be no need for any further analysis of them.
Perhaps now you will accept the need to read and UNDERSTAND the files and the reports therein before commenting on them.
Kate gave the towel to a police officer with a dog and it was used to follow a possible trail. If it had Maddies scent on it, then presumably some DNA? but was it a towel used by Maddie? We only have Katess word it was. Why use a towel and not clothing not yet washed as that would have been in contact with her body longer than a towel.?
ReplyDeleteTo go all the way to Rothley to get "uncontaminated" samples is an obvious and evident exaggeration to all. Maddie's clothes in wouldn't have been contaminated, neither would have been the towel. But if they didn't want to collect anything from 5A, there would still be the creche, or Payne's apartment, where supposedly M had been there.
Please notice that the FINAL report says that "after analysis" the saliva samples were from "Craig", but nowhere in the files can this conclusion be corroborated. Am I saying that the final report has false information? I have no doubt in my mind that all information there said that is based on information coming from the UK is not reliable.
Shouldn't there have been found something from Craig's parents? No mention of samples from them...
ReplyDeleteScent and DNA is not the same thing. Regardless, they did not attempt to specifically locate Madeleine's DNA in the apartment - that isn't how a crime scene is processed. One locates any biological residues and tests them, and separately obtains reference samples from others for the process of elimination. As Madeleine wasn't there they had to seek a surrogate sample that they could be confident of getting her profile from AWAY from the crime scene. Hence the pillowcase. This is entirely normal procedure.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the samples belonged to ''craig'' is absolutely corroborated in the files. To claim it isn't is simply false.
I would suggest reading up about how reference samples are obtained, it might help.
There has been so much utter rubbish written about 5A being cleaned and all traces of Madeleine removed - codswallop
To get an uncontaminated sample from Rothley was absolutely the correct procedure to follow
Incidentally, to the person suggesting that the final report is not reliable, may I remind you that all the analysis of samples from the apartment immediately following Madeleine's disappearance was conducted by the PORTUGUESE forensic institute, not by the British forensic science service. It was the Portuguese scientists who identified Craig's DNA on the bedspread - are you going to accuse them too?
I'm pleased I set aside some time to watch the link posted earlier.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9574&wfs=true
The second part of it grows legs after a shaky start. I think the McCanns will be very nervous about the next stage of the Leveson inquiry as the witnesses spoke words akin to judicial secrecy for not saying anything at the moment. The word hypocritical was used a few times by Richard Desmond and I wondered if this also applied to his front page apology.
If the Mccanns are not losing any sleep about the forthcoming witness statements then we will have confirmation 'someone' is covering them.
As for their phones NOT being hacked.....laugh of the decade! If the Mccanns think we believe that then that is arrogance beyond belief.
Insane, you really show a great discomfort with some posters here. Your behavior could not be explained only, under the circumstances of an informed person who read the files and passionately seek the truth. You lost your control under very specific subjects and you pretend to act like a " clever rat talking to a stupid audience". What a mistake. Trying to minimize the intelligence of others doesn't make you more intelligent or correct.
ReplyDeleteI think I had already a great discussion with you on Joana Morais Blog, about the DNA subject, the hair samples and the lack of Madeleine evidences. After many posts with your style( coping and pasting sentences from the files which can be grabbed from Parmalan, Mccannfiles, etc, in a second without any effort and without an accurate research on the subject, you end up insulting, questioning for questioning and adding noting to the discussion a part your great discomfort with subject. Something must be driving you to the Internet where important issues regarding Madeleine crime are under discussion.
You are correct, mithocondrial DNA links you to your mother.
Only a biased person can say that : "the 53 hairs.... Could be from Kate, Madeleine, Sean or Amelie"
First you have to understand that a forensic report made by a Biologist or by any other investigator follows a menu that contains a pre-made group of words that mean nothing under a particular context because this report is just one part of the investigation which is going to be completed by other forensic evidences. When you read in a report " 53 hairs of Kate or of someone with her maternal line" what is important is "53" and " Kate". " Someone with her maternal line" is what we call the"bla, bla, bla" in the report, to fill the lines and make it more professional since you are analyzing mithocondrial DNA.
For me, while reading the files, I have no doubts, those hairs belong to the people named on the reports and the samples were mainly analyzed in an attempt to found evidences of two persons: Madeleine and her potential stranger abductor.
PJ had at their hands an accurate source of DNA from all Tapas 9, OC workers, other persons with interess( including the GNR officers who first arrived to the crime scene). On the files, we can see the permissions signed by Kate and Gerry to give mouth swabs from where their DNA was recovered to be used as a reference.
On top of that, every hair sample was analyzed in other parameters very important, not only the DNA, such the color, the texture, the tickness, if has routs or not, etc. Then, if PJ said that hair belongs to that person, there is no doubts on that.
Was it because of that permisse, that the report from the samples of hair recovered from the boot of the Scenic with roots, were never sent to Portugal by the FSS lab?
I really loves to know what you Insane, have to say about that.
