Friday, 7 June 2013

Clueless... or NOT

While some commentators are very analytical language wise, to a point of astounding precision, others use words without apparently knowing their meaning as they not only use them abusively as they withdraw from them conclusions, obviously to their own conveniences, and absolutely wrong.

This is a comment we received from a Anonymous #48:

 Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

No DNA from Madeleine in her bed (were the sheets and pillow changed before the police arrived?) and the McCanns also did not give the police Madeleine's comb/hairbrush or a toothbrush, those personal items never showed up! Of course, she could have shared the same comb or hairbrush with the twins, but a shared toothbrush?! No way!
After a visit to England, Dr McCann produces a pillow-case said to have Madeleine’s DNA on it. The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day. Not even from Madeleine's "sweaty sandals", that Kate proposed as the possible source of contamination for any DNA from Madeleine found in the hired car.

Despite the apparent "deep cleaning" of the apartment, there were still plenty of other people's vestiges...but NONE from Madeleine...quite a "surgical" clean up!

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 27, 2013, 8:40:00 PM

Anonymous #48 used normal and educated language as can be read. The abusive language came from a very heated reaction to this comment from another poster, Anonymous #50:

 Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

Poster #48 is singularly clueless, I'm afraid

There were no attempts to recover Madeleine's DNA from any of the items listed, which they should know if they have in fact read the files.

Why do you publish such unsubstantiated nonsense? It rightly exposes you to complete ridicule

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 27, 2013, 10:03:00 PM

Let’s start with the word CLUELESS. Or its use, or misuse of the word by Anon #50.

It seems to us that #48 is far from being clueless in his/her comment.

In fact, what #48 is in fact doing is to highlight one very relevant clue of the case. It’s noticing and noting the existence of the clue, so, by definition, unlikely, not to say impossible, to be clueless about that particular clue.

So to saying someone is clueless when mentioning a clue simply doesn’t add up.

But is the clue mentioned in the PJ Files?

We’ll say for now that it isn’t, just for argument's sake. If one is to take the spirit of comment #50, at least as we understand it to be, then it isn’t, which, as you’ll see later on, isn’t exactly so.

At least we know that it isn’t written anywhere in the PJ Files that there was an attempt to look for Maddie’s DNA from the child’s most obvious sources, nor in her personals objects and neither in the objects used by her daily or recently.

So, let's believe that it's true that these objects aren’t mentioned in the PJ Files.

So up to here, Anon #50 seems to have logic on his/her side.

But before giving reason to this BH, let’s remember that up to here we’re only discussing the use of the word “clueless”

The question is if something is NOT a clue just because it isn’t mentioned in the files?

Of course it is a clue.

There are many clues we’ve seen that aren’t in the PJ Files.

In fact, we would dare say that the majority of the clues are outside the PJ Files as we today know how conditioned the PJ was when investigating. So many important clues that we now know were withheld on purpose by the Brit police from the Portuguese police.

No, these “outside clues” aren’t in the fictitious “Unpublished PJ Files” and we’ve already debunked their existence here.

We do believe that these clues are indeed in files, other than PJ Files, with names such as SY Files or Leicester Files, or any other possible names they may have and that have been maintained literally hidden in secret up to now and not, we would like to emphasize this, unpublished.

These secret files have no relationship whatsoever with the PJ Files besides having the same theme: Maddie’s disappearance.

The reason we say this is because we’re certain that PJ has absolute no knowledge of their content and lest we forget, the PJ Files were written by the PJ.

But these hidden files are filled with clues. Filled to the brim with important and relevant clues. With very, very relevant clues. So relevant that we’re sure that they’re the clues that will one day solve this whole sordid affair.

The blog has discovered some, of which we’ll only now name two: Carol Tranmer’s first statement and JW’s (or Jane (B)Wond as we called her) two statements.

All three are filled with clues and none are mentioned in the PJ Files.

So to say that someone is clueless just because a clue isn’t mentioned in the files is being clueless about what clueless means.

So from here on this post, I’ll call Anon #50 Clueless, the true clueless commentator.

But is Clueless as clueless as as s/he appears to be up to now? No, of course not. S/he’s much, much more clueless than that.

Clueless is so clueless that s/he doesn’t even know how clueless s/he really is being.

Let’s now focus on the content of the Clueless’ comments.

If you read his/her many comments in that particular post, you’ll notice that s/he’s absolutely convinced so strong is his/her conviction.

S/he does repeat again and again the same challenge leaving no margin for doubt in the rest of us that s/he's absolutely certain of what s/he’s saying: there was no attempt to collect DNA from Maddie's personal objects.

And challenges the blog to prove otherwise.

Clueless makes a real effort to keep that challenge alive. As if s/he has finally found something that has put us into a corner and now won’t let go of it until he can squeeze every last drop out of it.

But Clueless, as clueless s/he is, didn’t have a clue that it was nothing that s/he was holding to.

The importance behind Anon #48’s question was NOT whether they found DNA or not those personal objects, but WHY didn't they look into those obvious personal objects for DNA...

Or better yet, it's to try and understand why weren't these obvious objects handed out by the parents instead of an “imported” pillowcase?

Clueless says clearly There were no attempts to recover Madeleine's DNA from any of the items listed”.

In other words, the PJ wasn’t bright enough to use Maddie’s personal objects. Blame it on the PJ incompetence, that’s what Clueless has to say!

Well, it seems that we have a person who disagrees with Clueless and isn’t any of us here in the blog, authoresses or commentators.

It’s Mr Goncalo Amaral, in his book, on the night of the disappearance:

 “…on the night of the disappearance, with dogs from the local police.. We get them to sniff a towel, which according to Kate was used to dry Madeleine after her bath."

The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try and pick up Madeine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35 when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins.

Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.

I'm sure this check is necessary.

- The clothes? Are you mad? If I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take the clothes to have them analysed?

- Yes, what's the problem? It's perfectly normal in cases like this.

- Of course, but with this media hype.. ..."

This just goes to show the British authorities’ level of obstruction right from the very start.

So it seems that the PJ did indeed attempt to collect samples from Maddie’s obvious personal objects.

Clueless… I guess you’re wrong on this one. But are you just wrong or are you absolutely wrong?

You see, not only there seems to have been an attempt, as the PJ Files show clearly there was more than an attempt.

It seems that Maddie’s hairbrush was indeed analyzed,

SJM 36 was Maddie’s hairbrush, tested by Andrew Palmer 09/11/07. No hairs found on it or pillowcase, so her hairbrush WAS tested.

From the PJ Files in Outros Apensos 01 Volume 2  pages 327 to 333:

"Examination and results 

Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

A total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting, at the least, that this was a hair from someone else.

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her."

The origin of the hairbrush is not mentioned. It could be one also brought back from UK, together with the pillowcase (although there’s no mention of that) but logic dictates it would be a brush from the holiday.

We also suppose that tops SJM 2, 4 and 5 were from holiday and not brought in from Rothley

That is various clues about a Maddie’s personal objects that are mentioned in the PJ Files.

Strangely, no hairs on the brush! A very interesting clue indeed.

But does make one wonder, like Anon #48 does, why weren’t the other objects analyzed too?

I think it’s sufficient to reread Mr Amaral above.

As can be seen Clueless is indeed all-round clueless.

Clueless is part of a team, which we call team Insane, that as you know attacks viciously the blog from time to time with two constants, one a tactic the other a clue.

The tactic is to constantly imply that we’re barmy conspiracy theorists.

