Friday, 24 October 2014

Sweet 16

image from here

With the visit to INML in Coimbra on 16OCT2014, SY has put forensics back on top of the table in the Maddie case.

In our post “SY’s Significant Moves” we said that in our opinion the Met wanted to bring greater visibility to forensics about Maddie. We are here to help that effort. Do our part.

We have delved extensively into the subject. We have shown that the UK was not only an uncooperative party during the investigation in 2007/2008 but in our opinion was a hinderance.

We have to agree that PJ not having sealed off apartment 5A immediately on the 4th was a mistake. But we shall not cast any stone about it because we fully understand that no one could then possibly realise the true proportions of events.

That night and following day, we think authorities were convinced they were considering a case of a child having wandered off more than of an abduction. We think they thought abduction was just being used by the parents and friends in an effort to minimise their guilt. The guilt they surely would be feeling for having left their children on their own in an apartment in a foreign land for 5 nights in a row.

Only there never was any negligence so there wasn't any guilt.

But authorities then didn’t know that and there was no way to know. In fact, we think all those around the authorities in PdL made sure they didn't know. The T7, Ocean Club, guests and ex-pats, assured that PJ was kept in that ignorance.

The assurance this ignorance was kept was reinforced by the UK's MSM, UK's government and UK's police authorities and agencies. None wasted a minute in invading PdL to help keep PJ in ignorance.

The Portuguese MSM and Portuguese Government soon helped cement this impenetrable blockade to the truth.

To not blame PJ of anything is not being condescending but blaming them would be simply unfair and unjust.

One area UK hindered the investigation was forensics.

In our opinion, it hindered the investigation by having the apartment forensically cleaned after the night Maddie disappeared, NOT during it, and before the Portuguese forensic experts first arrived at the crime scene.

Analysing what the PJ Files say about forensics one can easily see how intentionally confusing and specious the UK was when it came to the matter.

We have written to date 8 posts covering the subject:

1. In our ““Clean Party Floor” Phenomenon” post (21JUN2013), we showed that it was very suspicious for the kids’ bedroom, the alleged crime scene, not to have the amount of forensic evidence expected for a room where 3 kids slept for 5 nights and in which many adults had contaminated according to PJ Files.
For us, the only possible explanation was that the room had been subject of a forensic cleansing to erase the presence of people who weren’t supposed to have been there, more specifically, adults who had engaged in adult activities, in the context of swinging, during that week.

2. In our “Super-Kid” post (30AUG2013), we showed how a 2 yr old boy, CG, 87 cm tall (32 in) couldn’t possibly leave any of his DNA on a stain (stain #9) located 1.50m (4ft 11in) high on a wall in a corner cluttered with furniture of apartment 5A’s living room.
According to FSS, it was CG’s DNA that was found in the semen/saliva stain ('crime stain 1') on the bedspread in the kids' bedroom. Because it was CG’s, according to FSS, then what was found couldn’t have been semen.
It’s the blog’s opinion that CG was used to invalidate the presence of semen in the stain found on the bedspread of the kids’ bedroom.

3. In our “DNA is… DNA” post (06SEPT2013), we showed how FSS clearly stated that DNA was found in the majority of the stains #1 to #15 in the living room.
We showed why the stains could only have come from sweat, saliva or blood as there’s only so many body or biological fluids with which one can contaminate a surface with one’s DNA.
The question is, if not blood, then what are those 15 made of? The location of some of the stains do rule out sweat and saliva.

4. In our “Remarkable Marksmanship” post (28OCT2013) we showed how statistically impossible (we didn’t do the math because there was no need to do so, so obvious it is) it would be for two or more people to splatter their DNA in the exact same spots where others had splattered theirs before on the walls and couch.
Only 3 stains, out of a possible 15, had a single person DNA in them. A staggering 47%, almost half of the tiny, little and invisible to the eye stains had DNA from more than one person in them.  And 1 stain, stain #15, had AT LEAST 3 people’s DNA.

5. In our “DNA – The Bar Code” post (01NOV2013) we started to expose the specious language with which the FSS reports were written.
When it’s said [sample] apparently originating from more than one person” is to hide speciously the fact that a sample can be from 1 and only 1 DNA. Because sample partial, it’s possible it may share characteristics of more than 1 DNA. But sample compared is from ONE person and not from two or more people. It may be person A OR person B but never person A AND person B.
When FSS says “apparently originating from at least two people”, “two persons” and “more than person”, as is said often, it’s being specious, playing with words so that your brain assumes that the “two people” referred are ALWAYS from sample found and NOT about the DNA with which the sample, or samples, was, or were, compared with.
The whole idea behind "FSS’ Specious Style" is to deceive using the truth with the objective of having what the deceiver says appear to be what the deceiver wants the deceived to hear what the deceiver has said. For example, to have a section of 1 person's DNA be perceived to appear to be from 2 or 3 different people without being false or by using the truth to tell a blatant lie without uttering a false word.
FSS didn’t want to clarify. On the contrary, their intent was to mystify.

