Video:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=436357527102057
“Voice over: Those eyes, that face, a haunting reminder that Maddie is still missing. Twelve years ago, just days before her fourth birthday, Maddie McCann vanished without a trace during a family holiday in Portugal, parents Kate and Gerry left Maddie and her siblings asleep in their room while they had dinner with friends. At 10 pm Kate went to check on the children, Maddie was gone, her bed empty and the window open. Police in Portugal worked closely with Scotland Yard. Three months after her disappearance, sniffer dogs made a series of discoveries in the McCann holiday rental and hire car. Those DNA samples were sent to British lab, Forensics Science Service. It didn’t have the technology to assess the crucial DNA and its results were ruled inconclusive, that’s always been accepted, until now.
Samantha Armytage (SA): And Dr Mark Perlin is one of the top DNA scientists in the world and joins us now from Chicago, Mark, good morning, welcome, now…
Mark Perlin (MP): Good morning.
SA: … DNA was found in the boot of Kate and Gerry’s hire car 25 days after Maddie vanished, it was found to be inconclusive, why is that?
MP: Well, when scientists test DNA evidence, there are 2 parts to the test. The first is generating the data, something the British scientists were excellent at, and the other is interpreting the data. When evidence, like in this case involves a mixed sample, of 3 or more people whose DNA are all together in the evidence, with very low amounts of DNA, they struggle to get any sort of interpretation and the outcome is typically inconclusive. Now that data is really highly informative in many cases as the reports from the British government indicated, and advanced computing can look at that same data and extract the information out of the data and get a result and get a match statistic, either indicating that someone left their DNA or not. The British government simply lacked the tools to analyse the data they had produced.
David Koch (DC): So, technology’s moved on, why isn’t the DNA being retested now by Scotland Yard using this new technology?
MP: Well, I think government is used to failing with DNA evidence, over the last 20 years, most DNA evidence has been mixtures of 2 or more people and the usual result is inconclusive in most of these samples, government just let… got it wrong and there’s been no major movement for government wanting to go back and undo their failures of the past. Yesterday I was having lunch with 2 men in Indiana, whom I helped exonerate, and in that case they, they were in jail for 40 years between the two of them and the DNA that proved that they could not have committed that gang-rape, long time ago on an Indiana highway, that evidence was looked at 15 years later by Cybergenetics TrueAllele technology, demonstrated there were 5 people present, none of them were these men, and they were fully exonerated.
SA: Wow…
MP: Government really should open up the paths for these hundreds of thousands of cases, but is reluctant to re-examine cases they consider closed.
SA: Ok, your… you are very well known in this field, you were instrumental in identifying victims in September 11, you’ve worked around the globe with high profile crimes, including the Robert Z case in Australia, do you think DNA is the key to solving the Maddie McCann mystery at this point?
MP: Well, I think it’s key to unlocking evidence that’s been crucial to the investigation. With Cybergenetics TrueAllele technology, these mixed DNA samples, the data already exists, the point is to go back and look at this data, if we have access to it, and let the computer separate out the DNA profiles of the different people who left their DNA, make a comparison and produce a statistic that shows if they’re there or not and it’s pretty straightforward for Cybergenetics, we’ve been doing this for 10 years.
DC: It Just seems a very simple thing to do, doesn’t it? We really appreciate your time, thank you so much for that.”
Post Scriptum:
To the absurd possibility of transference of Maddie’s DNA from apartment 5A to the Renault Scenic via dog
lead, the Frog has tweeted the following:
With these images on tweets #1 and #2:
So,
to be clear, according to the Frog there are 2 possibilities for
Maddie’s DNA having appeared in the car hired by her parents 20+ days
after she disappeared:
#1 – From Block 5 to Block 4, from Block 4 to rental villa, from rental villa to Renault Scenic.
#1 – From Block 5 to Block 4, from Block 4 to rental villa, from rental villa to Renault Scenic.
#2
– From somewhere in the apartment to dog lead, from dog lead to Renault
Scenic, with the variant of from dog lead to gloves, from gloves to
Renault Scenic.
One has to wonder which one she favours.
Let’s start with Grime and the dog lead.
In an apartment where, the FSS (let’s not dwell on stain #3 for now) says no clear DNA from Maddie in the apartment, Martin Grime, wearing gloves, just happened to hit jackpot and touch where there was some with the dog lead where the forensic specialists were not able to find any!
Even if the Frog is trying to convince us of that, she faces a major problem and that is the PJ Files. In them, it’s photographed every single location from where biological samples were found. The location was minutely scoured and ALL locations where the minimal biological sample was found was signalled.
To prove her point, all the frog has to do is to match where the dog leash touched – by the way, in her own words, a sticky place – and tell us what stain it is:
Thank goodness the whole thing is on video. We are certain that very soon the Frog will be able to show us the exact frames where Martin Grime touched in any of those spots with the dog lead. Or with his gloves.
The Frog shows us a photo of the bedroom and Grime touching the bed. No biological sample was found on the bed.
The Frog shows us Grime touching the couch. Nowhere near where the biological samples were found.
Lastly, about the gloves. So, apparently we are supposed to believe that Martin Grime did not change gloves between the searches in 5A and in the Scenic? When did he throw them away? In 2013? Or maybe they lasted until 2015?
Frog, why didn’t you mention the gloves in your initial tweet? And why not mention the suit?
By the way, and just asking, if this had ANY possibility of being real, why wasn’t the dog lead tested for biological samples by forensics?
Oh, and did the dog lead work like a sponge in art school? Was it was dipped in DNA in apartment 5A and then taken over, certainly dripping with the stuff, to the Scenic to smudge the inside of the Scenic with it as if it was a 3D canvas?
Now to the case that was supposed to be of a man in a coma but it turns out to have been one who was drunk.
The Frog has tweeted the article but we have found another one on the same case that we think is much more complete:
https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/amp
Katie Worth
04.19.18 7:00 AM
Framed for Murder By His Own DNA
This investigation was published in partnership with The Marshall Project and FRONTLINE (PBS).
When the DNA results came back, even Lukis Anderson thought he might have committed the murder.
"I drink a lot," he remembers telling public defender Kelley Kulick as they sat in a plain interview room at the Santa Clara County, California, jail. Sometimes he blacked out, so it was possible he did something he didn't remember. "Maybe I did do it."