The apartment was basic cleaned by the OC cleaner on Wednesday. the lady stated that in an interview. After that, for some reason, somebody have done a deep cleaning because even trough naked eyes PJ and GNR found it strange the condition they saw the flat. Too clean and too tide to be an holiday flat with 3 toddlers. Only who never went on holidays with children can look at that without suspicion. Looks like the Drs. McCann love to be housemaids while on holidays.
ReplyDeleteGerry hair found on the room and near the bead could eventually tell us who changed the crime scene to fit their story. A lot of activity after the cleaning and before the alarm was raised.
"The fact that the samples belonged to ''craig'' is absolutely corroborated in the files. To claim it isn't is simply false"
ReplyDeleteInsane, could you please tell me where in the files, besides the final report, does it say that Profile L is Craig's DNA?
Insane, no chance this time in revealing where you're publishing your uncensored posts? That way we'd all get to know really how unjust Tex has been to you.
ReplyDelete"As Madeleine wasn't there they had to seek a surrogate sample that they could be confident of getting her profile from AWAY from the crime scene. Hence the pillowcase. This is entirely normal procedure."
ReplyDeleteThere you go again. Just because you say it, it doesn't mean it is. NO, it is not an "entirely normal procedure". Maddie surrogate sample was collected to rule out her samples from from the others collected. "AWAY" from the crime scene is not a 1000 miles. And with a toothbrush present no need to go anywhere else. There should have been, and apparently there were not, PLENTY of sources from which to collect samples of Maddie's DNA. That is NOT normal. Saying that it's a NORMAL procedure to collect a sample in another country by another police force, just goes to show your mindset when analysing this information.
About accusing or not accusing the Portuguese INML of foul play, as you say, they were only responsible for the INITIAL tests, but quickly the UK made sure that everything was done there, so that the could control this very sensitive information, and let me remind you that GA was kicked off the case by the Portuguese authorities, not the British.
Stop making supposedly rhetorical questions, because, what you imply with your questions is total questionable.
A pillowcase from the 5A was analyzed by the FSS on an attempt to found Madeleine DNA and prove she have been there. The Report ( easy available at Mccannfiles) show that the DNA found shows a combination of 50% of Kate and 50% of Gerry, proving that belongs to one of their children. The DNA was different then the one from any the twins, then was assumed to most probably belonging to Madeleine.
ReplyDeleteWhy a pillowcase and not a personnal item since they were at the end of their holidays and what is normal is having many dirty clothes including the ones she weare that day, since according to the parents, she had a bath and disappeared wearing a pajama?
Another strange behavior from team McCann, they contacted the S African D Kruggel and asked a relative to go to Rothley and found a piece with Madeleine DNA to be sent to S Africa. Why not a toothbrush, a hairbrush, a sandal, a trainer or a piece of cloth from PDL? Where went the clothes from Madeleine to magically reappear after 20 days to be used as an excuse to explain the evidences found in the Scenic? The material which was not available or not in good condition to be used by the police as a source of DNA was claimed by the parents, many months after, to be the source of the DNA found in the boot of the Scenic. What a desperate and poor try from team McCann to fool some distracted public.
From the files we can see two thinks that could be relevant. The mccann's asked a technician to solve a problem they had with a washing machine, I think at the end of their holidays( who cares about a machine not working when was close to leave?). A worker from the laundry reported that the mccann's never handed clothes to the laundry, but immediately after Madeleine disappeared( may 4, I think) somebody from the OC handed some clothes from the mccann's to be washed. Due to the size, the lady thinks that at least one skirt belongs to Madeleine. Where have been that clothes and why they were handed by the OC and not by the mccann's or one of their friends? We know, on May 4 they were busy with interrogatory with PJ, but what was the urgency on washing such clothes? Wonder if on the same pile were not handed the clothes Kate and Gerry were wearing on the night before.
And what about that brilliant excuse gave by the Mccann's to justify the absence of personal items where the DNA could be found: "the kids were sharing the hairbrush." what about the toothbrush? They shared also that item? Interesting, coming from two doctors who pretend to belong to a certain part of the british society.
ReplyDeleteAnon Dec 2, 2011 9:17:00 AM, agree totally. All it was needed was to take one hair from each of the twins, and then go hair by hair found on the hairbrush... the first that didn't match, voila!
ReplyDeleteSame type lame excuse that Kate used about cadaverine smell on her clothes, as if we didn't know that doctors have to wear scrubs in their work place. Here's another topic that I'd like to see Textusa write about.
I wish a very nice day to All.
ReplyDeleteSeems Insane have a great passion to Team Textusa. ...... Why?????
Probably nobody read Insane´s words in another place. That is why.
xxs, Text.
"Conheço o 'estripador de Lisboa' e ele é da minha família". Este "segredo", apresentado como trunfo por um candidato à "Casa dos segredos", da TVI, pôs fim a quase 20 anos de mistério sobre mortes bárbaras de prostitutas. O suspeito foi denunciado pelo próprio filho.