6. In our “Perhaps… Confusing” post (15NOV2013) we continued to expose the speciousness with which FSS wrote the report and also being sloppy about it.
For example, there’s absolutely no conclusion about whether the McCanns may have contributed to stain #1 although it was determined that it originated “from a male individual but not matching any other profile obtained in this case”. Stain #1 is the only one out 10 stains with "comparable" DNA that doesn’t merit a “in my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”.
 Stain #14 is "not adequate for comparison purposes" (JUN2008) although it was determined it was "from more than one person" (SEPT2007)
To use “my opinion”, “indications”, “justify” and “theory” in the same sentence, meant to be precise and conclusive, isn’t exactly in our opinion, appropriate use of words in a scientific report by someone bearing the titles of BSc, CBiol, MBiol and RFP. Like hearing from your doctor “Well, maybe, it may be that you might perhaps not have cancer.”
We also showed how FSS was inexplicably sloppy in writing the September 2007 Interim Report but then tried to blame Portuguese forensic experts for being sloppy and tainting evidence.

7. In our “FSS – It’s Maddie’s Blood” post (22NOV2013) we showed that FSS, in their reporting, is very clear in saying that with ref to stain #3 “all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann”, FSS confirms that stain #3 is from Maddie.
Both FSS interim and final reports are, in our opinion, purposely “either-way” documents, serving 2 purposes. To allow the McCanns to get off the hook – having their arguido status lifted – without really ever getting off and for them to be used at a later date when the opportunity arises. That opportunity will arise.

8. In our “Does Size Matter?” post (07DEC2013) we showed how the stains found were far from being tiny, little and invisible to the eye dots. They were perfectly visible to the naked eye. Some even as big as 1 cm, like stain #3.
With that size they should have easily produced clear and definitive DNA results.
The fact they apparently didn’t can only mean one of 2 things: either the composition of the vestige was tampered with by chemical cleansing or FSS didn’t exactly report what it found. It’s the blog’s opinion that both happened.

Rather an extensive work on the subject we would say. Unfortunately our “swinging leprosy” scares the bejeebers out of many of the “courageous” stopping them to refer to us about this. As we've said it's a price we're used to pay and proud for having to pay it.

Our posts show clearly that whatever FSS had to say about forensics is highly questionable.

But what they also say is that what is there said can be used if and when opportunity arises. Nowhere are the McCanns taken off the hook.

Not even with John Lowe’s “in my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”. It's only an opinion and not a statement. And it leaves the door wide open to the possibility of  a “however, new tests may prove the opposite” completing it.

All of the posts listed above referred to stains #1 to #15 found on floor, walls and couch of the living room of the apartment.

Today we will speak about the most fascinating “stain” of all: “stain” #16.

A piece of evidence that slipped through the cracks between the intentional and unintentional sloppiness, and became evidence itself and a very damning one against UK, in our opinion.

To start to understand the importance of this “stain” one has to realise that “stain” #16 is not a stain.

The confusion derives from the fact it has the same designation as its apparent “siblings”, stains #1 to #15. All these first 15 are referred to by 2 letters, A and B, e.g. stain #3 is referred to by CRL 3A & 3B.

As evidence 16 is referred to by CRL 16 & 16B, it's natural to assume it's also a stain.

The absence of the letter “A” goes unnoticed by the brain and the association with the first 15 numbers is, as said, natural. If from 1 to 15 there’s an A and a B, then 16 will appear to have both too.

It's so natural that even John Lowe of the FSS makes it: “on 9 April 2008, the DNA profiles obtained from the probatory components [objects] 286A/2007/CRL1A&B, 4A&B, 9A&B and 16A&B were submitted…”  when he should have said “286A/2007/CRL1A&B, 4A&B, 9A&B and 16 & 16B.

The letter B in evidence 16 does not have the same meaning as the same letter does in stains #1 to #15.  In these letter A refers to the sample of a stain collected using a dry swab, while letter B is to a sample from same stain collected using a swab with distilled water. CRL 1A is dry swab from stain #1 and CRL 1B is its distilled water one.

In evidence 16, the letter B has nothing to do with how samples were collected or even with samples. It's about objects: CRL 16 is not a stain but living-room curtains.

Paulo Rebelo in an undated doc where he lists the vestiges collected from 5A and examined by FSS describes CRL 16 as:

“16. Two curtains made of blue fabric.
16B. One curtain made of white fabric, and a blue coloured tieback.”

This is confirmed in the delivery note 286-A listing 33 swabs of stains/evidence collected from 5A (English) - signed for by FSS on 7 August 2007

“16. Blue curtain
16. Blue curtain.
16B. White curtain behind blue curtain and armband.”

The two “16. Blue curtain”, probaby referring to the left and right pieces of the blue curtains.

John Lowe in the final report describes CRL 16 as “286A/2007-CRL 16 & 16B Two blue curtains and one white curtain”

However, Lowe in that report adds another curtain to the list: “286B/2007-CRL 1 One white section of a curtain”

He had already said the same in the 06SEPT2007 report that “the curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.”

So to clarify, CRL 16 Is made up of 2 blue curtains (CRL 16), 1 white curtain and 1 armband (CRL 16B).

CRL 1 is a piece of white curtain which we believe to be part of CRL 16B.

To avoid confusions, when we speak of evidence 16, CRL 16 or CRL 16B we are referring to the living-room curtains.

Just like how they were the day these items were collected, by a report dated 14 August 2007 was made about the evidence collected by the Police Scientific Laboratory (LPC) from Apartment 5A on 04AUG2007:

“On 4 August there were collected at [the above address]:


- Two blue curtains with white curtain lining from one of the windows of the living room, numbered as trace evidence 16.”