It's only real and effective weapon that our detractors can use against us and that is to follow religiously the Portuguese saying “Agua mole em pedra dura tanto bate até que fura” or “Soft water repeatedly hitting hard rock will eventually break through it”.

This is done by using time and time again the word “conspiracy” to define the blog’s editorial guideline.

This technique is often wrongly minimized.

Because what seems ridiculous at first with a constant and steady beating into one’s skull of the idea, like when you say a lie a thousand times to make it true, makes the ridiculous appear sensible after a while and before one knows it one has assimilated it as reality.

It’s very, very effective.

By repeating the word “conspiracy” together with others like “nutters” they will ingrain the idea into the reader’s minds that is what we are, no matter how many times we justify to the contrary.

Many have come here under that exact influence and have left without adequately reading our words.

Once the idea “absorbed” it will be irrelevant how well we show why we think we’re before a cover-up and not a conspiracy.

These people seek only disruption and not reason so we’re certain that they’ll continue to use the word conspiracy at every opportunity they have, just like they have done in the past.

Fortunately for us, in our “Mind your Ps” post, Clueless got him or herself into such frenzy (or ist despair?) that ended up making a priceless “conspiracy” comment:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

Some of you people must live incredibly sad lives if all you can think about is your obsession with swinging.

This entire blog, and Textusa's entire premise, is built on lies. She has clearly attracted the right clientelle for the most part as the bulk of you would believe literally anything she told you.

Why don't you step back a minute and get a grip?

What Textusa is saying is that without any prior arrangement or knowledge hundreds of unconnected people all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories and provide alibis for a group of people they had for the most part never met and to whom they owed nothing. That hundreds of people who didn't know them and didn't owe them anything were prepared to risk long prison sentences themselves in order to cover up for people they didn't know. That multi-national TV companies would join in, fabricating footage for the express purpose of ''proving'' years later that there was no ''big round table'' and what's more they would go about it so clumsily that the ''forgery'' would be immediately spotted by a group of middle-aged layabouts watching a youtube clip?
That the catholic church and the governments of two nations would collude together to cover up the homicide of a small child at a holiday resort?

Does it ever occur to you, even for a second, that you have been taken for a complete and total ride by this lunatic?

That the reason she claims the Brunt video is photoshopped is precisely because it blows one of her loony ideas out of the water?

Because to believe as you claim to do, you would also have to believe that:

Every holidaymaker in the resort was ''in on it''

Every local resident was ''in on it''

Every member of staff at Mark Warners was ''in on it''

Every member of the british consulate staff plus the ambassador was ''in on it''

the catholic church was ''in on it''

Every member of staff at the tapas was ''in on it''

All the nannies, sports coaches, ancillary staff were ''in on it''

every member of the ex-pat community, even those in their 80's was ''in on it''

sky news were ''in on it''

Martin Brunt was ''in on it''

The police forces of two nations were ''in on it''

The forensic labs were ''in on it''

All these people. In on it. In on what you simultaneously claim was an accidental act of brutality committed in the heat of the moment and with no pre-planning involved.

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 10:49:00 AM

Followed by the continuing comment:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

Cont.....Tell me something. The statements of many of the witnesses corroborate each other. These statements are further corroborated by documented evidence such as the tapas booking sheets.
The people who were shown at having booked tables duly turned up and testify to that. Those who decided instead on a takeaway testify to that. Those who had tables booked testify to seeing the ones who didn't, waiting to pick up their takeaway meal. Other holidaymakers eating with them corroborate this. None of these people are in any way able to alibi the McCanns - if anything their statements merely clarify what they themselves were doing that night and who they saw. So who created this complex back-story? Because if you claim that the tapas wasn't even open, and the tapas dinners never even happened, then you need to explain who came up with the interlinking back story and why.

You won't be able to, of course, because it does not exist, but even then none of you have the wit or wisdom to come up with a scenario that fits.

And swinging?

Let's leave aside the fact that there is absolutely no indication that the place was being used for that purpose. Why would hundreds of people - yes, hundreds - perjure themselves and risk long prison sentences for conspiracy to cover up a serious crime, lose their jobs, homes, livelihoods, children and families rather than be ''tainted'' with an activity which isn't even illegal?

Textusa's central theory is nuts.

Because it's nuts, she had to invent even more ridiculous ones to support the first.

Because it's just not possible to tell one lie, you see? She told one. It didn't fit. So she told another and another and another.

And frankly, you are all too dim to see it.

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 10:50:00 AM “

To which we replied with the utmost sincerity:

Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":


Never thought I would say this, but thank you.

You've summarized it all almost to a tee, besides the blabber against me, but that is comprehensible coming from you.

I would advise the readers to read these comments very attentively.

Do replace the exaggerated "Every" in the sentences of the first comment and replace them with "some" or "many".

Then do the magic trick and replace the following sentence :

"What Textusa is saying is that without any prior arrangement or knowledge hundreds of unconnected people all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories"


"What Textusa is saying is that tenths of connected people, participating in a swinging event, all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories to react to an unfortunate mishap in which a child lost her life in order to protect their own reputation. These tenths of connected people activated as fast as they could all their connections so that the just fabricated story would be enforced officially and in doing so got hundreds of people involved in one of the biggest cover-up of western civilization."

Insane, I know you understand Portuguese so I'll refrain from translating the definition of what you just did: "Com a verdade me enganas".

I don't have words to express my gratefulness.

Posted by Textusa to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 11:45:00 AM"

Don’t you just love the “Because it's just not possible to tell one lie, you see? She told one. It didn't fit. So she told another and another and another.”? If isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

As we said, Clueless’ team attacks the blog from time to time with two constants, one a tactic, which we have just spoke of, the other a clue.

With this latest intervention, Clueless has once again confirmed a very interesting clue that we’ve come to realize in this affair.

That clue is the quick and tenacious way of responding whenever we publish anything that has to with either the Ocean Club personnel or PdL ex-Pats.

The “PdL BH Faction”, as we call it, is always very attentive to the blog.

Yet the real clue is their double standards when it comes to what is written/shown in the blog.

Take this comment from Clueless: 

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Lady Vanishes":

What on earth are you on about?

The only person who suggested that the quiz night was on the 3rd was Collins, presumably because he had read it in some tabloid rag which got it wrong.

His entire book is put together from newspaper reports and his own poetic licence, and he didn't need the permission of the McCanns or Mitchell to publish any old rubbish that took his fancy.

That's the problem when you rely on rubbish in newspapers. textusa 

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jun 6, 2013, 11:22:00 AM"

One of our readers has provided the best possible reply:

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Lady Vanishes":


"His entire book is put together from newspaper reports and his own poetic licence, and he didn't need the permission of the McCanns or Mitchell to publish any old rubbish that took his fancy."

So "any old rubbish" is ok to print but not anything which may come somewhere near the Truth?

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jun 7, 2013, 6:36:00 AM"


Insane Team, besides being the only ones that insist that the Tapas sheets are real and reliable when the rest of the world can see clearly that they aren't, being the only ones insisting that the Tapas dinners took place when the rest of the world can see clearly that they didn't, being the only ones that insist the Big Round Table existed when the rest of the world can see clearly that it never did and being the only ones that insist on so many other things that defy logic and reason when the rest of the world can see clearly that these things are neither logical or reasonable, they also have a double standard on what deserves, according to them, legal action and on what doesn't.

Mr Collins's "Vanished" is a rubbish that, according to Team Insane, doesn't need permission from the McCanns or Mitchell, nor, apparently, from the Ocean Club and ex-Pats as Mr. Collins does include them in his "insightful" non-fictional novel (or rubbish) but on the other hand whatever we write here is subject to permanent libel threat and even under supposed tight surveillance from many a child protection agency.