ReplyDeleteNão poderia ter sido mais fortuita, após anos de investigações infrutíferas, a forma como a Polícia Judiciária (PJ) chegou ao alegado responsável pelos assassinatos de três prostitutas em Lisboa e uma em Esgueira (Aveiro)." in DN
Mccann's jamais podereis dormir descansados e este purgatorio e em si uma especie de condenacao. Um dia, uma das criancas dos Tapas 9 vai abrir a boca e contar a verdade. Nem que seja a procura de um vicio antigo, o da fama e dos 5 minutos de Gloria. Nao ha pactos indissoluveis nem segredos que se guardem para sempre. O desaparecimento de Maddie em Portugal sera reaberto e Tera processos abertos em varios paises devido as fraudes cometidas e ao mediatismo que tem.
This post does indeed pose more questions than states facts.
ReplyDeleteAnd of the many questions that the post raises, I think the most important are not whether Profile L belonged to Craig, a 3 year old, but why did the Police go outside the T9 to find matches.
The T9 were supposedly secluded in the Ocean Club.
So why get samples from Berry and Balu? They are supposed to be just guests in no way related with the McCanns. Could one of them be the abductor? Then why those two and no other guests?
Why Burgau? Why those vehicles?
Maddie’s DNA was needed to rule out samples. Kate’s, Gerry’s, twins and all other T9 also. To rule out.
After that, any DNA would be to see if there was a match to an unmatched sample. There’s always a reason to choose who to collect from. If I was to do the collecting, I would go first to the OC staff, GNR, and anyone that had been in that apartment that night.
But the police chose the 3Bs, Berry, Balu, Burgau. Why? For example, they didn’t come to my house. They didn’t have any reason to do so, so why should they?
Any grown-up healthy adult, who has a normal sexual life, knows that a semen stain is different from one made out of saliva. Scientific tests are usually confirmation of what was suspected to be.
If the Police suspected saliva, why go get samples from Balu or Berry?
Same question about semen, but here the answer points directly to the police suspecting adult activity outside the McCann couple. The swinging scenario.
More important of what Profile L is “made of” or even who it belonged to, is what the police thought it was and who the police suspected it could be from. To suspect, there has to be a reason to suspect.
Censored comment from Insane:
ReplyDeletePosted by Anonymous to Textusa at Dec 2, 2011 10:40:00 AM
To anon 1.55
Your post is breathtaking in it's ignorance
Let's start with this
''Only a biased person can say that : "the 53 hairs.... Could be from Kate, Madeleine, Sean or Amelie"
In fact, I won't even bother with the rest of your post for now - let's just take this
I want you to go away and google ''mitochondrial DNA'' If you do, you will discover that it is passed directly from mother to child, and that consequently a mother will have EXACTLY THE SAME mitochondrial DNA as her children.
Therefore, as I correctly stated, those hairs could have belonged to Kate or any of her children.
Whilst you insist in your ignorance in clinging to your falacy it is pointless discussing anything else with you. (censored)
It is not a matter of my opinion. It is a statement of simple fact. Actually for Textusa to even publish posts like yours which is simply a piece of invention utterly demeans this site.
Insane, thank you for worrying so about the blog's reputation. Your care matters to us.
ReplyDelete@ Anon 9:17:00
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that is not how morphological examination of hairs is conducted. They were unable to obtain a surrogate reference sample of Madeleine's hair, so hers could not be distinguished from the twins. As has already been stated, they would all contain the same mitochondrial DNA. And so would Kates.
Insane, censored:
ReplyDeletePosted by Anonymous to Textusa at Dec 2, 2011 11:00:00 AM
@ anon 8.30
It IS how it is done. (censored)
Surrogate samples are retrieved from as clear an environment as possible. That means the child's bedroom back in the UK was the obvious place to start, rather than anything from within the crime scene, which was in itself a multi-occupancy holiday flat.
(censored)
Remove those posts. You were told not to publish any unless you published them in full
ReplyDeleteI'll leave you to return the forum to it's previous moribund state.
Insane,
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't Maddie's DNA sample obtained in Rothley contain the same mitochondrial DNA for her and Kate? So what's the point of going to Rothley? All forensics had to do is pluck one hair from Kate, and rule out all samples that were from Maddie's. Just can't understand why people who work in this every day, supposedly with education to do so, would name the samples from Maddie different from the twins... after all they're all equal. Maddie's are equal to Kate's. The twins are equal to Kate's too, so Maddie's and the twins' must be the same two. They're all equal.
No wonder Gerry felt this happening was a nightmare! A disaster! And no wonder Kate feels mentally raped! What has happened in May 2007 and what has been happening since then is a unforgivable shame! An attack against human reason!
ReplyDeleteEven the Devil fells a little ashamed about what they've done in and since May 2007. There are NO innocent people here (main protagonists, second actors, framed people dragging into this...) There are ONLY different levels of responsibility. I saw people in jail for less ... wait a minute! - where did I heard this before?
The main thing hopefully good about a crime investigation like this is that raises so much interest even in the other side of the Atlantic (not to mention all people involved in finding the true although case seems to be closed.... seems to be...) is that one of these days the prophecy "leaving no stone unturned" will really happen.
If you think that portuguese police will put McCanns in jail: forget about it! Portuguese police has already made their contribution to this cause. McCanns judgement will be in UK. This is an english crime! And... there is no place like home ...