There are 4 reports, 06SEPT2007 or interim report, 06MAY2008, 22MAY2008 and 18JUN2008 or final report, in which evidence 16 is referred to by the FSS and that’s where things become interesting:

The first one is the 06SEPT2007 FSS interim report:

“A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only two unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material recovered from the hem of one of the blue curtains 286A/2007-CRL(16(2)) from the apartment.”


Low level incomplete DNA results, which in certain circumstances showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person were obtained from biological material on the following swabs: 286A/2007 CRL 14a, 14b, 15a; the swab from the hem of the curtain 286A/2007 CRL 16 curtain 2; the swabs from the tile pieces 286/2007 CRL 2 areas 1 and 2 and 3 area 1. In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone from the McCann family contributed their DNA to them results.”


The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.”

Can anyone explain how is it possible for “two UNCONFIRMED DNA components” to show “a contribution of DNA from more than one person”?

It’s either DNA or it isn’t. Lowe says it’s unconfirmed, so it isn’t. If it isn’t DNA how can it be a DNA contribution?

The amazement about evidence 16 begins.

Also,  how is it scientifically possible to ascertain “in my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone from the McCann family contributed their DNA to them results” from two UNCONFIRMED DNA components?

From this interim report, we can conclude that:

1. Even if it doesn’t make any sense, two unconfirmed DNA components were found and showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person,

2. The DNA (unconfirmed?) was found in the HEM of one of the curtains: “material recovered from the hem of one of the blue curtains 286A/2007-CRL(16(2))” and “the swab from the hem of the curtain 286A/2007 CRL 16 curtain 2”.

Let’s now move to the second document where FSS speaks of the curtains. It’s a report dated 06MAY2008 and comprises two pages and talks about work performed within the scope of the case:

“On 9 April 2008, the DNA profiles obtained from the probatory components [objects] 286A/2007/CRL1A&B, 4A&B, 9A&B e 16A&B were submitted with a request to the National DNA Database(R).

Various matches were obtained with the results of 286A/2007/CRL4A&B; the majority of them were eliminated based (…)

Various matches were obtained with the results of 286A/2007/CRL9A&B; the majority of them were eliminated based (…)

All matches obtained from other samples were eliminated.”

From this report one can conclude that 4 samples produced results strong enough to be able to be compared with the National DNA Database.

One of them was our CRL 16A&B. The one from which only two UNCONFIRMED DNA components had been found in SEPT2007. Maybe between then and MAY2008 FSS had found something more that wasn’t reported in the interim report. Maybe.

The report doesn’t explain why matches to CRL16A&B were eliminated. It simply says they were. A very scientific way of doing it we must note.

The third and very significant document is a report of 22MAY2008.

 “The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of several information searches conducted using the National DNA Database and the use of a control database.

The LCN DNA profile previously obtained from the following submitted data were subjected to a single search of the National DNA Database.

286A/2007/CRL1A & B
286A/2007/CRL4A & B
286A/2007/CRL9A & B
286A72007/CRL16A & B

Numerous similarities were returned by the National DNA Database for the DNA profile obtained from 286A/2007/CRL4A & B (…)

Numerous similarities were sent [returned] by the National DNA Database for the DNA obtained from 286A/2007/CRL9A & B (…)

Numerous similarities were sent [returned] by the National DNA Database for the DNA profile obtained from 286A/2007/CRL16A & B, however, I used additional information in the results that was not included in the search parameters to eliminate those similarities.

For information only, a database of voluntary samples was constructed for the purpose of control information. In accordance with available records, the database comprised samples from 286 volunteers, four of which were rejected. The DNA profiles from volunteers were compared with the following samples:

286A/2007/CRL1A & B
286A/2007/CRL4A & B
286A/2007/CRL9A & B
286A/72007/CRL16A & B

The voluntary samples were also compared with 'crime stain 1', a DNA profile obtained by Portuguese scientists using their DNA profile system. The profile was recovered from suspected semen on a blanket in the apartment 5.


I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with C****** G***** (bar code 51156964). I believe that Charlie Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.”

This report had, in our opinion, the primary purpose of attributing stain #9 to CG, then to link this stain #9 to 'crime stain 1' to invalidate the presence of semen on the bedspread of the kids’ bedroom, as we explained in our “Super-Kid” post.

But Lowe makes two big mistakes. One, which needs to be made clear, was to make stain #9 one of stains with strong and clear results.

Only if the information returned from this stain was sufficiently strong and clear would the confirmation of CG being its contributor be credible when the comparison with ‘crime stain 1’ was made. Stain #9 was said to have produced sufficiently readable and unquestionable results.

Lowe does this by “electing” 4 stains as the ones that produced results with enough strength to be compared with others: CRL1A & B, CRL4A & B, 9A & B and CRL 16A & B.

These 4 were sent not to one but to 2 data bases. He had already spoken of having them sent to one, National DNA Database, on the 06MAY2008 report. But now he speaks of a second database, one created out of 286 volunteers.

See the second mistake Lowe makes? By needing to justify a way of linking CG to ‘crime stain 1’ via stain #9, he fills the report with other data.

But in doing so he was sloppy and let the evidence 16 slip through the cracks.

For example, his unintentional sloppiness shows when a piece of evidence that doesn’t exist is referred to: CRL 16A. As we’ve seen, there are only CRL 16 and CRL 16B. There's no CRL 16A.

By electing CRL 16&16B (to use the proper terminology) as one of the four that produced sufficiently good results to be compared he makes it sound absolutely ridiculous after this report to refer to the DNA found in CRL 16 and CRL 16B as unconfirmed DNA.