As far as we know, we don't know of any legal action taken against Mr Collins, and we do believe that he has profited from all the "rubbish" from his book.

Fascinating double standard to say the least.

We think natural for this violence against us to exist as we were the first (and only ones up to now) to put out the swinging hypothesis and who have consistently debunked the clutter involving those outside the T9 (Guests, Ocean Club and ex-Pats) and so this faction has to react immediately when feeling their toes stepped on.

We believe that this particular group is looked upon by the other BH as the one's responsible for things to have gotten completely out of hand as they have.

We think that is so because they seem to have been the ones who came up with, approved and implemented the absurd “Abductor Theory” and with it assured, at the time, the other BHs present that it would be suffice to solve the crisis to the best of everyone’s interests.

It wasn’t so.

On the contrary.

In fact, with a little less imagination and they wouldn’t be in this mess. They and all those they promised that everything was under control and that no one would ever know what was really happening, which, as we know was of absolutely non-criminal nature.

Time has demonstrated that they have far from shown that everything was under control. We know it wasn’t their entire fault.

Yes, had they been less xenophobic, misogynist and arrogant they might even got away with it but it was fundamentally the resilience, tenacity and determination of all those of us on the internet that stopped that from happening.

But then again it was all the unrestrained xenophobia, misogyny and arrogance that we all of us witnessed incredulously that further motivated us all to seek the truth. So in a strange way, truth has to be grateful to these people.   

Their excessive imagination imprisoned them forever to their absurdly fantastic storyline. That’s why they react fiercely.

That’s why there has to be a Big Round Table, Tapas dinners and Quiz Nights at Tapas.

That’s why the Ocean Club staff has to be truthful.

That’s why ex-Pats can’t lie.

If any of these elements crumble, they will have failed.

Just to give you an example of when this group doesn’t react, the post, "The 60 of Us", very popular, where we mentioned the Jensen sisters wasn’t attacked at all.

Are we to believe that the Jensen sisters are less than Baptista/Batista “a poorly paid Portuguese worker?

We believe that the “PdL BH Faction” is quite worried at the moment. In our opinion it should be.

We think the train has already left the station and is heading right towards them. They’re in the hot seat right now.

The reasons as to why we think that is so, in our next post.


  1. Okay - lets deal with just one of your rambling misconceptions first, namely this idea you have that various statements were ''withheld'' from the Portuguese police.

    For someone who spends so long commenting on the case, Textusa, your research is woefully inadequate. Either that or you are just rather stupid.

    When it became evident that the Portuguese authorities intended to allow the case file to be published at the point at which it was shelved, very strong representations were made to the Portuguese by the british police authorities and lawyers working on their behalf. The main thrust was this - if people had given their evidence directly to the Portuguese, or if it had been obtained under letters rogatory, then in effect it belonged to Portugal and they could do with it as they wished. But submissions made directly to the UK police and information given to Crimestoppers were made with an expectation of privacy by those doing so. As such, the british successfully argued for them to be excluded from publication. They also had withheld information with respect to sex offenders living in the Algarve, intelligence on offenders and details relating to police operational procedures.

    None of the above were allowed to be published in the PJ files (you may notice there are one or two that still found their way across. There are specific reasons why, but you shall have to work that out for yourselves)

    This does not mean that those items were withheld from the PJ. Far from it.

    So your assertion that the PJ has no knowledge of their contents is complete and total rubbish.

    More to come

  2. Response no 2

    In order to ascertain the source of recovered DNA samples, one needs a reference sample from the ''victim'', plus reference samples from others whose DNA might legitimately be at the scene, for the purpose of elimination.

    Reference samples could be obtained from the parents and other children, and were, by using cheek swabs

    Madeleine wasn't there, so they needed a surrogate reference sample from her.

    (The Portuguese labs were not actually tasked with attempting to obtain a reference sample of Madeleine's DNA - this fell to the FSS)

    To obtain a surrogate reference sample, you use ''clean'' items preferably away from the crime scene. Sometimes these are available from stored blood or tissue samples. More often than not they are obtained from a personal item. A pillowcase known to have been used by the girl was an ideal source. The procedures used to obtain the sample of Madeleine's DNA are absolutely normal and correct. The aim was to obtain a complete reference sample. Not to prove that she had been wearing her own hat. Nothing to do with the PJ not being ''bright'' enough.

    Just your usual lack of understanding, and the normal conspiracy nonsense.

  3. To the "DO NOT PUBLISH" reader,

    Please send it to our

    Thank you

  4. Response no 3

    You are now asserting that the ''rest of the world'' believe your nonsense about non-existent tables and tapas dinners that never happened''

    Frankly, this is an enormous lie, pure and simple. The only people who seem to believe your ridiculous theory are the small band of loopy posters on here.

    Here's a question for you, Textusa

    How is it that none of the police investigating this case ever doubted that the dinners occurred, that the table existed, and that the tapas booking sheets were just that?

    While we are at it, please explain why this apparently enormous conspiracy completely escaped the notice of the PJ in general and Mr Amaral in particular. Or are you suggesting that he too was ''in on it''?

  5. What pitiful 3 responses.
    All just helping to show how the post is spot on.

  6. Insane seems to blow a fuse quite easily. His favourite tool is not logic but a rather abusive attempt to shout down any voices that are not within the realm of his own thinking. Yet if he 'knows' so much, it's difficult to see what he hopes to achieve by ranting and raving. He cannot agree to disagree, obviously, but does he have an opposing or counter argument or theory? Or is he frantically trying to protect an interested group? So much noise and froth. Bad for the heart....

  7. Response no 4

    The reason one would want to recover the clothing the victim was wearing is to recover evidence of a crime - Perpetrator's DNA, blood, fibres, areas consistent with damage/violence - not to recover a surrogate sample of the victim's DNA. The last place you would try to obtain that is from the clothes they were last seen wearing.

  8. Insane's commment #43 on post "The Lady Vanishes":
    "This place is moribund. Job done"

    Someone should be held for accountability.
    I say Insane should go straight to bed right after supper. No bedtime story or lullaby.

  9. "DO NOT PUBLISH" reader, thank you!

  10. anonymous 4.It concerns me that you are able to spout,with apparent inside knowledge,that,"NONE of the police investigating this case EVER DOUBTED etc etc" You really are a right prima dona,aren,t you.Keep it up,its good to have someone of your ilk willingly telling us how the investigation has been conducted,thus far ,very telling indeed.

  11. @ anon #10

    By all means do show where any police officer suggested there were no Tapas dinners, which is the bit of my post you cut off

    To save you looking, you can't. None are stupid enough to go with such a ridiculous suggestion.

  12. Textusa, you naughty woman!
    Why don't you pick on those your own size???
    Insane is just a senseless brat!
    No wonder you're on a child's watchlist!!!
    Isn't there anyone on the BH Camp to tell this guy to zip it?!?

  13. If his first response wasn't absolutely ridiculous, Insane would be showing the insider he is. I very much doubt he's an insider within the police forces. What he says is absolutely ridiculous. Why grant privacy to some witnesses and not to others? Why was Wilkins statements sent and not JW's? Why was Gaspars' sent?
    How does he know that "it became evident that the Portuguses authorities intended to make the files public"? And did the two polices get together in a meeting and decide which ones were published wan which weren't and only then number the pages?
    The pages that ref the sex offenders are MISSING. They were takne out of the files but the page numbers are missing too. Which numbers had Tranmers and JW's statements? More importantly, where were the Statements takne in the UK when the Portuguese judge made teh decision to archive. Did he have access to them? Were they on a separate file for him to see? Reading Transmer's rogatory I see nothing seceretive about her first statement. I do see the police trying to force her into saying that she saw a photofit that she is clear in saying that ita has nothing to do with the one she first made.