Anon, Dec 2, 2011 9:33:00 AM, who wrote about the "Lisbon Ripper", well, after all this time it is useless, the man can confess to all authorities the crimes he commited BUT he can no longer be judged and convicted because the crimes have prescribed. He will be walking the streets, free as a byrd, free to go on and do another series of killings if he feels the urge to! The only hope for any justice ever being made in this case is if he is caught in connection with some unrelated crime (Al Capone like) or is diagnosed as insane (eh,eh, no pun intended) and commited to a lunatic asylum for the rest of his life...but not much of a chance of that, I'm afraid, the portuguese criminal law is a joke!
ReplyDeleteI fear the Madeleine McCann case will end up in the same way, PRESCRIBED, and those responsible will never face justice, unless, as said above he/she/they are caught for something else.
With each year that passes by, the nearer we get to the prescription scenario and farther from any trial and conviction.
Sad, but a very real possibility...
For Textusa, and Sisters,
My dear, lovely, bright Ladies, never mind the disruptive comments, as the old portuguese saying goes:
"Os cães ladram, mas a caravana passa..."
Keep on the good work!
Textusa, if you'll allow, here's the link to a video in Anna Andress's blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-died-in-mccanns-apartment.html
Oh those wonderful dogs!It's a delight to see them in action, God bless them!
I always thought that the UK was keeping Profile L to pin on the poor soul that would get the blame. The first candidate was Raymond Hewlett, but the reaction at least on the internet was fierce, so they backed off. They really tried with that completely ridiculous episode with Raymond's son destroying hos father's revelation...
ReplyDeleteI'm relieved that Insane has now linked profile L to "Craig". To pin on anybody else, the BHs will have to backtrack, won't they?
Trying to pin Profile L on little C is not a great tactical move.
ReplyDeleteThe abductor was supposed to have a 4 minute 'window' of opportunity so I wonder how BHs would have explained molestation, abductor hiding behind a door, Gerry calling in to use the bathroom and lack of obvious evidence of molestation by an abductor for the police to find if C wasn't the source of samples?
poor Insane
ReplyDelete"I'll leave you to return the forum to it's previous moribund state".
Poor guy doesn't seem to be able to accept the number of visitors an comments from people who come to this blog.
In some ways I'll miss him but it will leave me wondering if he really thinks he made the blog come alive.
Who would like to take bets he will still keep coming back to read even if he doesn't post?
He is too involved not to keep checking so not long odds.
Ah! Ah! Dear Insane, I was aspecting a response like that. Exactly like what happened on Joana Morais blog when this subject was under discussion. When somebody confront you with accurate Biological knowledge, you open your box of insults showing your ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI don't need to do any research on MIT DNA since I'm a Biologist. But I recommend you, if you are able to understand the scientifical language, the report available on the link below:
http://www.fcfar.unesp.br/posgraduacao/biociencias/Disertacoes/2006/Greiciane-completo.pdf
( is available in Portuguese and English)
That shows the importance of the Mitochondrial DNA in the forensic investigation when the crime scene is contaminated, when the sample is contaminated or when is not possible to have nuclear DNA.
but, as I stated before, the result cannot be used to leave an innuendo like the one you so biased pretend to pass here " the hair belonging to Kate or any of her children" because that same hair was analyzed on other parameters, igually relevant and PJ had reference samples from Kate and the twins, to be compared. For some reason, the 53 hairs were connected to Kate and not to any of the twins or Madeleine.( cont)
Cont:
ReplyDeleteWithout questionning the use of the MIT DNA as a tool in criminology, the result needs to be careful analyzed because it can help solving the case but can also complicate everything due to a phenomenon called ' heteroplasmy'( is the presence of a mixture of more than one type of an organellar genome (mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) or plastid DNA) within a cell or individual). That in a pratical way, means you can have the same person having different MIT DNA in different cells, like the hair and the blood, or two persons who don't share the maternal line having the same heteroplasmy. I don't think the Portuguese lab had need to go more deeper in the investigation of that hair to connect it with persons named on the report. The other parameters completed the gaps.
What I found amazing was why all this samples of hair needed to by analyzed for MIT DNA. We know, the crime scene was contaminated. But in 53 hairs + plus the others from other Tapas 9, none was in good condition to be analyzed for nuclear DNA? That means, no any hair had roots? That is so strange as the absence of evidences of Madeleine on the bed. A person walking normal on any place leaves a certain type of hair that falls naturally and has roots. The absence of roots need to be seen under more then one contexts. It is very unlike that all that hair fall down naturally in the same crime scene. I'm not saying, that is what happened, but for me there is an high probability that this hair was deliberately planted on the crime scene by who was interested on the contamination. You just cut some and drop it to confuse and entertain the investigation.
Have a great night Insane while thinking in few more ' epithets' to call me.
Anon 1:55
Anon 1:55
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for such a clarifying comment that certainly will be used as reference in the future on this particular subject.
As for Insane's "epithets", and for truth's sake, on this particular post s/he was very careful not to use foul language. I think the worst expression was "rat's ass" when he referred to the blog's reputation on an unpublished comment.