If that was the case, why send it for comparison to the National Database? And how could National Database return matches to unconfirmed DNA? Does the National DNA Database keep a register of unconfirmed DNA? What for, if it's useless as means of proof?

If it returned matches, then it can ONLY be because there were DNA matches to be returned.

Here one has to ask another very relevant question: what made Lowe think the DNA sent for comparison could ONLY be from a British citizen?

The samples had been collected in Portugal, the abductor could have been of any nationality but Lowe decides that samples need only to be compared with the British database. Why? Why not send it to Interpol? Wouldn't that make much more sense?

Let’s look now at the fourth document, the FSS final report of 18JUN2008.

 “FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 21

286A/2007-CRL 16 & 16B Two blue curtains and one white curtain

286B/2007-CRL 1 One white section of a curtain

These curtains were analysed for traces of blood, semen and saliva, none of which were detected. The hem of one of the blue curtains (16) was swabbed to collect any cellular material that might exist. An incomplete, inconclusive DNA result consisting only of two unconfirmed DNA components was obtained. In my opinion the result is not adequate for comparison purposes. The sample was submitted for LCN analysis.

An incomplete, low-level DNA result, comprising only some DNA components, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material recovered from the hem of one the curtains. In my opinion, this result contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.”

That’s it. Nothing else.

Now all of CRL 16 “too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation”.

What had been strong enough for comparison in the National DNA Database has, less than a month later, again become “incomplete, inconclusive DNA result consisting only of two unconfirmed DNA components”. What was the word we used? Ridiculous, wasn't it? Yes, it was.

So, on APR2008, FSS sent to the National DNA Database some UNCONFIRMED DNA components that were “too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation” for comparison and the National Database was able to return matches!! Isn’t science just marvellous?

In our opinion it’s evident that FSS did find some meaningful DNA in CRL 16 and CRL16B. It just didn't report what it found.

We stand corrected but it would be very interesting to have access to the mail exchange about this matter between FSS and the National DNA Database. Something COMPARABLE was sent. Something good enough to allow for, as said in the 22MAY2008 report: numerous similarities were sent [returned] by the National DNA Database for the DNA profile obtained from 286A/2007/CRL16A & B.

Not us saying so. It's what is on the files.

All of the above, as we have said and is confirmed in the final report is from the hem of a curtain. Biological human material right on the ground or very near it. Referring to our “DNA is… DNA” post, what human biological fluid can be found, so near the floor, in a hem of a curtain behind a couch. Saliva? Sweat? Really?

But the scandal around evidence 16 doesn’t stop here.

What is completely scandalous is FSS simply ignored all that was found and signalled by the Portuguese forensic experts on CRL 16&16B.

On that day 5 visible stains were clearly marked:

Biological fluid, via alternate forensic lighting, was found at least in 3 of them:

These stains are NOT at the hem. LPC forensic experts say nothing about anything on any hem. They felt the need to use alternate forensic light on stains #1 to #15 and on 3 of these 5 stains but failed to see anything on the hem.

Fact is FSS ignored these 5 stains.

Only thing that can be related to them is what is said in the interim report “The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.”

FSS has run tests on curtains, without specifying these stains, together with fragments of bush and has concluded “no blood was found”.

It didn't even search for DNA. Just for blood.

An interesting question as a sidenote: if FSS searched for blood on the curtains and because it found none, apparently, it concluded then that there was no need to continue any further forensic testing, namely for DNA,  then can one assume that any DNA testing was only done where blood was found?

Back to the issue, why were these stains 5 stains signalled (3 of them photographed under alternate forensic light) on the living-room curtains ignored by FSS?

In the testing of stains #1 to #15, some, apparently didn’t return any results or returned meaningless ones. For example, for stains #6 and #8 the results were “too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison” and for stains #11 and #13 they were “unfruitful”. But these fruitless results were reported. At least they were tested. If there were tests done on the curtain stains, why weren’t they reported even if fruitless?

About these stains, specifically, FSS says nothing. FSS simply decided, apparently, to ignore forensic evidence from the exact same area of the stains on which it decided to run extensive tests for DNA.

The reasons for this “oversight” might explain why 5 stains and 1 stained hem returned, offcially, only 2 unconfirmed DNA components.

In our post, “SY’s Significant Moves” we spoke of hairs that we think are in Portugal and that can be retested to confirm the presence of Maddie’s DNA.

Today we say there is also a piece of curtain. Mr Amaral assured that happened via letter dated 28 August to the Police Science Laboratory asking them to preserve curtaining from apartment 5A (10 Processos Vol X Page 2528):

“To: The Director of the Police Scientific Laboratory Lisbon

Date: 28 August 2007


The present inquiry deals with the investigation into the disappearance of the British girl, Madeleine McCann, a fact that occurred on 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Lagos.

During the course of the investigation diverse material/articles and objects susceptible to containing biological vestiges have been collected.

At the beginning of this month of August a curtain was collected from the living room of the apartment including a portion from the same pair of curtains, materials that were sent to England with other articles/objects for subjection to examination.

With the aim of preserving and maintaining the CHAIN and CUSTODY of evidence during the lack of conclusion from the examinations that are being carried out in England, the remaining inferior part of the curtain was collected.