Kulick shushed him. If she was going to keep her new client off death row, he couldn't go around saying things like that. But she agreed. It looked bad.
Before he was charged with murder, Anderson was a 26-year-old homeless alcoholic with a long rap sheet who spent his days hustling for change in downtown San Jose. The murder victim, Raveesh Kumra, was a 66-year-old investor who lived in Monte Sereno, a Silicon Valley enclave 10 miles and many socioeconomic rungs away.
Around midnight on November 29, 2012, a group of men had broken into Kumra's 7,000-square-foot mansion. They found him watching CNN in the living room, tied him, blindfolded him, and gagged him with mustache-print duct tape. They found his companion, Harinder, asleep in an upstairs bedroom, hit her on the mouth, and tied her up next to Raveesh. Then they plundered the house for cash and jewelry.
After the men left, Harinder, still blindfolded, felt her way to a kitchen phone and called 911. Police arrived, then an ambulance. One of the paramedics declared Raveesh dead. The coroner would later conclude that he had been suffocated by the mustache tape.
Three and a half weeks later, the police arrested Anderson. His DNA had been found on Raveesh's fingernails. They believed the men struggled as Anderson tied up his victim. They charged him with murder. Kulick was appointed to his case.
As they looked at the DNA results, Anderson tried to make sense of a crime he had no memory of committing.
"Nah, nah, nah. I don't do things like that," he recalls telling her. "But maybe I did."
"Lukis, shut up," Kulick says she told him. "Let's just hit the pause button till we work through the evidence to really see what happened."
What happened, although months would pass before anyone figured it out, was that Lukis Anderson's DNA had found its way onto the fingernails of a dead man he had never even met.
Back in the 1980s, when DNA forensic analysis was still in its infancy, crime labs needed a speck of bodily fluid—usually blood, semen, or spit—to generate a genetic profile.
That changed in 1997, when Australian forensic scientist Roland van Oorschot stunned the criminal justice world with a nine-paragraph paper [https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/DNA-fingerprints-from-fingerprints-11782] titled "DNA Fingerprints from Fingerprints." It revealed that DNA could be detected not just from bodily fluids but from traces left by a touch. Investigators across the globe began scouring crime scenes for anything—a doorknob, a countertop, a knife handle—that a perpetrator may have tainted with incriminating "touch" DNA.
But van Oorschot's paper also contained a vital observation: Some people's DNA appeared on things that they had never touched.
In the years since, van Oorschot's lab has been one of the few to investigate this phenomenon, dubbed "secondary transfer." What they have learned is that, once it's out in the world, DNA doesn't always stay put.
In one of his lab's experiments [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25454534], for instance, volunteers sat at a table and shared a jug of juice. After 20 minutes of chatting and sipping, swabs were deployed on their hands, the chairs, the table, the jug, and the juice glasses, then tested for genetic material. Although the volunteers never touched each other, 50 percent wound up with another's DNA on their hand. A third of the glasses bore the DNA of volunteers who did not touch or drink from them.
Then there was the foreign DNA—profiles that didn't match any of the juice drinkers. It turned up on about half of the chairs and glasses, and all over the participants' hands and the table. The only explanation: The participants unwittingly brought with them alien genes, perhaps from the lover they kissed that morning, the stranger with whom they had shared a bus grip, or the barista who handed them an afternoon latte.
In a sense, this isn't surprising: We leave a trail of ourselves everywhere we go. An average person may shed upward of 50 million skin cells a day. Attorney Erin Murphy, author of Inside the Cell, a book about forensic DNA, has calculated that in two minutes the average person sheds enough skin cells to cover a football field. We also spew saliva, which is packed with DNA. If we stand still and talk for 30 seconds, our DNA may be found more than a yard away. With a forceful sneeze, it might land on a nearby wall.
To find out the prevalence of DNA in the world, a group of Dutch researchers tested [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26736139] 105 public items—escalator rails, public toilet door handles, shopping basket handles, coins. Ninety-one percent bore human DNA, sometimes from half a dozen people. Even items intimate to us—the armpits of our shirts, say—can bear other people's DNA, they found.
The itinerant nature of DNA has serious implications for forensic investigations. After all, if traces of our DNA can make their way to a crime scene we never visited, aren't we all possible suspects?
Forensic DNA has other flaws [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-surprisingly-imperfect-science-of-dna-testing-2/]: Complex mixtures of many DNA profiles can be wrongly interpreted, certainty statistics are often wildly miscalculated, and DNA analysis robots have sometimes been stretched past the limits of their sensitivity.
But as advances in technology are solving some of these problems, they have actually made the problem of DNA transfer worse. Each new generation of forensic tools is more sensitive; labs today can identify people with DNA from just a handful of cells. A handful of cells can easily migrate.
A survey of the published science, interviews with leading scientists, and a review of thousands of pages of court and police documents associated with the Kumra case has elucidated how secondary DNA transfer can undermine the credibility of the criminal justice system's most-trusted tool. And yet, very few crime labs worldwide regularly and robustly study secondary DNA transfer.
This is partly because most forensic scientists believe DNA to be the least of their field's problems. They're not wrong: DNA is the most accurate forensic science we have. It has exonerated scores of people convicted based on more flawed disciplines like hair or bite-mark analysis. And there have been few publicized cases of DNA mistakenly implicating someone in a crime.
But, like most human enterprises, DNA analysis is not perfect. And without study, the scope and impact of that imperfection is difficult to assess, says Peter Gill, a British forensic researcher. He has little doubt that his field, so often credited with solving crimes, is also responsible for wrongful convictions.
"The problem is we're not looking for these things," Gill says. "For every miscarriage of justice that is detected, there must be a dozen that are never discovered."
The phone rang five times.
"Are you awake?" the dispatcher asked.
"Yeah," lied Corporal Erin Lunsford.
"Are you back on full duty or you still light duty?" she asked, according to a tape of the call.
Lunsford had been off crutches for two weeks already, but it was 2:15 am and pouring rain. Probably some downed tree needed to be policed. "Light duty," Lunsford said.
"Oh," she said. "Never mind."
"Why, what are you calling about?" he asked.
"We had a home invasion that turned into a 187," she said. Cop slang for murder.
"Shit, seriously?" Lunsford said, waking up.