However, one doesn't have to use foul words to be unnecessarily aggressive. I basically censored the his/her usual aggressive wording to call others ignorant or to tell us again, as s/he has endless times, to tell us to read the files, implying that we don't etc.
These expressions are used with a reason, and that is to populate the comments with very aggressive wording, that then leave that subliminal perception on the readers. If it were a smell, I would say that it's an attempt to leave a stench. One that one smells, is unpleasant but cannot quite pinpoint the origin. That's why Insane was very displeased that he couldn't do what he wanted. I was careful to retain in all his/her comments what was relevant, and even in some, for that reason, I did publish some aggressive language, but in most comments, as you can see, if you take the "censored" out they can be read as any other comment from any other reader. One may agree or not agree. And if one doesn't agree, one explains why. It's called an healthy discussion.
S/he was warned. We'll see if s/he can afford to remain silent. We know the character is shameless (after the "witness to a crime" comments, I would, if I were him/her remain silent) and is not the first time he's threatened to leave. We'll see.
Thanks Textusa.
ReplyDeleteFrom anon 1:55
Anon at 1.03 am.
ReplyDeleteCould I ask your opinion on the DNA found in the apartment in Burgau in relation to Tanner and Murat. It's so good there is a biologist who can explain matters to the rest of us.
Textusa, there is someone called Honestbroker who posts on blogs supporting the McCann and uses similar methods to Insane. He makes out he is an expert of many things, gives HIS interpretation of the facts then states them to be true and anyone who disagrees is subjected to his belittling attitude.
This blog is making way too much sense. Pieces that seemed loose in a some weird puzzle that people kept discussing back and forth without reaching any conclusion, now just fall into place one after the other. And I can't wait for the next piece. This is like reading a thriller, but in real time and we're all part of it! And, poor Maddie, it's not a novel. No wonder BHs monitor you so closely and emotionally.
ReplyDeleteTextusa,
ReplyDeleteYou did well in censoring the BH. I doubt that Insane will return because without their insultive and diruptive speech, they're left with nothing. Just look at Insane's postings. He clinged on to Kate's DNA being the same as Maddie's as if that was the point of the post. I haven't read the forensics details in the PJ files, because I find them too complex, but if there were only found 53 hair samples in the apartment, it seems very little. Profile L alone had 8 samples, that would make about 1/10 of the collection. I'm supposing that more than a hundred samples would be found in any normal bathroom. Are the 53 only Kate's out of hundreds collected? Anyhow, what I wanted to say is that if you take the insult and abuse out of Insane's comments, you leave him with nothing. He used to bullying his opinions, and if he can't do that here, what can he then do? Use argumentation? He can't because he doesn't have it. As you say on the top of your blog, it's indefensible what he's trying to defend.
Pobre Insane! Cada tiro cada melro!
ReplyDeletePoor Insane! Each chance, each mistake!
Brilliant to read the biologist experianced explanations regarding DNA and all that involves,exellent post!My eldest grandson also has a degree in the same subject,and he also implied people who "know" and have most to gain from "planting false DNA Will, if the alternative is being found out,but also,unfortunatly,investigating officers themselves can and do cross the line for ,sometimes a career ,or finacial gain. One of Kate and Gerry,s biggest "get out of jail ploys,imo,was when they claimed their little boy had developed a taste for sea bass,which of course explained the cavader in their apartment as found by those wonderful dogs,the fact they must have placed it behind the settee etc seems quite bizarre,we usually eat ours whilst sitting at a table!
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 8: 16,
ReplyDeleteI didn't read yet anything related with that DNA, a part what was posted here. Seems to be Mitochondrial DNA with profiles matching the MIT DNA of Jane T and Murat. Looking only at that, this means nothing, since we all share profiles of many people who have no any relation with us. Only when we have the full sequence, we can compare and see if that people share the same maternal line and are related. Per consequence, will be correct to assume that people were/ or not on the place where the sample was found.
Talking about DNA, was reported that a sample recovered from the boot of the scenic shows 15 alleles matching perfectly Madeleine DNA which has 19. That could be something. We can see on the email exchanged with PJ , the British side trying to dismiss what was found and give some explanation. First, the big question to be answered is Why the sample shows 15 alleles and not the full sequence of 19? Was it because 4 were missing? Because 4 were in so bad condition that could not be identified or because 4 were not matching at all? If were not matching at all, then the DNA was not from Madeleine. If were missing or degraded then with a high probability was from Madeleine because more then 50% match perfectly. This apparently look the same but was not, since the presence of 4 alleles totally different then what Madeleine has, eliminate her from the Scenic and the absence of this alleles not.
I found it amazing the explanation gave by the British scientist to transform the result in something irrelevant. It is true, Madeleine share 50% of her DNA with her father and 50 % with her mother but that did not mean we found Gerry DNA and Kate DNA in Madeleines DNA as it is on Gerry and Kate. She got from each of her parents 23 chromosomes with genes that combined in a new way making her DNA ( genome) diverse and unique. That's why DNA is a so important tool in criminology. Thats why every person is unique. That's why, even perfect twins have different DNA. To have a person showing the same 15 alleles as Madeleine, in the world, is a very small chance. To have that person traveling in the Scenic is even a more little chance. To have it traveling in the Scenic in Portugal, in PDL and on that particular time of the year ( and I can enlarge the time for all the leasing time of the Scenic) is almost impossible.
