Does Size Matter?

 Does size matter?

In forensics you bet it does!

The size from where a sample originates will unquestionably facilitate the biological quest for desired results.

Up to now we have told you that stains 1 to 15, found in the Souh-East corner of the living-room of the apartment 5A, were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye.

And because they were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye you assumed that some samples returned no DNA and others did of very little use.

One aspect we haven’t dealt with yet is the numeric “size” involved.

What are the odds of having 15 stains all of them tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye in size?

What could possibly generate such a phenomenon?

No fluid splatters evenly.

It would be expected, statistically, that some would be bigger than others. That would mean that there could be some or many tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains but there would have to be some or many not so tiny, not so miniscule and not so invisible to the eye.

So even if we are before, as we believe we are and have substantiated the statement, blood, it’s very strange that it would splatter evenly in only  tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains 15 times.

But, apparently, there aren’t any not so tiny, not so miniscule and not so invisible to the eye.

Or are there?

Let’s first put the stains in descending order according to what amount of DNA information they were able to provide as explained in our DNA is… DNA post. We have divided the stains into Classes I to V:

Stains clearly with DNA (11 out of 15):

Class I - Incomplete (3 out of 15): stains 1, 4 and 9

Class II - Mixed (5 out of 15): stains 2, 5, 7, 10 and 12

Class III - Weak and incomplete, then mixed, low-level (3 out of 15): stains 3, 14 and 15

Stains with vestiges of DNA (2 out of 15)

Class IV - Too meagre (2 out of 15): stains 6 and 8

Stains with no vestiges of DNA (2 out of 15)

Class V - Unfruitful (2 out of 15): stains 11 and 13

Only Class I stains (stains 1, 4 and 9) were compared with the “286 Voluntary Database”, as per John Lowe:

“In accordance with the available records, the database is made up 286 voluntary samples, four of which were rejected. The voluntary DNA profiles were compared with the following samples:

286A/2007/CRL1A & B

286A/2007/CRL4A & B

286A/2007/CRL9A & B

286A/72007/CRL16A & B”

We remind our readers that stain 16 is out of our analysis scope for now.

This means that only 20% of the stains returned “decent quality” DNA. At least, decent enough to be comparable even if in all 3 cases it was said that it was “incomplete”.

Again, statistically, what are the odds for a collection of 15 stains to return such poor information?

Yet you have taken this to be realistic.

And why? Because, for you, those 15 stains were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye.

Logic determines that if not tampered with the size of a stain is directly proportonal to the amount of matter to be analysed. The bigger the stain, the easier it will be to get useful DNA results.

What you haven't realised is that the idea those 15 stains were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye was drilled into your brain time and time again until it became, for you, an unquestionable reality.

Well, it isn’t reality.

Let’s look at, for example, stain 3.

Stain 3 took us a while to detect where it was. As you can see in earlier posts we said that we didn’t know where it was.

But as we have been proving all along, when information is there, it’s only a question of time until it will be seen.

This is where stain 3 is:

And this is Stain 3:

Stain 3 is made up of 2 stains about 1 cm diameter each.

Not exactly tiny or miniscule.

That, in microscopic terms is not big but “planet-big”. The amount of organic matter present should allow everything to be determined that is able to be determined forensically.

If one cannot extract valid information from stains that size, then how can one extract anything from tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains? And apparently enough information was obtained to be comparable from at least 3 of them.

John Lowe’s mail, on Sept 3 2007 (received by "Task Portugal" on Sept 4 2007), to Stuart Prior:

“An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.”

Sep 06 2007 Interim Report: 

“An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.”

June 2008 Final Report:

“286A/2007-CRL 3A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment.

An incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from the cellular material present in the dry swab (3A). The attempt to obtain a result from any cellular material that may have been in the same area and present in the wet swab (3B) was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN tests.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.

A low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3B). In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.”

What in Sept 2007 was “an incomplete DNA result”, which would make it a Class I stain in our scale above, became, in June 2008, a “incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components” and “the low-level DNA result showed very meagre information” pushing it down the scale into a mere Class III stain.

A “mere” Class III stain in which, may we remind you, FSS has stated very clearly, twice, that “all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann”.

So there were confirmed components in what was only comprised of “some unconfirmed DNA components”. Really weird.

We don’t know whether to ask why was it possible to match components from a Class III stain and not possible to do the same with the other 7 Class I and II stains (stain 9 was positively to CG)  or to ask why was it was possible to obtain ONLY “unconfirmed DNA components” from 2 stains of 1 cm diameter each?

We’ll ask both as the answer to both is the same.

The fundamental problem with stain 3 is not the fact that it's NOT tiny nor minuscule. The problem is that although not tiny or not minuscule, it is indeed invisible to the eye!