  14. About the idiotic notion that the pillowcase would be a "clean" source, who's to guarantee that neither twins put their heads on it when back in Rothley? It's natural to play in a sister's bed isn't it?
    And you're looking for DNA of a girl that's gone missing. Do you use what is at your hand readily available or do you wait until the end of the month to have a "clean" sample? As if people in the lab didn't know how to differentiate samples. They did differentiate them and the problem is that they found no or little evidence of Maddie's presence in the apartment when it should have been ABUNDANT.

  15. @anon #13 and 14

    The problem about you being so ignorant is that it quickly becomes so apparent.

    The PJ files actually contain details of the meeting between the various law enforcement agencies and a copy of the submission from the UK authorities with respect to what could be published and what couldn't - are you telling me you haven't even read the files? Here you are, attempting to criticize what I have written, and you are not even aware that the information is freely available? What a complete joke.

    With respect to the statements you list - are you incapable of understanding that too? Those statements were given by people who went voluntarily to the UK police. They did not form part of the PJ file. They never were a part of the PJ file. Thus, they were never published as part of the PJ file. This really is not difficult to understand. Tranmer's later statement is of course there - it was obtained under letters rogatory, therefore it was always part of the Portuguese files. Seriously, if you don't know what you are talking about, and you haven't bothered to read the files, then don't presume to take issue with someone else's posts. All you will succeed in doing is embarrassing yourself.

    As a simple rule, if the statement was taken when the witness went voluntarily to the UK police - you won't find it in the files. If it was taken following a letter rogatory, then the UK police were in effect acting on behalf of the PJ and you will find it in the files.

    As I said there are one or two exceptions - the Gaspar statements appear in the files, but this is because they form part of a later correspondence between the two forces, and were included as an attached file. NOT listed separately as witness statements. The later correspondence to which they are attached WAS part of the PJ file, so this is why they are included, and others aren't.

    As regards the 'Clean' sample, if you can't understand the difference between an item obtained from the victim's own home, as opposed to one obtained from a crime scene, then there is no hope for you. Your later misunderstanding of the whole process of DNA analysis of the crime scene demonstrates that you really don't have a clue at all about the subject.

  16. According to a Sunday Mirror report on October 7th 2007, Daniel Krugel was given a hairbrush by Gerry to use in his KTT detecting machine. Which hairbrush was this? Was it the same one used by the FSS in November?
    This supposed cutting edge technology machine sounds as reliable as the fake bomb detectors we are now hearing about at the Old Bailey trials. Simon Sherrard was using a photo of Madeleine in an attempt to locate her.
    Ireland or Northern Europe- so not exactly a precise locator.
    If you could be blown up by a bomb in Iraq, it helps to know the detectors you are using actually work.

  17. @15

    "The PJ files actually contain details of the meeting between the various law enforcement agencies and a copy of the submission from the UK authorities with respect to what could be published and what couldn't - are you telling me you haven't even read the files? Here you are, attempting to criticize what I have written, and you are not even aware that the information is freely available? What a complete joke."
    Could you please provide a link or ref to that in the files? I really want to see how really ignorant and a joke I am.

  18. Go and look for yourself. I'm not here as a bloody dictionary. Frankly, you can't have read the files, otherwise you wouldn't even need to ask.

    If you haven't found it by this evening, I may relent. It's not as if you don't know how to access the files fgs.

  19. SJM/36, "Madeleine's" hairbrush...were was it picked up? In Luz or in Rothley, at the same time as the pillow SJM/1...? Who's to tell it was indeed Madeleine's brush, and this goes for the pillow too...are we to trust Gerry's word that it is...? And the tops, SJM/2/4/5, by the time the police recovered those, I suppose from the hired villa the McCanns used after leaving the Oc.Club, those tops had alredy gone through many a spin in the clothes washer, I bet!

    And about the files kept under wraps by the british police, the McCanns at one point wanted to be given access to the files in possession of the Leicester Constabulary, request which was denied. Could those files be the hidden files unknown to the public and the portuguese police...?

    And...this one is dedicated to Textusa and Sisters, and of course, to all who who be silenced in the quest for the truth of what really happned to Madeleine Beth McCann on the night of the 3rd May 2007:

    LIVRE, by Manuel Freire
    (Não há machado que corte

    "Não há machado que corte
    a raíz ao pensamento) [bis]
    não há morte para o vento
    não há morte) [bis]

    Se ao morrer o coração
    morresse a luz que lhe é querida
    sem razão seria a vida
    sem razão

    Nada apaga a luz que vive
    num amor num pensamento
    porque é livre como o vento
    porque é livre"

  20. Anon #19,

    Thank you for your poem!

    In fact there's absolutely no axe that is able to cut out the root of thought.

    This has been a much harder journey than first expected and then anticipated but it's our readers (all you wonderful "nutters", "dimwitted" and "brain donor" "conspiracionists") that make it all worthwhile.

    Thank you all for your support!

  21. The reason for this post was a response to the challenge "where in the files is reflected that Maddie's personal objects were analyzed."

    It was answered and besides all the noise to change the subject I haven't read that Textusa is right and Insane with all his bravado was wrong.

  22. #19

    Thank you from the sisters.

  23. I'm #19 and wish to make a correction to a typo in my comment, I'm sure all understood what I meant, but here it goes: - where it reads ..."to all who who be silenced" it should read "to all who WON'T be silenced".

    ...who's quite well known for easily "blowing a fuse"...? Gerry McCann, as can be seen in some Insane Gerry McCann himself? Could very well be!


    Files kept under wraps by the british police, not shared with the PJ, despite the recurrent claim that it is a portuguese investigation...then, shouldn't ALL information that reaches the british police be passed on to the PJ, the "owners" of the investigation? Talk about "excellent" cooperation...

  24. Maddie's clothes, taken off before her bath, could not be contaminated with blood or anything else as they would not have been contaminated by the supposed abductor. Why could they not be used as immediate sources of DNA samples? Reference samples from home could also have been provided later. But as a previous commentator said, why assume the pillowcase from home, obviously not washed, would not be a likely source of DNA from the twins, who may have put their heads on it, or from the person who put the pillowcase on the pillow? I would have thought her clothes worn that very afternoon would have been an obvious choice, with another reference sample obtained as soon as possible, if required

  25. Please try to understand this about the crime scene and DNA.

    When presented with a potential crime scene, the aim is to collect biological and trace samples to help in the process of solving a crime, not for the purpose of quelling conspiracy theories years down the line. They use tools at their disposal such as UV light sources and chemical sprays which will highlight areas of biological residue. It was in this way that they discovered the small stain on a bedspread which subsequently turned out to be saliva from a little boy who had previously stayed in the apartment with his family. They collected hairs at the scene, some of which yielded a full DNA profile and most of which didn't.

    It is much easier to obtain a DNA profile from something like a saliva deposit on a pillowcase than from a few cellular residues on a piece of worn clothing. A pillowcase is an obvious place to look.

    You do not try to obtain a surrogate reference sample from a crime scene. It has the potential to be contaminated with DNA from a perpetrator. There are protocols for all these tasks - forensic teams follow protocols. It's really as simple as that.