Then, I understand why PJ has no doubts to assume Madeleine is dead. Something very weird was found on the car rented by her parents when she was already missing. Two important sciences pointed on that direction, the Biology and the Statistics ( Probabilities).
Why only 15 alleles and not 19? As far as I read on the PJ files, the British didn't gave a good explanation for that. As far as what is known, for less then that matching, a lot of people were charged with a crime around the world. Why on that story the end should be different?
To avoid the troubles, the British shut down the FSS Lab. Where are the samples? They need to be reanalyzed and is a lab responsibility to keep the samples safety if a crime was not solved.
Regarding my previous post to anon 8:16, I hope was useful.
ReplyDeleteAnon. 1:55/ 1:03
To the Biologist from anon at 8.16.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much, your explanation it is very helpful. I hope you can keep providing information that supports or interpret what we read in the files.
I think what is more interesting is WHY the apartment in Burgau was visted and samples taken.
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/n3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long
ReplyDeleteA very interesting article about the DNA/ Madeleine.
I just have doubts on the last considerations, regarding the embryo. The doubt and the consideration is legitimate but I think that is bringing the Maddie case too far.
If the coloboma was not a defect invented by a group of informed doctors to be a good market ploy, then there is a high probability of Madeleine being having other genetic disorders that could trouble her life and make the life of her family difficult. Not every parent has patience to deal with delicate situations and an accident could happen.
the mess up of the DNA bring the mccann's to a crosspoint from where they cannot easily leave untouched:
- if there is no traces of DNA from Madeleine in PDL, there is no prove she was there. It is almost impossible to have a child in a certain place without the child living many different sources of DNA. no any deep clean can wash it. The pictures, the words of the mccann's and their friends and even the flight tickets, cannot prove the existence of the girl in PDL without a biological evidence.
- if the source of Madeleine DNA in Rothley was not from Madeleine, then that was deliberated provided to the investigation to create the chaos and bring the investigation to nowhere.
- If the samples recovered in PDL and on the Scenic were from Madeleine ( and I believe they were because the behavior of the FSS lab and the British authorities is very suspicious), why they hide it?
What they found that force top scientists to give stupid explanations? They were counting with a low profile from team McCann and with an uninformed public who buy the stories like they were presented to them. They were counting with a case fading immediately after their poor explanations. That is what happened on previous cases. The public never questioned before, the result of an investigation and his steps.
Goncalo Amaral was the stone on their shoes and some blogs on the Internet follow the same pattern. If GA had accepted the story and fade, the MCcann's had no need to be in public eyes trying to fool people, looking for money and selling their fairy story.
I don't believe that case will ever be solved. It shows the dirty face of a certain part of the British authorities. To solve it, they have to admit many ' wrong doings' to call it in a soft way, because under the true scenery, could be considered a crime. There is so many ways to contaminate a crime scene, even without physically been there. It is all about what you plant or hide in a report.
Yes, I agree with you anon 8:16/8:44.
ReplyDeleteWhy samples were recovered from the Burgau apartment is the question. Something important drove the investigation there- A suspicion that could be one of the places used for swing activities? Or a place where the body or something related to the body could be stored?
PJ just search properties when there is a strong reason to do it.
"PJ just search properties when there is a strong reason to do it."
ReplyDeleteDec 4, 2011 8:55:00 AM
Yes, and the PJ can only do a search inside private properties with a court warrant, and judges don't sign those without good cause. There had to be some suspicion or evidence strong enough to convince the judge that place had to be investigated.
Thank you Anon 1:55 for introducing the concept of planted DNA because I have not seen it raised before in this case, although the corollary is staring us all in the face. The advances made in forensic science have meant that a hair, a fibre or some such trifle has been sufficient to secure a conviction in many cases. A good thing surely, but with it the possibility of subversion increases immeasurably.
ReplyDeleteOne good thing that will endure this farrago is that many people, including I suspect some here, will for the first time be seeing (for those who have eyes to see) the existence of a coherent power structure that normally remains hidden. It is pan-jurisdictional, pan-national, amoral and ruthless. It is psychopathic. Some will describe it as satanic. The institutions we have been instructed to trust have been shown to be untrustworthy, we have been lied to here and you can be sure we have been lied to before and will be lied to again. It is time for each of us individually to withhold our trust from the undeserving, it is time for us to question everything we are being told because it may well be a lie.
I realise this is off-topic, but this blog is about seeking justice, and we are being forced to consider what that word means. Natural justice is immutable, it is something we all innately understand but here we are seeing that the 'Justice System' is a sham, a deception. When the natural course of events is subverted and perpetrators walk free we know that justice has not been served whatever grand title the subverters carry. Then take this understanding, that there is a game within a game, and consider its other aspect. The best way to conceal the guilty is to convict the innocent. This has yet to happen in this case (although it would be unwise to rule it out in the future) but it has happened plenty of times before, including in some very high profile cases that are often mentioned in relation to this case. We have seen here how a covert power can intervene to exonerate, think how effective that would be when used to convict. The police, the government, the media, the courts, a hair, a fibre. Case closed.