Lunsford had served all 15 of his professional years as a police officer at the Los Gatos–Monte Sereno Police Department, a 38-officer agency that policed two drowsy towns. He rose through the ranks and was working a stint in the department's detective bureau. He had mostly been investigating property crimes. Los Gatos, a wealthy bedroom community of Silicon Valley, averaged a homicide once every three or four years. Monte Sereno, a bedroom community of the bedroom community, hadn't had a homicide in roughly 20.
Lunsford got dressed. He drove through the November torrent. He spotted cop cars clustered around a brick and iron gate. An ambulance flashed quietly in the driveway. Beyond it, the lit Kumra mansion.
Lunsford's boss told him to take the lead on the investigation. The on-scene supervisor walked him through the house. Dressers emptied, files dumped. A cellphone in a toilet, pissed on. A refrigerator beeping every 10 seconds, announcing its doors were ajar. Raveesh’s body, heavyset and disheveled, on the floor near the kitchen. His eyes still blindfolded.
An investigator from the county coroner's office arrived and moved Kumra's body into a van. Lunsford followed her to the morgue for the autopsy. A doctor undressed the victim and scraped and cut his fingernails for evidence.
Lunsford recognized Raveesh, a wealthy businessman who had once owned a share of a local concert venue. Lunsford had come to the Kumra mansion a couple times on "family calls" that never amounted to anything: "Just people arguing," he recalled. He had also run into him at Goguen's Last Call, a dive frequented by Raveesh as a regular and Lunsford as a cop responding to calls. Raveesh was an affable extrovert, always buying rounds; the unofficial mayor of that part of town, Lunsford called him.
In the coming days, as Lunsford interviewed people who knew the Kumras, he was told that Raveesh also had relationships with sex workers. Raveesh and Harinder had divorced around 2010 after more than 30 years of marriage, but still lived together.
While Lunsford attended the autopsy, a team of gloved investigators combed the mansion. They tucked paper evidence into manila envelopes; bulkier items into brown paper bags. They amassed more than 100.
Teams specializing in crime scene investigations were first assembled over a century ago, after the French scientist Edmond Locard devised the principle that birthed the field of forensics: A perpetrator will bring something to a crime scene and leave with something from it. Van Oorschot's touch DNA discovery had unveiled the most literal expression imaginable of Locard's principle.
Like those early teams, the investigators in the Kumra mansion were looking for fingerprints, footprints, and hair. But unlike their predecessors, they devoted considerable time to thinking through everything the perpetrators may have touched.
Some perpetrators are giving thought to this as well. A 2013 Canadian study [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15614263.2013.846548?src=recsys&journalCode=gppr20&] of 350 sexual homicides found that about a third of perpetrators appeared to have taken care not to leave DNA, killing their victims in tidier ways than beating or strangling, which are likely to leave behind genetic clues, for instance. And it worked: In those "forensically aware" cases, police solved the case 50 percent of the time, compared to 83 percent of their sloppier counterparts.
The men who killed Kumra seemed somewhat forensically aware, albeit clumsily. They had worn latex gloves through their rampage; a pile of them were left in the kitchen sink, wet and soapy, as though someone had tried to wash off the DNA.
In the weeks after the murder, Tahnee Nelson Mehmet, a criminalist at the county crime lab, ran dozens of tests on the evidence collected from the Kumra mansion. Most only revealed DNA profiles consistent with Raveesh or Harinder.
But in her first few batches of evidence, Mehmet hit forensic pay dirt: a handful of unknown profiles—including on the washed gloves. She ran them through the state database of people arrested for or convicted of felonies and got three hits, all from the Bay Area: 22-year-old DeAngelo Austin on the duct tape; 21-year-old Javier Garcia on the gloves; and, on the fingernail clippings, 26-year-old Lukis Anderson.
Within weeks of the DNA hits, Lunsford had plenty of evidence implicating Austin and Garcia: Both were from Oakland, but a warrant for their cellphone records showed they'd pinged towers near Monte Sereno the night of the homicide. Police records showed that Austin belonged to a gang linked to a series of home burglaries. And most damning of all, Austin's older sister, a 32-year-old sex worker named Katrina Fritz, had been involved with Raveesh for 12 years. Police had even found her phone backed up on Raveesh's computer. Eventually she would admit that she had given her brother a map of the house.
Connecting Anderson to the crime proved trickier. There were no phone records showing he had traveled to Monte Sereno that night. He wasn't associated with a gang. But one thing on his rap sheet drew Lunsford's attention: A felony residential burglary.
Eventually Lunsford found a link. A year earlier, Anderson had been locked up in the same jail as a friend of Austin's named Shawn Hampton. Hampton wore an ankle monitor as a condition of his parole. It showed that two days before the crime he had driven to San Jose. He made a couple of stops downtown, right near Anderson's territory.
It started to crystallize for Lunsford: When Austin was planning the break-in, he wanted a local guy experienced in burglary. So Hampton hooked him up with his jail buddy Anderson.
Anderson had recently landed back in jail after violating his probation on the burglary charge. Lunsford and his boss, Sergeant Mike D'Antonio, visited him there. They taped the interview.
"Does this guy look familiar to you? What about this lady?" Lunsford said, laying out pictures of the victims on the interview room table.
"I don't know, man," Anderson said.
Lunsford pulled out a picture of Anderson's mother.
"All right, what about this lady here? You don't know who she is?" Lunsford said.
Anderson met Lunsford's sarcasm with silence.
Lunsford set down a letter from the state of California showing the database match between Anderson's DNA and the profile found on the victim's fingernails.
"This starting to ring some bells?" Lunsford said.
"My guess is you didn't think anybody was gonna be home," D'Antonio said. "My guess is it went way farther than you ever thought it would go."
"I don't know what you're talking about, sir," Anderson said.
"You do," Lunsford said. "You won't look at their pictures. The only picture you looked at good was your mom."
Finally, D'Antonio took a compromising tone.
"Lukis, Lukis, Lukis," he said. "I don't have a crystal ball to know what the truth is. Only you do. And in all the years I've been doing this I've never seen a DNA hit being wrong."
Anderson had been in jail on the murder charge for over a month when a defense investigator dropped a stack of records on Kulick's desk. Look at them, the investigator said. Now.
They were Anderson's medical records. Because his murder charge could carry the death penalty, Kulick had the investigator pull everything pertinent to Anderson's medical history, including his mental health, in case they had to ask for leniency during sentencing.