    They would not have looked for her DNA to place her at the scene, as there were witnesses who placed her at the scene. What would that tell them? Nothing they didn't already know.

    The profile they obtained from the pillowcase from Rothley was shown to be definitely Madeleines. It was compared in due course with a stored sample of her blood from when she was tested as a baby. There was and is absolutely no doubt that the DNA was hers. There is nothing suspicious whatsoever about the method by which it was obtained or any of the processes used to determine that it came from Madeleine.

    That profile, incidentally, also showed beyond any doubt that Madeleine's parents were Kate and Gerry McCann

  26. Insane,

    This DNA thing is really getting to you.

    Don't be a pompous idiot speaking about protocols you know nothing of.
    Please provide a link to justify what you're saying. I'm sure that such protocols are easily available on the net.
    If you needed a pillowcase, there was one on the crime scene. NOT to use it is absurd. IF there was more than one sample on it, then yes, the DNA would be needed to be confirmed. For that you would use the toothbrush. If, once again it couldn't be obtained a unique sample, then use the tops, the towels, the slippers, the couch, etc... I'm sure that in the end there would be one sample common to all objects if if not unique to any.
    If there were more than one common samples then those present would rule out which one was Maddie's
    If at the end of this you still had two common samples then you would be left with Maddei's and the perpetrator's! The family's would determine which was Maddie's.
    So son't try and pool the wool over our eyes with fantasist theories why it was needed to fetch a pillowcase all the way from England. The only reason for that to have happened is because Gerry knew there wouldn't be any Maddie's DNA to be found in 5A.
    Still waiting for your link where it was agreed between the polices which UK statements were to to be published with the PJ Files and which weren't.

  27. Insane,

    I'll publish this from your comment at Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jun 8, 2013, 7:37:00 PM:

    "You are being put on notice that unless you publish the posts you are withholding - such as the one asking you to back up your claim that people agree with your ridiculous theories with some proof - and continue to publish them, we will establish another blog site to which we will allow open access. On that blogsite we will publish all the posts that are submitted here, whether you choose to publish them or not. The url for the blog will be disseminated via a number of sources. We will also make this available to other individuals whose posts you refuse to publish

    We'll see what your readers think of you deciding what they can and cannot read..."

    Please don't wait. Please create the blog immediately and disseminate it as widely as possible.

    I promise I'll post the link here on the front page.


  29. Insane,

    As promised, the link to your blog is published here and on the blog's front page.


  30. @ anon #27

    It's perfectly clear that you are determined to believe that Madeleine was never in Apartment 5a.

    In which case, it is pointless to continue discussing it with you. You're a conspiraloon

  31. Insane, @30

    There you go with you abusive conclusions.
    What I said was that no Maddie's DNA was found. That doesn't mean I don't believe that Maddie wasn't ever there.
    If we were to determine who was ever in the apartment from the DNA samples read Textusa's Profile L post. It would mean that any of the McCanns had a minimal presence in the apartement and that neither Payne's were there on the night Maddie disappeared.
    Maddie was there and died in that apartment. The fact no Maddie DNA was found means clearly that the apartment was surgically cleaned AFTER she died, so if you want to call me names, don't call me a conspiraloon but a cover-uploon. I'm with the sisters through and through.

  32. Censored comment:

    " Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Clueless... or NOT":

    No, the apartment was not ''surgically cleaned''

    There was plenty of trace evidence recovered from the apartment. You can't selectively clean a place, removing one lot of DNA and leaving others behind


    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jun 8, 2013, 9:33:00 PM"

    Post Scriptum to this comment: Fortunately for us all we no lnger have to polute the blog with Insane's comments. From now on we will be much more strict on our censorship of the comments we publish as we now know you can read them completely uncensored in the his/her blog.

  33. I had a quick visit to Insane's so-called alternative blog. Nothing there that's not already here, except, perhaps, an attempt by Insane to try and look well-mannered while still calling some people fools. We'll see how long that lasts! More seriously, I'm perplexed the way he/she twists and turns on every point when backed into a corner. Suddenly he/she accuses a very sane contributor of stating that Madeleine was never in Apt 5a - where as I NEVER read or construed that from anything written, and I'm sure no one did, either. Insane is fighting with shadows. His/her own demons, probably.

  34. "Here's a question for you, Textusa
    How is it that none of the police investigating this case ever doubted that the dinners occurred, that the table existed, and that the tapas booking sheets were just that?
    While we are at it, please explain why this apparently enormous conspiracy completely escaped the notice of the PJ in general and Mr Amaral in particular. Or are you suggesting that he too was ''in on it''?

    Before I made any comment on the above content, I just highlight your quick reaction on Textusa post, showing again the way you monitored that blog. A blog, according to you, full of rubbish and nonsense. If so, WHY you spend so much time here and waste so many words and your precious hours trying to contradict a person that seems very confident on what she defends? Where that behavior takes you? You are not an innocent poster. You know very well what you are doing and what you want to achieve. Unfortunnately for you, as much you post, as much you show your involvement on the cover up. 
    Now, regarding your question above and your previous posts:
    Did you realise how ridiculous and contradicting, your posts become when you try to defend your ideas? In one hand, you said the police hold some information and not everything was disclosed on the PJ files. Police hise some information from the public. Wonder how you know that.
    On the other hand, you question " How is it that none of the police investigating this case ever doubted that the dinners occurred, that the table existed, and that the tapas booking sheets were just that?" Who said, they don't doubt it? If they hide information which was not disclosed on the PJ files, the FEELINGS, the BELIEVES of the police, are main and vital information which should be not disclosed to the general public.
    Don't try to fool us with your game. You answer your own questions with your very revealing posts. 
    Regarding the DNA:
    "References samples could be obtained from her parents and other children..." well, that idea could fit your game but did not fit any police investigation. You cannot obtain reference samples from one person, by testing his/ her close relatives. A reference sample to be considered a reference sample, needs to show without doubts, the DNA profile of that person, this means, the correct sequence of alleles and genes of the person, which are unique, individual and not only an "indication of..." you are trying to tell us that the police should have use "an indication of..." to be the correct sample of Madeleine DNA. Well, even for that, Gerry and Maddie brother, were a bit useless, since on the absense of everything, the Mitocondrial DNA could be a source to find the maternal lign, because that type of DNA pass untouched trough all the females from the same family. By analysing the DNA of the family, the police could only see the relation between the members, but never obtain a reference sample from a member.
    But on that, the FSS report available at Mccannfiles was quite clear:

  35. Cont:
    "Processos Vol IX, pages 2280 to 228

    Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
    Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks 
    Police reference: 07/06085 Qperation TASK
    Laboratory reference: 
    Order reference: 300 555190 
    Scientist:400 913 609 
    Scientist: LESLEY DENTON 
    Number of pages: 2
    Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007
    A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Kate HEALY 51162896) and Gerald McCANN (51162897).
    A DNA profile has also been obtained from a pillowcase (SJM/1).
    DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which ït ïnherits from their natural father 
    In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of theirs.
    The results of the DNA profife obtaïned from the pïllowcase is approximately 29 million times more likely if the profïle originates form a natural child of theirs rather than someone unrelated to them.
    In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN.
    Please note: I understand that the McCANN's have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those described above.
    If I can be of further assitance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01XXX XXXXXX.
    Yours sincerely
    Lesley Anne Denton
    Date: 28 June 2007