To return to this thread, 'Insane's' interventions are of interest because they reveal the method. There is a playbook used to corrupt, distract and divert honest enquiry, and in this instance we could call it 'blinding with science'. The science of DNA is complex, it has its own precise process and arcane vocabulary. Unless one is trained in these matters any attempt to engage with one who is is something of a fools' errand. However, in this case we don't have to know any more than the very basics about DNA to understand its central importance here. Just ask yourself this question: 'Would responsible parents, let alone doctors, allow one toothbrush to be shared by three children?' No, obviously. If the narrative we are being told is an honest one, every facet of it would be honest. If however it contains even just one falsehood then the whole narrative falls down. You don't need a degree in anything to understand that.
Quote from Clarence Mitchell about DNA.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482811/Madeleines-parents-We-lie-detector-test-clear-names.html
Kate McCann lied under oath at the Leveson inquiry that no bodily fluids were found in the hire car. Will she be allowed to get away with perjury?
While Mr Mitchell said the couple were relieved by the news that they would not face any immediate reinterrogation, he added: "There is still a long way to go in the legal process. They remain official suspects."
He said he could not discuss the DNA evidence at the centre of the police case, extracted from blood found in their holiday apartment and "bodily fluids" in the car they hired some 24 days after Madeleine disappeared.
I think that it's unquestionable that the McCanns planted DNA, in this instance, not on the crime scene, but on the police's hands. They didn't want to hand over Maddie DNA samples taken from PDL. Why? In my opinion this has a simple explanation: traces of drugs. It was medication they were trying to hide. Some type of sleep inducing meds given to the children to make sure they would sleep soundly, and be easy to be taken care of by whoever had that job while the adults had fun.
ReplyDeleteI imagine that any the hair samples taken from the T9 children, especially the twins, were taken not during that night or the next days, but after a certain period of time. The priority was to look for the alleged abducted Maddie. This time probably allowed for all traces of the sleeping meds to disappear from all living children, that’s why the twins’ samples could be taken safely in PDL, for example.
But with Maddie’s hairs, it was different. The traces remained in the samples. So it was necessary to provide really uncontaminated DNA to the PJ, and this could only be from the last place Maddie had been without having taken the medicine: Rothley. I bet if they tested all the hairs on that famous hairbrush, all samples would accuse the same thing, independent of being Maddie’s or the twins.
I agree with those readers that have said that what is the most important May I’s post is not Profile L itself, but why the police went where they went for matching samples. The swinging scenario is growing legs… they’ve been there all the time, but if it wasn’t for Textusa it would’ve gone unnoticed.
The drugs remain on the hair for quite long time. Kate knows that and probably because of that the twins had an hair cut almost after arriving to UK. They were feared about what the Portuguese police could request together with rogatory letters for the interviews. Mccann's even proposed trough the media, a test on the twins and on the scenic, done by somebody nominated by them , of course.
ReplyDeleteI remember the Portuguese papers reporting that PJ wanted to sent the twins to Faro Hospital to be tested because the abductor could have done something on them. They need a signed permission from the parents and the parents refused such permission saying that they don't want the twins to be disturbed. A strange behavior from two parents who don't admit other situation then an abduction done by a stranger.
I watched the mcs swear to tell the truth on the bible at the Levenson enquiry , and then tell untruths.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that is why they cut the twins hair to remove traces of drugs and Gerry also made of point of stating he had his hair cut shortly after Maddie disappeared !!! what father could even think of having a hair cut at such a time ?
ReplyDeleteThere is so much wrong with this case, a crime within a crime, within a crime ....
Tex, you have certainly hit a raw nerve here, well done.
ReplyDeleteTextusa, let me congratulate you on something that is most unusual in these fast-food times in everything. Your blog deals with a very complex issue in usually long posts. Your blog takes reading and takes digesting.
ReplyDeleteThis, in this fast pace life that we are forced to live, where only the easiest is quickly consumed quickly and hardly digested, the number of readers that participate is absolutely staggering.
This is a both a compliment to you and to all of you out there that make this to be one and unique true family.
They've insulted you so many times, and in most times, when they don't ignore you, they've tried to convince people that your blog is too extensive and unreadable, but you've achieved what the dark forces most fear: unity.
Thank you!
Like Ross says we've been treated as an ignorant herd by those in the power seats. They've slowly como to realize that we're not a herd or stupid, and that's why they just can't put a lid on this thing. To make things worse for them, a group of "internet experts" AKA hackers, are in Portugal (let's hope it spreads) to hack governmental/political party sites, not to delete information there, but to reveal backstage corruption deals. The McCanns soon will become a very uncomforatble thorn for all those that took part in this farce.
ReplyDeletehttp://jillhavern.forumotion.net/n3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long
ReplyDeleteCurrent date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:08 pm
Information
The topic or post you requested does not exist
Talvez por ser o dia da ida a Tribunal de T.B. ?
xxs, Text+Sisters.