She suspected Anderson could be a good candidate for such leniency. He spent much of his childhood homeless. In early adulthood, he was diagnosed with a mental health disorder and diabetes. And he had developed a mighty alcohol addiction. One day, while drunk, he stepped off a curb and into the path of a moving truck. He survived, but his memory was never quite right again. He lost track of days, sometimes several in a row.
That's not to say his life was bleak. He made friends easily. He had a coy sense of humor and dimples that shone like headlights. His buddies, many on the streets themselves, looked after him, as did some downtown shopkeepers. Kulick and her investigator had spoken to several of them. They shook their heads. Anderson might be a drunk, they said, but he wasn't a killer.
His rap sheet seemed to agree. It was filled with petty crimes: drunk in public, riding a bike under the influence, probation violations. The one serious conviction—the residential burglary that had caught Lunsford's attention—seemed more benign upon careful reading. According to the police report, Anderson had drunkenly broken the front window of a home and tried to crawl through. The horrified resident had pushed him back out with blankets. Police found him a few minutes later standing on the sidewalk, dazed and bleeding. Though nothing had been stolen, he had been charged with a felony and pleaded no contest. His DNA was added to the state criminal database.
The medical records showed that Anderson was also a regular in county hospitals. Most recently, he had arrived in an ambulance to Valley Medical Center, where he was declared inebriated nearly to the point of unconsciousness. Blood alcohol tests indicated he had consumed the equivalent of 21 beers. He spent the night detoxing. The next morning he was discharged, somewhat more sober.
The date on that record was November 29. If the record was right, Anderson had been in the hospital precisely as Raveesh Kumra was suffocating on duct tape miles away.
Kulick remembers turning to the investigator, who was staring back at her. She was used to alibis being partial and difficult to prove. This one was signed by hospital staff. More than anything, she felt terrified. "To know that you have a factually innocent client sitting in jail facing the death penalty is really scary," she said later. "You don't want to screw up."
She knew Lunsford and the prosecutors would try to find holes: Perhaps the date on the record was wrong, or someone had stolen his ID, or there was more than one Lukis Anderson.
So she and the investigator systematically retraced his day. Anderson had only patchy recollections of the night in question. But they found a record that a 7-Eleven clerk called authorities at 7:54 pm complaining that Anderson was panhandling. He moved on before the police arrived.
His meanderings took him four blocks east, to S&S Market. The clerk there told Kulick that Anderson sat down in front of the store at about 8:15 pm, already drunk, and got drunker. A couple of hours later, he wandered into the store and collapsed in an aisle. The clerk called the authorities.
The police arrived first, followed by a truck from the San Jose Fire Department. A paramedic with the fire department told Kulick he had picked up Anderson drunk so often that he knew his birth date by heart. Two other paramedics arrived with an ambulance. They wrestled Anderson onto a stretcher and took him to the hospital. According to his medical records, he was admitted at 10:45 pm. The doctor who treated him said Anderson remained in bed through the night.
Harinder Kumra had said the men who killed Raveesh rampaged through her house sometime between 11:30 pm and 1:30 am.
Kulick called the district attorney's office. She wanted to meet with them and Lunsford.
In 2008, German detectives were on the trail of the "Phantom of Heilbronn." A serial killer and thief, the Phantom murdered immigrants and a cop, robbed a gemstone trader, and munched on a cookie while burglarizing a caravan. Police mobilized across borders, offered a large reward, and racked up more than 16,000 hours on the hunt. But they struggled to discern a pattern to the crimes, other than the DNA profile the Phantom left at 40 crime scenes in Germany, France, and Austria.
At long last, they found the Phantom: An elderly Polish worker in a factory that produced the swabs police used to collect DNA. She had somehow contaminated the swabs as she worked. Crime scene investigators had, in turn, contaminated dozens of crime scenes with her DNA.
Contamination, the unintentional introduction of DNA into evidence by the very people investigating the crime, is the best understood form of transfer. And after Lunsford heard Kulick's presentation—then retraced Anderson's day himself, concluded he had jailed an innocent man, and felt sick to his stomach for a while—he counted contamination among his leading theories.
As the Phantom of Heilbronn case demonstrated, contamination can happen long before evidence arrives in a lab. A 2016 study [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27100680] by Gill, the British forensic researcher, found DNA on three-quarters of crime scene tools he tested, including cameras, measuring tapes, and gloves. Those items can pick up DNA at one scene and move it to the next.
Once it arrives in the lab, the risk continues: One set of researchers found [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26977932] stray DNA in even the cleanest parts of their lab. Worried that the very case files they worked on could be a source of contamination, they tested 20. Seventy-five percent held the DNA of people who hadn't handled the file.
In Santa Clara County, the district attorney's office reviewed the Kumra case and found no obvious evidence of errors or improper use of tools in the crime lab. They checked if Anderson's DNA had shown up in any other cases the lab had recently handled, and inadvertently wandered into the Kumra case. It had not.
So they began investigating a second theory: That Raveesh and Anderson somehow met in the hours or days before the homicide, at which point Anderson's DNA became caught under Raveesh's fingernails.
"We are convinced that at some point—we just don't know when in the 24 hours, 48 hours, or 72 hours beforehand—that their paths crossed," deputy district attorney Kevin Smith told a San Francisco Chronicle reporter.
There now exists a small pile of studies exploring how DNA moves: If a man shakes someone's hand and then uses the restroom, could their DNA wind up on his penis? (Yes.[https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/science-and-justice]) If someone drags another person by the ankles, how often does their profile clearly show up? (40 percent of the time.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26736139]) And, of utmost relevance to Lukis Anderson, how many of us walk around with traces of other people's DNA on our fingernails? (1 in 5.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680274])
Whether someone's DNA moves from one place to another—and then is found there—depends on a handful of factors: quantity (two transferred cells are less likely to be detected than 2,000), vigor of contact (a limp handshake relays less DNA than a bone-crushing one), the nature of the surfaces involved (a tabletop's chemical content affects how much DNA it picks up), and elapsed time (we're more likely carrying DNA of someone we just hugged than someone we hugged hours ago, since foreign DNA tends to rub off over time).
Then there's a person's shedding status: "Good" shedders lavish their DNA on their environment; "poor" shedders move through the world virtually undetectable, genetically speaking. In general, flaky, sweaty, or diseased skin is thought to shed more DNA than healthy, arid skin. Nail chewers, nose pickers, and habitual face touchers spread their DNA around, as do hands that haven't seen a bar of soap lately—discarded DNA can accumulate over time, and soap helps wash it away.