  36. Cont:
    Forensic Report, 18 July 2007
     Processos Vol IX, pages 2287 to 2288
    Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
    Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
    Police reference: 07/06085 Operation TASK
    Laboratory reference: 300 655 190
    Order reference: 400 922 755
    Scientist: Lesley Denton
    Number of pages: 2
    Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007
    A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).
    In this case, all of the bands present in the profiles of both Amelie McCANN and Sean McCANN are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.
    Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile.
    If I can be of further assistance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01937 548287.
    Yours sincerely,
    Lesley Ann Denton
    Date: 18 July 2007"

    That means, for exclusion of parts the pillowcase become the source for the sample used as a DNA reference for Madeleine, because it shows that belong to a person having genes matching the DNA profile of Kate and Gerry ( 50% of the genes from a child, become from each one of his/ her parents) and has a DNA profile different then Amelie. Then, the pillowcase was not from Amelie.
    But, a question remain... Why the police had to use a pillowcase instead of a personal cloth used during the holidays or the hair from the victim? The same exclusion exercise could be done with material collected on the crime scene. And this material could be even more relevant for the investigation because could show what happen with victim. That, I think, was the main reason why the crime scene was not a source for Maddie DNA, because was strategical cleaned by doctors, or by people working for doctors, who know exactely the importance of the DNA and how to get ride of it. And you can get ride of it, just by taking samples away, using clorox and very common products available everywhere and then, after that job, just allow the crime scene to be  contaminated by the most high number of persons, you can. A contaminated crime scene, immediately divert the police away from accurate sources of DNA, but also draw the correct picture of the crime, to the police. and the police got it from the very begining. The contamination of the crime scene, a strategical runaway to protect the Mccann's and the people involved on the cover up, was also one of the main evidences against them. A clear incrimination, which just needs the reconstruction to be fully used as an evidence.
    Keep posting dear Insane. You show your colors. 

  37. "The profile they obtained from the pillowcase from Rothley was shown to be definitely Madeleines. It was compared in due course with a stored sample of her blood from when she was tested as a baby. There was and is absolutely no doubt that the DNA was hers. There is nothing suspicious whatsoever about the method by which it was obtained or any of the processes used to determine that it came from Madeleine."

    Well, where did you find that information Insane? On your special PJ files?

    In my previous 3 posts I already show, how they achieve/ found the DNA refence sample from Maddie. It is all available on the reports from the FSS lab, before the dogs controlled the investigation done by those scientists.
    As always, you are too easy with your ridiculous explanations for what has EXPLANATIONS ON ACCURATE SOURCES FROM THE FILES.

    Show us, where in the files was written that previous blood from Maddie, was a source for her DNA. Did you forgot a simple detail? The medical files from Maddie were not made available for the police. Or you are trying to say that they were available for the British police but not for PJ? If so, what that files contain that cannot be shated with PJ? Something related with a fake coloboma which at certain point was used because was good for the immediate business?
    As coisas que tu sabes" com a verdade nos enganas".

  38. "No, the apartment was not ''surgically cleaned''

    There was plenty of trace evidence recovered from the apartment. You can't selectively clean a place, removing one lot of DNA and leaving others behind"

    Ah, ah, what a rubbish.... You clean first and contaminate after. They worked well on contamination. Have done a great job. All clowns enter the crime scene to help the circus and not all had the keys to acess it. Who open the doors to them? The parents, who had the keys of the flat. Do you want me to believe that a bunch of 9 people, a lot with a degree in medicin don't know the vital importance of preserving the crime scene when a child disappeares without them knowing what happened to her?
    Play another game. That is over and you don't even know what you are doing with the ball. What a damage for your clients in Rothley.

  39. 4 Statements from Insane's comments

    1 They would not have looked for her DNA to place her at the scene, as there were witnesses who placed her at the scene

    Surely it’s important to place a victim at a crime scene especially if abduction was claimed

    2 The profile they obtained from the pillowcase from Rothley was shown to be definitely Madeleines. It was compared in due course with a stored sample of her blood from when she was tested as a baby.

    I thought the heel prick DNA was never used and posters have often mentioned this would be the obvious source not a pillowcase that could have been used by many people

    3 That profile, incidentally, also showed beyond any doubt that Madeleine's parents were Kate and Gerry McCann

    If that profile was never used nothing was proved. Why is he worried about proving Maddie was the McCanns’ child?

    4 Charlie’s saliva yet again.

    That stain is still not verified.

  40. Insane é um verdadeiro "exemplar" a gratificar os " ditos populares portugueses":

    "Pela boca morre o peixe"
    "Com a verdade me enganas"
    "Mais depressa se apanha um mentiroso do que um coxo"
    "Quem tem c..., tem medo"
    "O Cântaro tantas vezes vai à fonte que um dia lá fica a asa"
    "Cada um puxa a brasa para a sua sardinha."
    "Entradas de Leão, saídas de Sendeiro."
    "Este mundo é uma bola; quem anda nela é que se amola"
    "Galo que acompanha pato morre afogado."
    "O Diabo cobre com uma manta e descobre com um chocalho."
    "Pelo voo se conhece a ave."
    "Quanto maior a nau, maior a tormenta."

  41. She WAS placed at the scene. She had been staying at the scene for a week. Finding her DNA at the scene would only have been relevant if there was context, such as her DNA combined with that of an unknown 3rd party. The procedure used for obtaining a surrogate reference sample was perfectly correct

    The heel prick WAS subsequently used, compared with the profile recovered from the pillowcase and shown to be a complete match. Therefore the profile recovered from the pillowcase WAS Madeleine's. This is in the files - don't you people ever read?

    ''That profile was never used and nothing was proved''??

    Seriously - read the file. The profile WAS used, was compared to those of Kate and Gerry McCann and showed conclusively that they were her parents. Again, this is all in the files, if you can be bothered to read them. Why is it important? It isn't particularly in this case, but in suspected abductions the possibility of abduction by a birth parent has to be considered and eliminated

    Charlie's saliva - of course it's verified, The DNA was a match to him. This is in the files too.

    I suggest you people read the files you are so fond of referring to. I suspect most of you have read the Gaspar statements and that's about it.

  42. @anon 37

    Honestly - this is becoming like a procession

    Despite your claims, the information that a stored blood sample for Madeleine was recovered, that the DNA from that was compared to the DNA profile recovered from the pillowcase, and the confirmation that they matched, proving that the DNA on the pillowcase from her IS IN THE FILES

    If you are incapable of finding it, that's your problem. I could of course provide you with the reference, but I think its more fun to watch you deny its existence for a bit longer and make a bigger prat of yourself before putting you out of your misery.

    This again illustrates that you haven't read the files properly. Textusa, you should be embarrassed to have such thick readers


    Amy Fitzpatrick’s family have urged Spanish police to start their investigation again from scratch.

    The missing girl’s dad Christopher Fitzpatrick and her aunt Christine Kenny hope a new probe into her case will help them find answers.

    Christine told the Irish Sunday Mirror: “They need to start again, perhaps with new detectives who can look at the case with fresh eyes.”

    They hope that going over every piece of evidence will bring new leads — just as it did for missing Madeleine McCann’s family.

    Christopher and Christine made the appeal a day after the Irish Mirror revealed Spanish cops have stepped up the hunt.

  44. 23/5/07- 8643364
    A team of scientists at the FSS examined a pillowcase
    Saliva Stain 1 pillowcase SMJ/1
    Amelo XX (with 10 other markers)

    It isn't identified as Madeleine's at this stage.

    28/6/07 - Lesley Denton from FSS writes: "In my opinion, the results detailed provide extremely strong support for the view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originates from a natural child of Kate Healy and Gerald McCann.
    Please note: I understand that the McCanns have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those described above."