Only one reason for that: It was cleaned, it was made to be almost “transparent”

Unfortunately, or not, for the Black Hats, it was still there for the dogs to smell it, for the Portuguese forensic experts to collect from it and for FSS to determine that its confirmed DNA components belonged to Maddie.

But it’s not exactly the fact that it was cleaned in an inaccessible corner of the living room that called our attention to it.

What called our attention was the lack of DNA it contained.

The amount of biologial matter that can be seen that was still there should have been more than enough to return “healthy” DNA information. Apparently, it wasn't.

That particular area may have, and probably wasn't, been cleaned with a mop in between clients after the McCanns left.

Their inaccessible location suggests that these 2 stains would probably go unnoticed by the Ocean Club cleaning staff.

Even when one is not careless, when one mops one's floor at home there are always stains we miss. Especially in inaccessible corners.

The kind of cleaning done by OC Staff wouldn't have "erased" these stains and made them invisible and certainly not make them almost “DNAless”.

The fact that they didn't return any "proper" DNA means that it not only were they cleaned but it was a cleaning job done by experts. And experts who knew how to clean blood without leaving trace.

The DNA was removed from the stains and that’s why they returned so little information for such big amounts of biological matter.

And if one looks at 2 of the 3 Class I stains, stains 4 and 9, where the strongest DNA information was found of the 15 stains, when compared with the one obtained from stain 3, it is quite baffling the quality:

- Stain 4 is a smudge and yet it was possible to determine it was from a single source, a woman:

- Stain 9 is made up of  2 tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye dots and yet it was possible to determine it came from a single source, a male:

A male different from the one of stain 1 and identified clearly as CG, a 2 yr old boy:

Amazing to say the least. Amazing how so much information was obtained from such scarce sources and amazing how from the two “enormous” blobs of stain 3, so little was.

But our amazement doesn’t end here.

Why only a “Mixed” result from stain 7 and  a “Too meagre” from stain 8? Both are bigger than 1 cm:
 

And one has to ask how was it possible for Class I stain 1 and Class II stains 2, 5, 10 and 12 have returned a better DNA result than the 2 big blobs from  Class III stain 3?

We take this opportunity to answer a question that has been put to us: if Maddie died around 18:30 and the GNR arrived at 22:47, how was it possible for the McCanns to arrange a specialised cleaning team on such a short notice?

The answer is simple: they didn’t.

They didn’t call anyone that night who wasn’t already in PdL and among the few people called no one was part of a specialised cleaning team.

On the night of 3rd there was no forensics.

Any forensics done in the days that followed was, on purpose, strictly concentrated on the bogus theory of abduction. The window and little else.

The only time the Portuguese authorities acted alone was on the night of the 3rd.

From then on, with the surprising appearance (not) of the British Ambassador, the PJ was, unwittingly, only allowed to play “cops” as long as they didn’t decide venture down some “serious” path.

Whenever happened they got their “ears clipped” and were “told” to get their attention back to the “game” and only the “abduction” game was allowed to be played. Remember how Mr Amaral was told he couldn't use Maddie's clothes?

This to say that the domestic cleaning that was done by the T9 was sufficient to avoid any attention to the compromising corner of the living room.

Most likely only common detergent was used that evening.

It would be interesting to see what Baptista Supermarket sold at around 19:30 of May 3rd. We bet that together with some Australian wine, some cleaning products were also sold.

The body was removed from where it lay near the window into the closet, the basic cleaning done and the clothes were changed.  Then they placed the soiled clothes together with all rags used in the tennis bag.

From then on all was focused on pushing the abduction theory forward.

Sedate the children, get Tanner’s daughter dressed in Maddie’s pyjamas, get the T7 (T9 minus Gerry and Jane) going to dinner (or just sit and be seen) at Tapas, have Gerry take Maddie’s body nearby (including the interruption by Jez and being Bundleman as seen by Tanner while inside 5A), have Gerry go back to 5A to pick up Tanner’s girl to go on the stroll with the objective of having a man seen carrying a blonde girl and have Tanner go back to the apartment where all sedated kids were.

Up to here, all went to plan.

Then Kate botched it all up with  her premature alarm that caught all by surprise and precipitated a series of mistakes that would give the whole game away.

So what was planned originally and left undone? Basically 3 things.

The first would have been to have made things look like the apartment was broken into through the window. To really jemmy the window.

The second would have been for Gerry to make a spectacle of himself at Tapas to ensure he was noticed. The fact that during this the window in apartment 5A would be left wide open would be irrelevant as no one was inside.

The third would have been the timely triggering of the alarm. Probably after 23:00.

By doing it before that time Kate interrupted the plan on its “stroll phase”.

The cleaning done in the corner by the T9 was what could have been achieved that night: to avoid anything suspicious being seen by the naked eye.

It was a successful cleaning.