And some people simply seem to be naturally superior shedders. Mariya Goray, a forensic science researcher in van Oorschot's lab who coauthored the juice study with him, has found one of her colleagues to be an outrageously prodigious shedder. "He's amazing," she said, her voice tinged with admiration. "Maybe I'll do a study on him. And the study will just be called, 'James.'"
She hopes to develop a test to determine a person's shedder status, which could be deployed to assess a suspect's claims that their DNA arrived somewhere innocently.
Such a test could have been useful in the case [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html] of David Butler, an English cabdriver. In 2011, DNA found on the fingernails of a woman who had been murdered six years earlier was run through a database and matched Butler's. He swore he'd never met the woman. His defense attorney noted that he had a skin condition so severe that fellow cabbies had dubbed him "Flaky." Perhaps he had given a ride to the actual murderer that day, who inadvertently picked up Butler's DNA in the cab and later deposited it on the victim, they theorized.
Investigators didn't buy the explanation, but jurors did. Butler was acquitted after eight months in jail. Upon release, he excoriated police for their blind faith in the evidence.
"DNA has become the magic bullet for the police," Butler told the BBC. [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19412819] "They thought it was my DNA, ergo it must be me."
Traditional police work would have never steered police to Anderson. But the DNA hit led them to seek other evidence confirming his guilt. "It wasn't malicious. It was confirmation bias," Kulick says. "They got the DNA, and then they made up a story to fit it."
Had the case gone to trial, jurors may well have done the same. A 2008 series of studies [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-10844-002] by researchers at the University of Nevada, Yale, and Claremont McKenna College found that jurors rated DNA evidence as 95 percent accurate and 94 percent persuasive of a suspect's guilt.
Eleven leading DNA transfer scientists contacted for this story were in consensus that the criminal justice system must be willing to question DNA evidence. They were also in agreement about whose job it should be to navigate those queries: forensic scientists.
As it stands, forensic scientists generally stick to the question of source (whose DNA is this?) and leave activity (how did it get here?) for judges and juries to wrestle with. But the researchers contend that forensic scientists are best armed with the information necessary to answer that question.
Consider a case in which a man is accused of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. He looks mighty guilty when his DNA and a fragment of sperm is found on her underwear. But jurors might give the defense more credence if a forensic scientist familiarized them with a 2016 Canadian study [https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2816%2930073-4/fulltext] showing that fathers' DNA is frequently found on their daughters' clean underwear; occasionally, a fragment of sperm is there too. It migrates there in the wash.
This shift—from reporting on who to reporting on how—has been encouraged by the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. But the shift has been slow on that continent and virtually nonexistent in the United States, where defense attorneys have argued that forensic scientists—in many communities employed by the prosecutor's office or police department—should be careful to stick to the facts rather than make conjectures.
"The problem is that when forensic scientists get involved in those determinations, they're wrought with confirmation bias," says Jennifer Friedman, a Los Angeles County public defender.
Meanwhile, forensic scientists in the US have resisted the shift, arguing they lack the data to confidently testify about how DNA moves.
Van Oorschot and Gill concede this point. Only a handful of labs in Europe and Australia regularly research transfer. The forensic scientists interviewed for this story say they are not aware of any lab or university in the US that routinely does so.
Funding gets some of the blame: The Australian labs and some European labs get government dollars to study DNA transfer. But British forensic researcher and professor Georgina Meakin of University College London says she must find alternative ways to pay for her own transfer research; the Centre for Forensic Sciences, where Meakin works, has launched a crowdfunding page for a new lab to study trace evidence transfer. In the US, all the grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Institute of Justice for forensics research put together likely sum just $13.5 million a year, according to a 2016 report on forensic science by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST); of that, very little has been spent looking into DNA transfer.
"The folks with the greatest interest in making sure forensic science isn't misused are defendants," says Eric Lander, principal leader of the Human Genome Project, who cochaired PCAST under President Obama. "Defendants don't have an awful lot of power."
In 2009, after issuing a report harshly criticizing the paucity of science behind most forensics, the National Academy of Sciences urged Congress to create a new, independent federal agency to oversee the field. There was little political appetite to do that. Instead, in 2013, Obama created a 40-member National Commission on Forensic Science, filled it with people who saw forensics from radically different perspectives—prosecutors, defense attorneys, academics, lab analysts, and scientists—and made a rule that all actions must be approved by a supermajority. Naturally, the commission got off to a slow start. But ultimately it produced more than 40 recommendations and opinions. These lacked the teeth of a regulatory ruling, but the Justice Department was obligated to respond to them.
At the beginning, most of the commission's efforts were focused on improving other disciplines, "because DNA testing as a whole is so much better than much forensic science that we had focused a lot of our attention elsewhere," says US district judge Jed Rakoff, a member of the commission.
According to Rakoff and other members interviewed, the commission was just digging into issues touching on DNA transfer when attorney general Jeff Sessions took office last year. In April 2017, his department announced it would not renew the commission's charter. It never met again.
Then, in August, President Trump signed the Rapid DNA Act of 2017, allowing law enforcement to use new technology that produces DNA results in just 90 minutes. The bill had bipartisan support and received little press. But privacy advocates worry it may usher in an era of widespread "stop and spit" policing, in which law enforcement asks anyone they stop for a DNA sample. This is already occurring in towns in Florida, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, according to reporting by ProPublica [https://www.propublica.org/article/dna-dragnet-in-some-cities-police-go-from-stop-and-frisk-to-stop-and-spit]. If law enforcement deems there is probable cause, they can compel someone to provide DNA; otherwise, it is voluntary.
If stop-and-spit becomes more widely used and police databases swell, it could have a disproportionate impact on African Americans and Latinos, who are more often searched, ticketed, and arrested by police. In most states, a felony arrest is enough to add someone in perpetuity to the state database. Just this month, the California Supreme Court declined to overturn [https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dna-supreme-court-20180402-story.html] a provision requiring all people arrested or charged for a felony to give up their DNA; in Oklahoma, the DNA of any undocumented immigrant arrested on suspicion of any crime is added to a database. Those whose DNA appears in a database face a greater risk of being implicated in a crime they didn't commit.
It was Lunsford who figured it out in the end.