Date and time of collection: 28th August 2007 06.35 hours

Place: Apartment 5 A, Ocean Club Resort, Praia da Luz

Accordingly we request that the piece collected and delivered to the Police Scientific Laboratory be PRESERVED for the eventual carrying out of complementary examinations.

With compliments

G. Amaral

The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation”

SY, from where we stand, there’s much you can do if you really want to do something.

We have realised that a long time ago. In fact, the question was never about what you could do but about what you want to do.

Sweet 16. We're fully aware that what is sweet for some may be sour for others.



    ‘No caso Maddie o instituto inglês levou um ano a fazer os estudos de genética e nós dois meses’

    Sónia Graça 23/10/2014 22:07:15 2810 Visitas

    Duarte Nuno Vieira, ex-presidente do Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal e Ciências Forenses fala sobre a morosidade das perícias ser uma falha apontada por vários operadores judiciários.

    “Essa era uma falsa questão que alguns jornais empolavam. Quando saí, havia cerca de 2% de atrasos num instituto que fazia entre 180 mil a 200 mil perícias por ano. Isto representa cerca de quatro mil perícias atrasadas. As coisas na Medicina Legal não são como nas séries CSI. Dou sempre o exemplo do caso Maddie: o Forensic Science Service, do Reino Unido, demorou quase um ano a fazer os estudos de genética e nós tínhamos resultados ao fim de dois meses.”

    In 2 months INML had the results about Maddie.

    1. I wonder if all the forensic evidence in Portuguese labs is damning, and if so, why wasn't it used to counter FSS results?
      If it supported FSS results, why not say we found no evidence to support the dogs' alerts. And close the case rather than leave it archived?
      The fact that Portugal archived and LP Chief Constable made the statement that effectively said he couldn't say Mcs weren't involved, suggests Portugal do have evidence.


    Recommend this. It covers Robinson story and also Gamble how he leaked his report to S and S.


    2. Also being discussed here


    I think it would be very useful to link this to your current post about forensics
    Internet working together!

  4. Thankyou textusa. My concern now is that if there is DNA in the UK or portugal which implicates the Mcs can it now be brought credibly to court. Will the defense not say that there is a report which was based on tests carried out in 2007 which throws doubt on any new findings. How lowe lives with himself is beyond me but then again there are a great many people who have no problem living with themselves dispite their unethical behaviour in this case

  5. There is much more evidence than just the forensics that prove there was no abduction. The well washed wall behind the sofa and the freshly laundered curtains where the samples were found are but a few. You'd have thought that if they were serious about avoiding suspicion they'd have swapped the curtains with those from another apartment but as they didn't it suggests a very small time frame or it was overlooked. If the police are ready to use evidence against the Mc's it's because others have found a way out of the spotlight except Jim Gamble who without doubt wiped Gerry's CATS file before the PJ started their work. The remit of SY was to concentrate on the 'abduction' theory according to written records, let's hope that the PJ are concentrating on the others.

    1. Anonymous 25 Oct 2014 09:03:00,

      There were CATS files for both Kate and Gerry.

      We can't say they were emptied by anyone and CATS files are for issues other than just abuse.

      Until and unless some proof the files were stripped of contents, we can't endorse allegations.

  6. Remember this BIG McCann supporter?

  7. I appriciate your investigation......respect.....

    But please note that all this took place in a time-period where fraud and misleading was more the norm than exception. Banks, multinationals were together with governments building a world-wide crisis...... everything was allowed.....not only related to the economy...... that was (and still is) the context

    So don't try to find logical and reasonable explanations........because also the formal investigation and related published documents will be full of fraud and misleading statements.......

    I understand that you are trying to find truth....... but be aware that it will probaly impossible


    Jim Gamble, digging himself the hole he's gonna be buried in!
    Great! Let him dig!

  9. Very interesting:

    Madeleine McCann new DNA hope: Curtains may hold key to who took her

    1. Mirror are saying SY want to test bedroom curtains. But I thought only living room curtains were tested. What would be the purpose of testing these curtains now? Were they preserved or left in the apartment?
      Goncalo Amaral received a report from the Portuguese DCCB officers, who said it had been reported that CRG had cleaned spaces in the apartment.
      SY should speak to these officers about the cleaning exercise that was said to have taken place. Did it include curtains?

    2. Anonymous 26 Oct 2014 10:34:00,

      In the September report: "the curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) (..) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.”

      Then, no ref about testing for semen or saliva. Only for blood.

      Only in the final report in June 2008 does it mention semen and saliva: “these curtains were analysed for traces of blood, semen and saliva, none of which were detected"

      When were these tests for these substances done? If during the tests for the September 2007 report why not mentioned?

      Did FSS think it wasn’t an important detail for PJ not to know? At a time the McCanns were being made arguidos based on the dogs' signalling and this exact same report?

      LPC refers to 5 stains in curtains. It signals them.

      LPC photographs 3 of them through alternate forensic light meaning something those stains were made up of something BIOLOGICAL.

      These stains, per se, are NEVER referred to by Lowe. To refer to stains, some of which of BIOLOGICAL content, simply and generically as “curtains” is not, in our opinion, appropriate in such a high-profile case.

      FSS in their reporting HAD to be say something about those 3 photographed stains, even if to say something like “they are not blood, semen or saliva. We tested them for X, Y, and Z and none presented positive results”. But it doesn't.

      Even if Lowe intended to refer to those stains as curtains in a way to make us conclude he tested each one of those 5 stains for blood, semen and saliva, then why didn’t he test with the EXACT same intent (blood, semen and saliva) stains #1 to #15 found on the walls and couch?