Even if the Portuguese forensics marched in on the 4th, which was very unlikely as the crime scene had been purposefully NOT isolated by using the “abduction hysteria” as an excuse to go in and out of the apartment, it would give time for the “controlling forces” to curtail their actions.

The “6-cleaners” came after. Just like Harvey Keitel's character in Pulp Fiction, only days later.

Once the British authorities set foot on PdL this was their affair. It was never PJ’s.

So, as soon as was possible, even under everyone’s eyes, a forensic team waltzed in the apartment to “collect” samples.

When we say in front of everyone’s eyes, we’re not talking about the press.

The press that came to PdL were never meant to report anything but only to be fictional writers in the best Harry Potter style.

They didn’t see anything.

They saw what they were told to see and obediently saw it.

A memorable moment of collective cowardice.

The “6-cleaners” not only “collected” the samples as they almost “took” them all with them when they left.

And “almost” is the key word, as “almost” was left behind for the dogs to sniff out.



Post Scriptum:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Does Size Matter?":

Outstanding work my friend. Keep turning the screw. Are the 'cleaners' you refer to the Control Risks Group ?

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 7 Dec 2013 10:26:00”

Processos Vol 11 2945 - 2956

Letter from DCCB to Mr Amaral on Sept 27 2007:

“O signatário, na companhia dos Inspectores Srs Mário Ramos, José Ricardo, António Brigantim e Carlos Dordonnat, em cumprimento de determinação superior, e na sequência de informação relacionada com a eventual vinda a TN de indivíduos de nacionalidade Inglesa pertencentes a uma empresa privada ligada a domínios diversos, nomeadamente, a recolha de informação, empresa essa denominada “CONTROL RISKS GROUPS”, os quais, supostamente, tinham, como objectivo a limpeza de espaços/objectos relacionados com a família McCann,…”

Which translates into:

"The undersigned, in the company of Inspectors Mário Ramos, José Ricardo, Antonio Brigantim and Carlos Dordonnat in compliance with higher determination, and in the sequence of information related to the eventual coming to National Territory [TN – Território Nacional] of individuals of English nationality belonging to a private company linked to diverse areas, namely, in information gathering, company that’s called "CONTROL RISKS GROUPS", which supposedly had as objective the cleaning of spaces/objects related to the McCann family, ... "

From Kate McCann’s book “Madeleine”:

“So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces – the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

At the last two meetings the barrister and legal assistant were joined by a consultant called Hugh, whose profession was not at first explained (‘Just call me Hugh,’ he said enigmatically). It transpired that he was a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor. We were told that an anonymous (but evidently very generous) donor had set aside a considerable sum of money for us to put towards the cost of hiring a private-investigation company if we wished. Hugh had been brought in by a firm called Control Risks, which was primed to help. This company is an independent specialist risk consultancy with offices and investigators on five continents and their main line of work is corporate security. It was a big gesture, we were immensely grateful and it was good to know this option was available to us.

The first session Hugh attended, which took place at night, had something of a James Bond atmosphere to it, and not in a good way. I felt as if I’d entered a whole new world, and it was an extremely mysterious and frightening one. Perhaps the worst bit was a remark Hugh made about the reward that was on offer. He told us dispassionately that such an inducement would have ‘put a price on Madeleine’s head’. I was very upset. The thought of anything we had done jeopardizing Madeleine’s life was too much to bear.

By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks. We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly. Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies. And they had been given and recorded in English! A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you read your statement, in your own language, after you’ve provided it.

It was after one of the IFLG [International Family Law Group] meetings that Hugh asked me whether I was keeping a diary. Quite apart from the fact that I was an emotional wreck and hadn’t had time to blink for the past week, the idea had never crossed my mind. I hadn’t kept a diary since my early teens, and the accounts of my life then were mind-numbingly boring: what time I got up, what I ate for each meal and which lesson I’d enjoyed most that day.

‘You should,’ he said. He didn’t elaborate on why. The barrister handed me a spare A4 notebook he happened to have with him.

When I thought about it, I realized it would be a good way of remembering these dark and confusing days; of filling in the gaps for Madeleine on her return. It would also be a record of our story that might help all three children to understand what had happened when they were older. Setting aside some blank pages in the notebook I’d been given for the days that had already passed, I wrote a few paragraphs on a couple of occasions the following week, though I didn’t begin in earnest until 23 May, twenty days after Madeleine was taken. From then on, I kept my journal consistently, and when I had a spare moment I went back and filled in the blank pages with notes of our activities and my recollections of every day since 3 May 2007.

Though my main purpose was to keep a proper account for the children of everything that had happened, I found writing it down very therapeutic. It gave me an outlet for my thoughts and emotions, and a means of communicating with Madeleine. I could talk to her! I could also talk to God, and even to the abductor, if I wanted to. Whatever Hugh’s intention was, I am very grateful to him for his suggestion. It might just have saved my life.”