He was reading through Anderson's medical records and paused on the names of the ambulance paramedics who picked up Anderson from his repose on the sidewalk outside S&S Market. He had seen them before.
He pulled up the Kumra case files. Sure enough, there were the names again: Three hours after picking up Anderson, the two paramedics had responded to the Kumra mansion, where they checked Raveesh's vitals.
The prosecutors, defense attorney, and police agree that somehow, the paramedics must have moved Anderson's DNA from San Jose to Monte Sereno. Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has postulated that a pulse oximeter slipped over both patients' fingers may have been the culprit; Kulick thinks it could have been their uniforms or another piece of equipment. It may never be known for sure.
A spokesman for Rural/Metro Corporation, where the paramedics worked, told San Francisco TV station KPIX5 that the company had high sanitation standards, requiring paramedics to change gloves and sanitize the vehicles.
Deputy District Attorney Smith framed the incident as a freak accident. "It's a small world," he told a San Francisco Chronicle reporter.
The trial against the other men implicated in the case moved forward. Austin's older sister, Fritz, testified in trials against him and Garcia. She also testified against a third man, Marcellous Drummer, whose DNA had been found on evidence from the Kumra crime scene months after the initial hits.
During the trials, Harinder Kumra told jurors she was still haunted by the image of the man who split her lip open. "Every day I see that face. Every night when I sleep, when there's a noise, I think it's him," she said. She has sold the mansion. Members of the Kumra family declined to comment for this story.
The DNA in the case did not go uncontested. Garcia's attorney argued that, like Anderson's, Garcia's DNA had arrived at the scene inadvertently. According to the attorney, Austin had come by the trap house where Garcia hung out to pick up Garcia's cousin; the cousin was in on the crime and had borrowed a box of gloves that Garcia frequently used, which is why Garcia's DNA was found on the gloves at the crime scene; the reason Garcia's cellphone pinged towers near Monte Sereno was because his cousin had borrowed it that night. However, the cousin died within weeks of the crime, and therefore wasn't questioned or investigated.
Jurors were not persuaded and convicted Garcia, along with Drummer and Austin, of murder, robbery of an inhabited place, and false imprisonment.
"I get it," says Garcia's attorney Christopher Givens. "People hear DNA and say, oh, sure you loaned your phone to someone."
A jury could have had the same reaction to Anderson, had his alibi not been discovered, Givens says. "The sad thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually pleaded to something. They probably would have offered him a deal, and he would have been scared enough to take it."
Garcia received a sentence of 37 years to life; Drummer and Austin's sentences were enhanced for gang affiliation to life without parole. Garcia and Austin have appeals pending. Fritz received a reduced sentence for her testimony. In 2017 she was released from jail after spending four years in custody.
Lunsford received accolades for his detective work in the Kumra case and has since been promoted to sergeant; his boss, D'Antonio, is now a captain. But Lunsford says his perspective on DNA has forever changed. "We shook hands, and I transferred on you, you transferred on me. It happens. It's just biological," he says.
Based on interviews with prosecutors, defense lawyers and DNA experts, Anderson's case is the clearest known case of DNA transference implicating an innocent man. It's impossible to say how often this kind of thing happens, but law enforcement officials argue that it is well outside the norm. "There is no piece of evidence or science which is absolutely perfect, but DNA is the closest we have," says District Attorney Rosen. "Mr. Anderson was a very unusual situation. We haven't come across it again."
Van Oorschot, the forensic science researcher whose 1997 paper revolutionized the field, cautions against disbelieving too much in the power of touch DNA to solve crimes. "I think it's made a huge impact in a positive way," he says. "But no one should ever rely solely on DNA evidence to judge what's going on."
Anderson's case has altered the criminal justice system in a small but important way, says Kulick.
"As defense attorneys, we used to get laughed out of the courtroom if in closing arguments we argued transfer," she says. "That was hocus-pocus. That was made up fiction. But Lukis showed us that it's real."
The cost of that demonstration was almost half a year of Anderson's life.
Being accused of murder was "gut-wrenching," he says. It pains him that he questioned his own innocence, even though, he says, "deep down I knew I didn't do it."
After he was released, Anderson returned to the streets. As is typical in cases where people are wrongly implicated in a crime, he received no compensation for his time in jail. He has continued to struggle with alcohol but has stayed out of major legal trouble since. He's applying for Social Security, which could help him finally secure housing.
Anderson feels certain he's not the only innocent person to be locked up because of transfer. He considers himself blessed by God to be free. And he has advice about DNA evidence: "There's more that's gotta be looked at than just the DNA," he says. "You've got to dig deeper a little more. Re-analyze. Do everything all over again … before you say 'this is what it is.' Because it may not necessarily be so."
*****
Lukis Anderson’s DNA was found on the nails of murder victim Raveesh Kumra in California.It was proved he was in hospital when the murder occurred.
One has to wonder which one she favours.
Let’s start with Grime and the dog lead.
In an apartment where, the FSS (let’s not dwell on stain #3 for now) says no clear DNA from Maddie in the apartment, Martin Grime, wearing gloves, just happened to hit jackpot and touch where there was some with the dog lead where the forensic specialists were not able to find any!
Even if the Frog is trying to convince us of that, she faces a major problem and that is the PJ Files. In them, it’s photographed every single location from where biological samples were found. The location was minutely scoured and ALL locations where the minimal biological sample was found was signalled.
To prove her point, all the frog has to do is to match where the dog leash touched – by the way, in her own words, a sticky place – and tell us what stain it is:
Thank goodness the whole thing is on video. We are certain that very soon the Frog will be able to show us the exact frames where Martin Grime touched in any of those spots with the dog lead. Or with his gloves.
The Frog shows us a photo of the bedroom and Grime touching the bed. No biological sample was found on the bed.
The Frog shows us Grime touching the couch. Nowhere near where the biological samples were found.
Lastly, about the gloves. So, apparently we are supposed to believe that Martin Grime did not change gloves between the searches in 5A and in the Scenic? When did he throw them away? In 2013? Or maybe they lasted until 2015?
Frog, why didn’t you mention the gloves in your initial tweet? And why not mention the suit?
By the way, and just asking, if this had ANY possibility of being real, why wasn’t the dog lead tested for biological samples by forensics?
Oh, and did the dog lead work like a sponge in art school? Was it was dipped in DNA in apartment 5A and then taken over, certainly dripping with the stuff, to the Scenic to smudge the inside of the Scenic with it as if it was a 3D canvas?