    3. If the action moves to the living room curtains, then it points to the accident theory being correct. An abductor using a bedroom window isn't going to leave blood on living room curtains. Dog did alert to white living room curtain too, which suggests SY want to use a piece of material retained, more reliable than walls which have probably been redecorated.

    4. Were the curtains on the returned items given by hand to Viegas, as you wrote in last post about the hairs?

    5. Anonymous 26 Oct 2014 16:23:00,

      No, they weren't on that list.

  10. Correction to post:

    Where we say 1,50m is 5ft 11in, we obvioulsy meant 4ft 11in. Post has been corrected.

    Thank you unpublished fan for pointing out the error.

  11. Read this:

    “It is DNA. Textusa clearly doesn't know what ''Unconfirmed'' means. It means it only gave one result. In other words additional tests to confirm the first result were unsuccessful. There could be a number of reasons for this, none of which are particularly important for our purposes.

    1. Anonymous 26 Oct 2014 12:12:00,

      When we say “It’s either DNA or it isn’t. Lowe says it’s unconfirmed, so it isn’t. If it isn’t DNA how can it be a DNA contribution?” we mean it isn’t DNA in terms for forensic proof effects.

      Lowe says the hem of blue curtains had 2 unconfirmed components, sent for LCN analysis.

      Which shows that unconfirmed means DNA exists, but NEEDS further tests.

      The further test won't then say it's NOT DNA. All it can say is whether that DNA can be identified or not. Unconfirmed means they can’t.

      So why send it for comparison? And even more amazing, how possible it was to have returned numerous matches?

      In the final report, Lowe considers CRL 16 and 16B as “in my opinion, this result contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.”

      So why doesn’t he ALSO send the other two stains to which he came to the exact same conclusion: stains #6 and #8?

      Note he sends only ALL those he found “incomplete” (stains #1, #4 and #9) and one “too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation (CRL 16 and 16B)

      It leads one to believe that CRL 16 and 16B had results as strong as stains #1, #4 and #9.

      He doesn’t send stains with a clear presence of DNA:
      - Mixed: stains #2, #5, #7, #10 and #12
      - Weak and incomplete, then mixed, low-level: stains #3, #14 and #15

      Nor, like we said, does he send those he found “too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison” just like he did with CRL 16 and 16B.


  12. Textusa YOU have put the DNA in curtains back on top of the table!

    1. Anonymous 26 Oct 2014 17:25:00,

      Thank you! The more the information spreads, the better!


    Ingleses querem levar cortinado do quarto de Maddie

    É um pedaço de cortinado do quarto onde dormia Maddie e que foi exaustivamente analisado pelos peritos portugueses, em 2007. É este pedaço de tecido que a polícia inglesa quer agora levar para Inglaterra para ser analisado por um laboratório privado, porque acredita poder ser a chave para o mistério do desaparecimento da criança inglesa.

    Os britânicos querem voltar a examinar tudo o que foi encontrado pela polícia portuguesa no apartamento 5A, no Ocean Club, na Praia da Luz, em Lagos. Os investigadores acreditam que quem levou a criança do quarto terá deixado vestígios de ADN no cortinado.

    O pedaço de tecido, que está guardado no processo, foi sujeito a vários testes por parte dos peritos do Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal. Na altura, sabe o CM, foi avaliada a presença de sangue, cabelos e sémen. Não foi encontrado nenhum vestígio, o que impossibilitou a comparação com perfis de ADN. No entanto, os britânicos dizem que, sete anos depois, podem usar novas técnicas para detetar ADN. Também querem voltar a examinar 30 fios de cabelo encontrados na casa, usando novos testes genéticos e biológicos.

    O pedido para a reavaliação dos vestígios irá ser feito ao Ministério Público de Portimão através de uma sexta carta rogatória, apesar de ainda não existir resposta ao quinto pedido. As autoridades portuguesas alertaram os britânicos, numa reunião realizada há duas semanas, que as técnicas usadas em Portugal são iguais ou mais sofisticadas do que as usadas em Inglaterra.


    Madeleine cops call for apartment curtains
    in News · 27-10-2014 08:43:00 · 1 Comments

    According to reports by newspaper Correio da Manhã, the British detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann want to carry out new tests on curtains that were hanging in the room at the time she went missing.

    The Portuguese daily claims the fabric was exhaustively examined by Portuguese authorities at the time of her disappearance in 2007, but the British investigators want to take the curtains to the UK to reanalyse them there in the hope of having a breakthrough in the case.

    The Portuguese Authorities should allow the British Police this opportunity. Technology in identifying suspects from their D.N.A has advanvced. I still believe there is a good chance that Madeleine McCann is still alive. Madeleine deserves justice.

    Thank you.
    by Graham Perry from UK on 27-10-2014 09:32:00

    1. But Portugal has analysed the curtain stains. and so has FSS.
      anything found now has to be consistent with original findings, in terms of places found.
      LIVING room is avoided. It's only room mentioned.


    Posted by portugalpress on October 27, 2014
    Madeleine mystery: British police “lift the curtains”

    New revelations in the media over the weekend point to British police now pinning their hopes on curtains from the bedroom from which Madeleine McCann went missing seven years ago.

    Describing the story as a “breakthrough”, British tabloid the Daily Mirror claims detectives believe the fabric “may hold DNA” which will identify Madeleine’s abductor.