Anon @ 6.10
ReplyDeleteI don't think Mr B will be in couirt for a while. The legal process can be quite slow. He explained on his website that he will be very busy with his response so will not be contributing to forums until the matter is out of the way.
The article has probably been withdrawn for a reason.
Thank You anon Dec 5, 2011 6:44:00 PM
ReplyDeleteby the explanation.
And:
Murdoch snubbed by Australian govt, loses TV contract
Try this:
ReplyDeletehttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MKCSbtNP8ZoJ:jillhavern.forumotion.net/n3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long+n3889-2-appendices&cd=1&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&gl=pt
..."the existence of a coherent power structure that normally remains hidden...." obviously those that came forward to save the McCanns were thinking in saving their own skin first as well as their reputation and avoiding a sexual scandal.
ReplyDeleteSome could think that this was a good thing for the McCanns but I'm sure that deep inside of their heart they would do this differently today if they could.
They could use the diplomatic corridor influence to keep the accident under control out of the news, accidents do happen unfortunately and they could return to England and grieve freely. I'm not sure what has really happened to the little girl that May 2007 but I'm sure that of two things: autopsy should be out of question and McCanns were not in charge. Time will tell us. Then you'll tell if I'm right or wrong.
A.
SY in Barcelona wasting money while researching the Vict. BecK 'sosia' or following the route of the money from the Fund to M3?
ReplyDeleteIf they are trying to ressuscitate the defunt story of the hypothatical aust lady, already dismissed by PJ AND SPANNISH POLICE, then Cameron needs to explain to who elected him, why he decide to joke with the Tax money of the Britishes in a so sensitive moment, the Christmas season.
From everything that i read, I pick the article of Martin Brunt at Sky News, which I think has a relevant insight:
'...Why Barcelona? Perhaps because that was the base of the private investigators Metodo 3 the McCanns hired at great and mostly fruitless expense.
Or is it because that was the sighting of the Victoria Beckham-lookalike suspect, seen and heard outside a marina restaurant asking a complete stranger: "Have you got the girl?".
The Yard is reluctant to discuss details of the latest trip, maybe because staff are conscious of the expense totting up by its 30-man squad at a time of severe cutbacks.'
Martin have been in PDL since minute one and had followed the case during all the time. Interesting that he raised M3 to the surface.
Everybody knows, part of the solution lies on 'What happen after May 3 and has no logical explanation- the behaviour of the parents and who under financial incomes or not, supported the parents.'
The internet civic movement that unveils corruption: #AntiSecPt.
ReplyDeleteThe useful use of the net that politicians so much fear. It has started in Portugal. There’s only one reason for it not to spread: there be no corruption. Do you know a place such as that? I don’t
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1CrelNXGPE
http://twitter.com/antisecpt
http://piscadegente.blogspot.com/2011/12/antisec-pt.html
http://mundodossabios.blogspot.com/2011/12/antisec-pt-uma-voz-portuguesa-com-forca.html
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=211318695611007&id=469974510474
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/ultima-hora/ps-apresenta-queixa-na-pj-contra-piratas-informaticos
http://www.google.pt/search?q=%23antisecpt&hl=pt-PT&gbv=2&biw=1280&bih=827&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=X9PdTqm0MZD2sgbm-cTqCA&ved=0CC8QqAI
http://www.tugaleaks.com/site-ps-pt-atacado-pelo-movimento-antisecpt.html
http://www.tecnologia.com.pt/2011/12/novo-grupo-antisecpt-ataca-sites-dos-bancos-e-sis/
To Anonymous said :Dec 5, 2011 10:03:00 PM
ReplyDeleteTry this:
Thank You a lot. Super Your´s help.
Have a nice day .
Anon.,Dec 6, 2011 8:49:00 AM
ReplyDeleteMy pleasure! I've saved it for future reading, with time, it's a long and complex article.
Enjoy!
Anonymous said :Dec 6, 2011 10:49:00 AM
ReplyDeleteYes. You are right. Is to read with attention when we don´t are from biologie .
Thank You again!
Have a nice night All, Good People.
xxs, Text. Regards, Sisters.
To Anon Dec 2 10.22
ReplyDeleteBurgau may be connected to the fact (viz Spudgun) that of the Tapas 9 one person, I believe Oldfield, but correct me if I'm wrong, immediately left PDL, on may 4th or 5th, at least his mobile phone was traced to the receiver at Budens, quite close to Burgau, staying there for a short time.
Spudgun analyzed the movements of the phones.
Portia
Putting 2 & 2 together.
Textusa you quoted a comment in your article: Second comment on 14.2.10. “The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved” This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be absolutely spot on. The date of this comment from 2 and a half years ago is before david cameron won the election and 15 months before the review was asked for. This would explain the re-emergence of the raymond hewlett story last week. Looks like we are being groomed for the big revelation that the one DNA sample matching a profile from another crime will be revealed soon to end the mccann story. No FSS and no hewlett to answer. What a total farce. We need to pre-empt this