Now to the case that was supposed to be of a man in a coma but it turns out to have been one who was drunk.
The Frog has tweeted the article but we have found another one on the same case that we think is much more complete:
https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/amp
Katie Worth
04.19.18 7:00 AM
Framed for Murder By His Own DNA
This investigation was published in partnership with The Marshall Project and FRONTLINE (PBS).
When the DNA results came back, even Lukis Anderson thought he might have committed the murder.
"I drink a lot," he remembers telling public defender Kelley Kulick as they sat in a plain interview room at the Santa Clara County, California, jail. Sometimes he blacked out, so it was possible he did something he didn't remember. "Maybe I did do it."
Kulick shushed him. If she was going to keep her new client off death row, he couldn't go around saying things like that. But she agreed. It looked bad.
Before he was charged with murder, Anderson was a 26-year-old homeless alcoholic with a long rap sheet who spent his days hustling for change in downtown San Jose. The murder victim, Raveesh Kumra, was a 66-year-old investor who lived in Monte Sereno, a Silicon Valley enclave 10 miles and many socioeconomic rungs away.
Around midnight on November 29, 2012, a group of men had broken into Kumra's 7,000-square-foot mansion. They found him watching CNN in the living room, tied him, blindfolded him, and gagged him with mustache-print duct tape. They found his companion, Harinder, asleep in an upstairs bedroom, hit her on the mouth, and tied her up next to Raveesh. Then they plundered the house for cash and jewelry.
After the men left, Harinder, still blindfolded, felt her way to a kitchen phone and called 911. Police arrived, then an ambulance. One of the paramedics declared Raveesh dead. The coroner would later conclude that he had been suffocated by the mustache tape.
Three and a half weeks later, the police arrested Anderson. His DNA had been found on Raveesh's fingernails. They believed the men struggled as Anderson tied up his victim. They charged him with murder. Kulick was appointed to his case.
As they looked at the DNA results, Anderson tried to make sense of a crime he had no memory of committing.
"Nah, nah, nah. I don't do things like that," he recalls telling her. "But maybe I did."
"Lukis, shut up," Kulick says she told him. "Let's just hit the pause button till we work through the evidence to really see what happened."
What happened, although months would pass before anyone figured it out, was that Lukis Anderson's DNA had found its way onto the fingernails of a dead man he had never even met.
Back in the 1980s, when DNA forensic analysis was still in its infancy, crime labs needed a speck of bodily fluid—usually blood, semen, or spit—to generate a genetic profile.
That changed in 1997, when Australian forensic scientist Roland van Oorschot stunned the criminal justice world with a nine-paragraph paper [https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/DNA-fingerprints-from-fingerprints-11782] titled "DNA Fingerprints from Fingerprints." It revealed that DNA could be detected not just from bodily fluids but from traces left by a touch. Investigators across the globe began scouring crime scenes for anything—a doorknob, a countertop, a knife handle—that a perpetrator may have tainted with incriminating "touch" DNA.
But van Oorschot's paper also contained a vital observation: Some people's DNA appeared on things that they had never touched.
In the years since, van Oorschot's lab has been one of the few to investigate this phenomenon, dubbed "secondary transfer." What they have learned is that, once it's out in the world, DNA doesn't always stay put.
In one of his lab's experiments [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25454534], for instance, volunteers sat at a table and shared a jug of juice. After 20 minutes of chatting and sipping, swabs were deployed on their hands, the chairs, the table, the jug, and the juice glasses, then tested for genetic material. Although the volunteers never touched each other, 50 percent wound up with another's DNA on their hand. A third of the glasses bore the DNA of volunteers who did not touch or drink from them.
Then there was the foreign DNA—profiles that didn't match any of the juice drinkers. It turned up on about half of the chairs and glasses, and all over the participants' hands and the table. The only explanation: The participants unwittingly brought with them alien genes, perhaps from the lover they kissed that morning, the stranger with whom they had shared a bus grip, or the barista who handed them an afternoon latte.
In a sense, this isn't surprising: We leave a trail of ourselves everywhere we go. An average person may shed upward of 50 million skin cells a day. Attorney Erin Murphy, author of Inside the Cell, a book about forensic DNA, has calculated that in two minutes the average person sheds enough skin cells to cover a football field. We also spew saliva, which is packed with DNA. If we stand still and talk for 30 seconds, our DNA may be found more than a yard away. With a forceful sneeze, it might land on a nearby wall.
To find out the prevalence of DNA in the world, a group of Dutch researchers tested [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26736139] 105 public items—escalator rails, public toilet door handles, shopping basket handles, coins. Ninety-one percent bore human DNA, sometimes from half a dozen people. Even items intimate to us—the armpits of our shirts, say—can bear other people's DNA, they found.
The itinerant nature of DNA has serious implications for forensic investigations. After all, if traces of our DNA can make their way to a crime scene we never visited, aren't we all possible suspects?
Forensic DNA has other flaws [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-surprisingly-imperfect-science-of-dna-testing-2/]: Complex mixtures of many DNA profiles can be wrongly interpreted, certainty statistics are often wildly miscalculated, and DNA analysis robots have sometimes been stretched past the limits of their sensitivity.
But as advances in technology are solving some of these problems, they have actually made the problem of DNA transfer worse. Each new generation of forensic tools is more sensitive; labs today can identify people with DNA from just a handful of cells. A handful of cells can easily migrate.
A survey of the published science, interviews with leading scientists, and a review of thousands of pages of court and police documents associated with the Kumra case has elucidated how secondary DNA transfer can undermine the credibility of the criminal justice system's most-trusted tool. And yet, very few crime labs worldwide regularly and robustly study secondary DNA transfer.
This is partly because most forensic scientists believe DNA to be the least of their field's problems. They're not wrong: DNA is the most accurate forensic science we have. It has exonerated scores of people convicted based on more flawed disciplines like hair or bite-mark analysis. And there have been few publicized cases of DNA mistakenly implicating someone in a crime.
But, like most human enterprises, DNA analysis is not perfect. And without study, the scope and impact of that imperfection is difficult to assess, says Peter Gill, a British forensic researcher. He has little doubt that his field, so often credited with solving crimes, is also responsible for wrongful convictions.