    The Mirror says Scotland Yard hopes to run new tests on the curtains, using techniques not available when the little girl first disappeared.

    The team, headed by DCI Andy Redwood, is urgently waiting for the green-light from Portugal’s public ministry, as the curtains - says the Mirror - have been kept “sealed in an evidence file” since 2007.

    This latest story follows a rash of new reports over the last couple of weeks, the first of which praised the incoming new prosecutor Inês Faria Sequeira for being a “high-flyer” “utterly determined” to finally crack the mystery.

    Nonetheless, ‘cracks’ have appeared in British news stories before - and this may well be yet another incident of this kind of reporting.

    In Portugal, for example, national tabloid Correio da Manhã writes that the curtains have already been “exhaustively” analysed by Portuguese experts, and revealed nothing.

    In their story on Monday, entitled "British want to lift the curtain", CM confirms that British police believe the curtains may still hold traces of suspect DNA.

    But elsewhere, websites dedicated to the analysis of police files claim the curtains were never collected, tested or indeed even kept.

    Thus it remains to be seen whether this is simply another story to join the long line of apparent "Madeleine mystery non-sequiturs".

    Certainly, the British press is buzzing this morning, with the Daily Express following the Mirror and affirming that the curtains “might provide vital clues”.

    Also on the list of evidence held in Portugal which British police would like re-examined are 30 strands of hair originally taken from the McCanns’ rented Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz.

  16. Portugal cannot refuse Britain's request. To refuse would be publicly admitting they don't trust UK which is true but cannot be said.
    My opinion would be for the British to explain exactly what tests they want done on curtains. Then Portugal can say if they can do that in Portugal or not. If they can then no need to send curtains to UK. And if they do send curtains to UK then tests should by done in the presence of INML scientists.

    1. 13:42

      From CDM:

      " As autoridades portuguesas alertaram os britânicos, numa reunião realizada há duas semanas, que as técnicas usadas em Portugal são iguais ou mais sofisticadas do que as usadas em Inglaterra."

      "Portuguese authorities alerted the British, in a meeting two weeks ago that the techniques used in Portugal are equal or more sophisticated than the used in England"

      Answers your question doesn't it? No need to send anything anywhere!


    Maddie breakthrough: Curtains may hold DNA clue in hunt for Madeleine McCann
    DETECTIVES hunting for missing Madeleine McCann believe curtains in the Portuguese holiday flat where she was snatched might provide vital clues.

    By: Stewart Whittingham
    Published: Mon, October 27, 2014

    British officers hope that new tests on the fabric will reveal traces of DNA which could identify her kidnapper.

    They believe he may have touched them as he took threeyear- old Madeleine from her bed at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz and climbed out of the window with her.

    The curtains have been sealed in an evidence file at the National Institute of Forensic Medicine in the Portuguese city of Coimbra since 2007.

    But Scotland Yard has sent an urgent request to Portuguese police asking for their permission to re-examine them. Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood and his team are hoping the fabric will be pre- served enough to contain clues.

    There have been significant developments in DNA science since the first investigation was carried out seven years ago.

    The UK has developed a large “library” of DNA samples which increases by more than 400,000 profiles every year. Portugal’s Public Ministry will decide whether the material should be handed over.

    Scotland Yard, whose detectives from Operation Grange were in Portugal last week, also want to re-examine 30 strands of hair found in the apartment.

    They plan to use advanced genetic and biological testing procedures. DNA samples can be extracted from a single human cell left on items that people come into contact with.

    The quality of DNA can now be “amplified” using complex chemical processes. Robots are even used to help in the lab.

    A Portuguese source said: “The best hope is to pass the sample to officers in Britain.” However Francisco Brizida, president of Portugal’s Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, has warned about raising hopes too much.

    He said: “Technology now allows us to go further than years ago.

    “But I would not like to be that ambitious and say the secret to unlocking Madeleine’s case lies in our lab.”

    Scotland Yard detectives dug for eight days during the summer in the Algarve resort where Kate and Gerry McCann holidayed with their family.

    However, there was no new breakthrough.

    Interviews with new suspects also failed to produce any new leads. The Operation Grange investigation, which involves 30 Scotland Yard officers, has so far cost £10million.

    1. Article saying burglar touched curtains... What? No gloves for a pre planned burglary?
      Did he touch the hem at the BOTTOM of a long curtain?
      Why are the marks in different places over the curtains?
      Look at the curtain photographs to see where the stains were.
      The word blood is studiously avoided.
      We have to be made to believe it was a sweaty-handed burglar with no sense to wear gloves. Must be Portuguese then! UK burglars are much more sophisticated than sardine munching Portuguese burglars.

    2. maybe laundry around his feet got caught in curtains?

    3. surgery mask and no gloves?

    4. If the burglar didn't wear gloves and left sweat traces on curtains, why no fingerprints on the window area?
      Why would the burglar touch curtains in the living room if he used the bedroom window to abduct M?

  18. What really matters is: is there anywhere in the PJ files any reference to collection and examination of the children's bedroom curtains ? (I cannot remember it, but I confess I did not do a deep study of the files.)
    If it is not in the files then I suppose we can assume it is all SY and TeamMcCann spin and "balderdash"!


    I agree with JH, you are the source for all press articles!

  20. More about curtains

  21. Portuguese newspaper, [ I believe it is CdM,] reporting that new forensic tests to be done on samples from the boot of a car. Big news if true.