    This would suggest that no heel prick test/s had been received at this point.

    Almost 2 months later and what seems obvious; that there are 2 female children in the family occurs to the FSS.

    By the time Andrew Palmer is examining the same pillowcase, hairbrush and 3 tops, in relation to material found in the McCann's rented car, in November, it has been established that the DNA is Madeleine's.

    We can't find any reference to a heel prick/Guthrie test in the PJ Files. If anyone can find it. I'd be very grateful, otherwise I will assume that anyone claiming such a test was used is either misinformed OR an insider with knowledge we don't have.

    On June 28th, the same day as Lesley Denton writes, Goncalo Amaral notes in his book that the McCann's request the presence of Krugel, a former south African army colonel, who "had allegedly perfected a machine to detect the presence of a body. A decomposing body emits particles. On June 9th, Kate asks friends to collect some of her daughter's hair and send it to Krugel..... an imaginary line that allowed him to state that the body was in the Vila da Luz area.... Krugel's mysterious "machine" leaves us all speechless. Kate and Gerry, they stick to their guns. They saw a live television programme in which the effectiveness of Krugel's method was demonstrated, and so are persuaded that the man will be able to move the investigation forward, without being convinced as to the validity of the method, the police end up acceding to their request."

    Amaral then describes how a hair is placed in the machine, which has come through customs untested, and Krugel declares that Madeleine's body is in the area. More searches are conducted, to no avail.

    He also states in an early chapter of his book:
    "The medical files, requested several times from Great Britain were never sent to us. These could have been deciding factors. Why didn't we have access to them? We never knew the truth of the matter. it's deplorable that the British legal system could be quite so uncooperative in this type of situation."

  45. A pillowcase was recovered from the house in Rothley

    It yielded a sample of saliva

    That saliva yielded a full DNA profile

    A comparison between that profile and the profiles of Kate and Gerry McCann confirm that the DNA belongs to a female child of which they are the parents

    The scientist notes that the McCanns have another female child

    In due course, the profile obtained from the pillowcase is compared to the DNA profile obtained from Amelie. They are not a match

    Therefore, the DNA profile obtained from the pillowcase is, in the absence of any other known female children of the couple, accepted as a surrogate reference sample for the missing child, Madeleine McCann.

    In due course, a blood sample, known to belong to Madeleine McCann, is delivered to the FSS. This yields a DNA profile which is a match to the DNA profile obtained from the pillowcase.

    Ergo, the DNA recovered from the pillowcase, and used as a surrogate reference sample was indeed shown to be the DNA of Madeleine McCann


    If you can be bothered to look.

    But by all means, continue to embarrass yourself, if you prefer. It's fun to watch.

    1. You say "In due course, a blood sample, known to belong to Madeleine McCann, is delivered to the FSS".

      As you insist so fervently that its all in the files, would be so kind as to provide a link to confirm the above. Thank you.

  46. Can we imply from the FSS reports, that from 28 June to 18 July, the police did not advance much on Madeleine DNA to be used as a reference sample? I think yes, no matter how dedicated and competent the investigators were. Hardly, they don't found samples that could be used without doubts and the medical files of Madeleine were not disclosed. That's why the police had to use other way to try to find Maddie DNA. They tested the other member of the family who had the set of cromossomes showing that was a female (XX) and like What was expected for Madeleine( and was recovered on the pillowcase) show a DNA profile which was a combination in 50/50 of Gerry and Kate. That person was Amelie. Then Amelie, was eliminated from the pillowcase, by exclusion and Madeleine DNA, was assumed to be the one in the pillowcase, also by exclusion. Not absolute certainity, since there was not a clear source belonging to the victim, to be tested. Weird, at first.
    One, have to question the Mccann's, why they sent a sample of hair to krugel and not to PJ?
    For me, that detail in Amaral book, about the machine not been checked by the authorities, says it all. There is no warranty, that the all story of the machine was not setled by the Mccann's with the agreement of Krugel to distract the police from the real place where the body was stored. GNR dogs look everyeghere, where Krugel said the body could be, anf find nothing.

  47. Insane,

    The point we made is nowhere is there a ref to the heel prick test, or now what you refer to as the blood sample.

    Where is it in PJ Files? You mentioned heel prick first.

    Of course the samples of the twins were taken and we know their refs

    SBM - 2 and 3, and that's how they could tell it was Maddie's DNA was on the pillowcase.

    A heel prick test wasn't needed to do that, as is obvious when you know the twins were tested.

    Of course, if heel prick tests for the 3 children had been obtained in May, it would have speeded everything up. Maybe the reason why they weren't requested?

    Question unanswered: where is heel/ Guthrie / blood test result for Maddie, YOU mentioned, with a specific reference?

    Talking about that. You seem to be falling behind in providing links to support your statements.

  48. Insane is going round and round, trapped on his own mistakes, until he bites his own as....
    What a damage to the cover up team.
    Keep posting, we are enjoying.
    Did I undertand well from previous posters, that Insane set a nlog to contradict Textusa? What a mission.
    Wasn't too much dedication from who wants to pass the message of being just an expert with files and not an insider?

  49. NotText/Insane seems to regurgitate what has already been acknowledged from reading the files, but then accuses people of NOT reading the files. Round and round it goes. I'm still wondering, however, what his POINT is (apart from insulting everyone) and why he seems to get more and more agitated as Textusa gets closer to the bullseye. Perhaps he's lonely and anxious on his alternative blog? No customers passing, buying his wares?

    We, meanwhile, are all still waiting for links to his statements and to what his real 'beef' is. But not losing sleep over it.

  50. "In due course, a blood sample, known to belong to Madeleine McCann, is delivered to the FSS."

    This is a contradiction unless Maddie’s medical record WAS given to FSS. Also how does he know this and where was the blood sample found if not from medical records?

  51. The post is very clear:
    1. Insane, stating it wasn't, has asked Textusa to prove where in the Files it said that there was an attempt to analyze Maddie's personal objects. Textusa produced the proof and Insane has veered off the subject.
    2. Textusa said that Insane reacts viciously to any post concerning anything outside the Tapas 9. Need I say more about that?
    3. Textusa said that Insane will make the extra effort in labelling the blog and its readers as conapiraloon... Need I say more about that?
    4. A reader has asked Insane why he's so worried about what Textusa writes while he admits that Danny Collins can publish anything he wants without needing any permission from the McCanns and isn't constatntly threatened. No reply on that from him.
    What does Insane do? He tries to steer teh subject to the DNA, doing a very poor service to his cause even in that. It's like Napoleon discussing if one of his soldier's stepped on a daffodil instead of a daisy in the middle of Waterloo.
    And his blog? I bet some Black Hats are really proud of him right now.
    "Os caes ladram e a caravana passa" and Textusa's wagon is passing through.
    Oh and Textusa has said that she thinks the train has left the station and is heading right towards Insane and his people.
    Very curious about next week's post!

  52. When was the blood sample delivered to the FSS (in due course)? And from what source - you say from a stored sample from Madeleine as a baby? Where, in the files, is this recorded? Why wasn't this material available to the PJ's from the outset? Why was it withheld?

  53. Could Insane be referring to JRB/1?

    FSS /Lowe report
    DNA profile same as pillowcase from ref sample of blood that was different from immediate family.
    DNA profile same as spots of saliva on SJM/1

    Same report as before
    FSS received a blood spot from a cardboard frame JRB/1 from Leicester Constabulary.