  22. It was a report from CdM

    28/10/2014 15:24
    Maddie: 444 by DNA was subjected to analysis
    In 2007, the partial 25 samples of blood and saliva tests were performed.

    By Rui Gomes Pando
    Experts from the National Institute of Legal Medicine (INML) analyzed the 444 that were collected by the Judicial Police in following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann months in 2007, in Praia da Luz, Lagos. When the CM was found, were still subject to forensic testing 25 samples of blood and saliva and three other traces found in the room from where the child disappeared and the boot of a car. These are some traces that Scotland Yard now wants to bring England to analyze again, a British private laboratory.

    English as the CM reported yesterday, still want to re-do tests to a curtained room where Maddie slept, which was targeted by the skill INML in 2007, and where nothing relevant was found. The collection of the remains was made in homes, cars and sofas by experts of the Laboratory of Forensic Science of PJ. Among the remnants are still samples of hair and saliva of several people who were deemed relevant to the investigation. In the list of the 444 subject to testing, are 432 human and 12 nonhuman, 98 had no correspondence with any DNA profile and 19 partial results were obtained. The request for a review will be part of the remains of a 6th letter rogatory. This despite the new prosecutor for the Public Ministry of Portimão, Agnes Sequeira, the decision does not already exist for the 5th letter, sent by the British to Portugal.

    1. As we consider this CdM article to be relevant, here is our translation:

      Maddie: DNA of 444 hair-strands was subjected to analysis

      In 2007, partial tests were done on 25 samples of blood and saliva.

      By Rui Gomes Pando

      Experts from the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) analysed 444 hair-strands that were collected by the PJ in following months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007, in Praia da Luz, Lagos. According to what CdM found, also subject to forensic testing were 25 samples of blood and saliva and three other vestiges found in the room from where the child disappeared and in the boot of a car. It’s some of these vestiges that Scotland Yard now wants to take to England to analyse again, in a British private laboratory.

      The English, as CdM reported yesterday, still want to re-do examinations to a curtain from the room where Maddie slept, which was target of testing in the INML in 2007, and in which nothing relevant was found. The collection of the vestiges was made in homes, cars and couches by experts of PJ’s Laboratório de Polícia Científica (LPC). Among the vestiges there are also samples of hair and saliva from several people who were deemed relevant to the investigation. In the list of the 444 hair-strands subject to be tested, are 432 human and 12 nonhuman, 98 had no correspondence with any DNA profile and 19 partial results were obtained. The request for the re-evaluation of the vestiges will be part of a 6th rogatory letter. This despite a decision doesn't yet exist from the new prosecutor of the Public Ministry of Portimão, Inês Sequeira, for the 5th letter, sent by the British to Portugal.


    Madeleine McCann: The human hairs that remain untested provide new hope in police hunt

    BRITISH detectives probing the Madeleine McCann disappearance in Portugal want to retest hairs after it was found previous DNA tests carried out during the original investigation were incomplete.

    By: Gerard Couzens
    Published: Wed, October 29, 2014

    Nearly 100 strands of hair tested during the original Madeleine McCann investigation were never DNA-matched, it emerged today.

    Portuguese forensic experts analysed 444 hair strands they believed could hold the key to the youngster’s May 3 2007 disappearance.

    They found 432 were human and 12 non-human. They were unable to DNA-match 98 of them and only obtained partial results from 19 of them, Portuguese daily Correio da Manha reported.


    British detectives probing Madeleine McCann’s disappearance want to retest some of the hairs as well as curtains hanging in the Algarve apartment where she vanished.

    Scotland Yard are expected to apply for permission in a sixth international letter of request to take the samples from a Portuguese lab so experts can look at them in the UK.

    The fifth letter, understood to contain a request to reinterview three new suspects quizzed in the summer, has yet to be answered by new Madeleine McCann prosecutor Ines Sequeira.

    A Met Police team led by DCI Andy Redwood announced their wish to look again at forensic material collected in the early days of the Madeleine McCann investigation during a visit to the university town of Coimbra earlier this month.

    They met with the bosses of Portugal’s Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences in Coimbra, two hours drive north of Lisbon, where most of the material, also said to include 25 blood and saliva samples, is held.

    Institute president Francisco Brizida, said afterwards: “I have the certainty they went away very happy.”

    “The tonic of the meeting was about the possibility of the tests on samples collected in 2007 being re-done.

    “The British police wanted clarification on the examinations the institute had carried out during the early stages of the inquiry in the areas of genetics and biology.

    “We talked about non-identified material that was collected in Madeleine’s apartment.

    “I can’t say for sure new DNA tests that didn’t yield a conclusive result in 2007 could now yield an objective result.

    “But technology nowadays allows us to go further than years ago in areas like genetic markers.

    “Several possibilities are open. One could be that British police do the tests in Britain with British technology and another that the institute does them.

    “But that’s an area in which the institute does not have the last word. There’s a situation of judicial cooperation and a new international letter of request would be necessary.

  24. Wording is ambiguous and interestingly so. Curtains clearly all from 5A, but all those hundreds of hairs, not clearly all from 5A but no mention of from where else they have come... unlike the Portuguese newspaper.

  25. Regarding Operation DNA a source close to the McCanns stated: “Mr. and Mrs. McCann are delighted to hear that they will finally face the truth about the disappearance of their daughter. But they only want to accept good quality handcuffs.”


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.