  54. Anon #53,

    You might be right, only Insane can confirm that or not.

    We were aware of that particular sample but cardboard frame of what??

    It does speak of a blood sample but we don't see how that can be deduced in anyway that it's heel/ Guthrie / blood test result for Maddie, as Insane stated emphatically.

    So question remains unanswered.

    But thank you for your contribution.

  55. Madeleine McCann: Reversed Investigation Jornal de Notícias (no online link, appears in paper edition only)

    Talking with Pinto da Costa - Forensic Medicine Expert

    26 July 2008
    Thanks to Joana Morais for translation

    In the book 'The Truth of The Lie' Gonçalo Amaral, the PJ coordinator who was removed from the 'Maddie Case' has no doubts about the death of the girl. Pinto da Costa follows his considerations.

    Specialist in Forensic Medicine, Pinto da Costa supports the thesis followed by Gonçalo Amaral, which points to the death of Madeleine McCann. The professor does not understand the reason why the analyses done by the British laboratory are not conclusive and he manifests the conviction that, soon or later, the truth will be known. The biggest problem, according to the President of the Portuguese Section of International Transparency [sic], resided in the incorrect way the investigation was carried out. Pinto da Costa understands that the death hypothesis should have been pursued since the beginning.

    Do you believe in the thesis defended by Gonçalo Amaral, according to which Madeleine McCann died accidentally in the night of her disappearance?

    It does seem possible that that has taken place based on the circumstances of the cadaver dogs who signalled [death triggers] the existence of a cadaver and, also of blood with the genetic profile of the girl.

    The English Laboratory said the analyses are not conclusive...

  56. What the Laboratory concluded was that, in a total of 19 alleles [genetic markers], 15 are present in the sample examined. In Portugal, in order to guarantee the authenticity of progeny [descendants, children], that is, in the paternity tests we use 15 alleles. Therefore, the results obtained by the British Laboratory are extremely significant. Thus, they seem, pertinent in the consideration that the child could have died in the apartment. Another hypothesis is that she could have died outside and then the body was moved inside [the apartment].

    Isn't there, in Portugal, technical capacity to do this kind of analyses?

    Yes, they could have been done in Portugal. I believe that either the Scientific Police Laboratory of the Judiciary Police or the various Forensic Medicine Institutes have the conditions to perform them. That did not happen possibly for the reason that the persons at issue were of English nationality.

    The explanation given by Gonçalo Amaral, that the corpse was frozen or preserved in cold, for more than 20 days, also seems plausible?

  57. What I believe is that the body was not totally decomposed. There are situations when the cadaver is preserved more or less without adding any substance, like ice, for example. Besides, we should not forget that this is the body of a child and not of an adult, who decays more rapidly.

    Do you believe the Truth will be discovered?

    Yes, when all entities involved are at a distance. When the midwives fight, the truths are discovered. [Portuguese proverb: "Zangam-se as comadres, sabem-se as verdades."]. The process has so many contradictions that, it is impossible to have one truth.

    And what exactly is at the origin of so many contradictions?

    The fact that the investigation started incorrectly. It should have started with the exaggeration of the positive and with the assumption that the child was killed. Even because the existence of maltreatment is a reality and in these cases, the number one suspect is the father, not the stepfather, the uncle or any other person. At another side, the scene should have been put immediately in custody to avoid its violation, because the examination of the scene is fundamental. The parents presented the abduction hypothesis, but those who do a criminal investigation have to have their 'heads cold' ['cuca fria'- meaning open and objective mind], as they say in Brazil, and cannot deviate from the essential. The investigation was done in reverse.


    Note: Professor Pinto da Costa was the Director of the Portuguese Forensic Institute [INML] for several years.

  58. To unpublished poster at Jun 9, 2013, 8:32:00 PM,

    We don't think appropriate to publish here anything to do with ongoing issues in other sites.

    Thank you for understanding.

  59. Tex,

    Insane might be referring to JRB/1 sample but if that's the case then is making a fooll of himself again.

    Although this is NZ the facts will be similar to UK. The results are put on computer too. This report says if requested the information should be received in 5 days. Was Maddie made WOC to prevent this information being given out? 5 months not 5 days in Maddie’s case?????
    Maddie was all over the headlines then! I'm sure that the 5 day period would be shortened to 24 hours or 48 at the most. So what is the excuse for such a delay?
    If Insane is really talking about JRB/1 sample to confirm Maddie's DNA then he's confirming that the British forensics played a fishy game!
    This individual in his self-importance is just confirming what makes so much noise in denying!
    Who would look up this sample now if it wasn't for Insane?

  60. Anon 59

    Agree, in an emergency situation (and highly publicised), 5 months is unacceptable. Incompetence wasn't all on one side it seems and there’s no excuse for delay. Police can request info from the administration of the system. If it had been requested and delayed, surely the McCanns would be complaining publicly.
    Inspector Ferreira contacted de Freitas at SY on October 1st, asking for results of what must be the pillowcase test and he was sent result by E mail.
    This was before the heel prick test was sent to FSS by Leicester police.
    Parents should receive results of test in 5 days, not the card itself, but that still doesn't excuse a long delay, like Gaspar statements. And refusal of medical and credit card records.

  61. Textusa,

    How does it feel to be an historic figure?
    I think this is the first time that someone has a specific anti-blog!
    I've seen dissenting blogs and forums on different subjects. About Maddie we've witnessed various pro vs anti sites but none had a specific target.
    I think you're a first. To have someone so worried about what you have to say that he had to create a blog because of it just confirms your importance and what you have to say!
    A person's accomplishments is judged by the fierceness of one's enemies!
    I think congratulations are in order for you and your team!
    Please keep going!

  62. Anon #61,

    Thank you for your words!

    We really hope that we're making history as much as none of us wish to be historic characters.

    About the blog you refer, Insane now has his/her own playground where he can rant freely and uncensored.

    We've kept our promise and have put up the link of his/her blog in our blog's front page.

    Now we would be very grateful to all in not being reminded of the existence of both the blogger and the blog.

  63. I´m finding quite strange, this silence ...
    Is everything ok, Textusa and sisters?!...
    I hope so.
    Missing your comments and posts.


  64. Gemma,

    Thank you for your concern!

    Please don't worry, everything is fine. We've grown accustomed to publishing, without any sort of compromise, a post once a week.

    We've followed this rhythm since the beginning of this year and we found it to be an excellent compromise between what the blog demands from us and our personal lives.

    Stats have also shown that our readers, fortunately, seem to agree with this blogeditorial decision.

    Sometimes the blog does fall into a "silence" as readers find they don't have anything to comment ans so they don't. Nothing more natural and unsurprising.

    Friday has been the chosen date to post, so expect something tomorrow.

    However I must warn you that with summer coming, talk of a forthcoming break has already been a conversation topic between us.

    As you know, our silences and breaks result exclusively from our own agendas and not, as we've witnessed ans are witnessing with others, due to what other people will decide or have to yet to decide.

    Once again, gemma. thank you for the care we feel you have for us.

  65. I have noticed the silence here but i was not concerned because is a very clean silence.

  66. So sorry...
    I think I´ve been misunderstood!...
    I wasn´t criticizing ... just "knocking at the door" ;)
    My English language inacuracy fault.
    As I use to visit you everyday, I was missing the lack of traffic.
    Melhor expressar-me em Português.
    Pelo menos alguém "atendeu à porta" e está tudo bem.:)


  67. gemma:

    i have understood that You wasn´t criticizing . Now we breathe clean .
    Sanitized now. Is good the free air.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.