"The problem is we're not looking for these things," Gill says. "For every miscarriage of justice that is detected, there must be a dozen that are never discovered."
The phone rang five times.
"Are you awake?" the dispatcher asked.
"Yeah," lied Corporal Erin Lunsford.
"Are you back on full duty or you still light duty?" she asked, according to a tape of the call.
Lunsford had been off crutches for two weeks already, but it was 2:15 am and pouring rain. Probably some downed tree needed to be policed. "Light duty," Lunsford said.
"Oh," she said. "Never mind."
"Why, what are you calling about?" he asked.
"We had a home invasion that turned into a 187," she said. Cop slang for murder.
"Shit, seriously?" Lunsford said, waking up.
Lunsford had served all 15 of his professional years as a police officer at the Los Gatos–Monte Sereno Police Department, a 38-officer agency that policed two drowsy towns. He rose through the ranks and was working a stint in the department's detective bureau. He had mostly been investigating property crimes. Los Gatos, a wealthy bedroom community of Silicon Valley, averaged a homicide once every three or four years. Monte Sereno, a bedroom community of the bedroom community, hadn't had a homicide in roughly 20.
Lunsford got dressed. He drove through the November torrent. He spotted cop cars clustered around a brick and iron gate. An ambulance flashed quietly in the driveway. Beyond it, the lit Kumra mansion.
Lunsford's boss told him to take the lead on the investigation. The on-scene supervisor walked him through the house. Dressers emptied, files dumped. A cellphone in a toilet, pissed on. A refrigerator beeping every 10 seconds, announcing its doors were ajar. Raveesh’s body, heavyset and disheveled, on the floor near the kitchen. His eyes still blindfolded.
An investigator from the county coroner's office arrived and moved Kumra's body into a van. Lunsford followed her to the morgue for the autopsy. A doctor undressed the victim and scraped and cut his fingernails for evidence.
Lunsford recognized Raveesh, a wealthy businessman who had once owned a share of a local concert venue. Lunsford had come to the Kumra mansion a couple times on "family calls" that never amounted to anything: "Just people arguing," he recalled. He had also run into him at Goguen's Last Call, a dive frequented by Raveesh as a regular and Lunsford as a cop responding to calls. Raveesh was an affable extrovert, always buying rounds; the unofficial mayor of that part of town, Lunsford called him.
In the coming days, as Lunsford interviewed people who knew the Kumras, he was told that Raveesh also had relationships with sex workers. Raveesh and Harinder had divorced around 2010 after more than 30 years of marriage, but still lived together.
While Lunsford attended the autopsy, a team of gloved investigators combed the mansion. They tucked paper evidence into manila envelopes; bulkier items into brown paper bags. They amassed more than 100.
Teams specializing in crime scene investigations were first assembled over a century ago, after the French scientist Edmond Locard devised the principle that birthed the field of forensics: A perpetrator will bring something to a crime scene and leave with something from it. Van Oorschot's touch DNA discovery had unveiled the most literal expression imaginable of Locard's principle.
Like those early teams, the investigators in the Kumra mansion were looking for fingerprints, footprints, and hair. But unlike their predecessors, they devoted considerable time to thinking through everything the perpetrators may have touched.
Some perpetrators are giving thought to this as well. A 2013 Canadian study [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15614263.2013.846548?src=recsys&journalCode=gppr20&] of 350 sexual homicides found that about a third of perpetrators appeared to have taken care not to leave DNA, killing their victims in tidier ways than beating or strangling, which are likely to leave behind genetic clues, for instance. And it worked: In those "forensically aware" cases, police solved the case 50 percent of the time, compared to 83 percent of their sloppier counterparts.
The men who killed Kumra seemed somewhat forensically aware, albeit clumsily. They had worn latex gloves through their rampage; a pile of them were left in the kitchen sink, wet and soapy, as though someone had tried to wash off the DNA.
In the weeks after the murder, Tahnee Nelson Mehmet, a criminalist at the county crime lab, ran dozens of tests on the evidence collected from the Kumra mansion. Most only revealed DNA profiles consistent with Raveesh or Harinder.
But in her first few batches of evidence, Mehmet hit forensic pay dirt: a handful of unknown profiles—including on the washed gloves. She ran them through the state database of people arrested for or convicted of felonies and got three hits, all from the Bay Area: 22-year-old DeAngelo Austin on the duct tape; 21-year-old Javier Garcia on the gloves; and, on the fingernail clippings, 26-year-old Lukis Anderson.
Within weeks of the DNA hits, Lunsford had plenty of evidence implicating Austin and Garcia: Both were from Oakland, but a warrant for their cellphone records showed they'd pinged towers near Monte Sereno the night of the homicide. Police records showed that Austin belonged to a gang linked to a series of home burglaries. And most damning of all, Austin's older sister, a 32-year-old sex worker named Katrina Fritz, had been involved with Raveesh for 12 years. Police had even found her phone backed up on Raveesh's computer. Eventually she would admit that she had given her brother a map of the house.
Connecting Anderson to the crime proved trickier. There were no phone records showing he had traveled to Monte Sereno that night. He wasn't associated with a gang. But one thing on his rap sheet drew Lunsford's attention: A felony residential burglary.
Eventually Lunsford found a link. A year earlier, Anderson had been locked up in the same jail as a friend of Austin's named Shawn Hampton. Hampton wore an ankle monitor as a condition of his parole. It showed that two days before the crime he had driven to San Jose. He made a couple of stops downtown, right near Anderson's territory.
It started to crystallize for Lunsford: When Austin was planning the break-in, he wanted a local guy experienced in burglary. So Hampton hooked him up with his jail buddy Anderson.
Anderson had recently landed back in jail after violating his probation on the burglary charge. Lunsford and his boss, Sergeant Mike D'Antonio, visited him there. They taped the interview.
"Does this guy look familiar to you? What about this lady?" Lunsford said, laying out pictures of the victims on the interview room table.
"I don't know, man," Anderson said.
Lunsford pulled out a picture of Anderson's mother.
"All right, what about this lady here? You don't know who she is?" Lunsford said.
Anderson met Lunsford's sarcasm with silence.
Lunsford set down a letter from the state of California showing the database match between Anderson's DNA and the profile found on the victim's fingernails.
"This starting to ring some bells?" Lunsford said.
"My guess is you didn't think anybody was gonna be home," D'Antonio said. "My guess is it went way farther than you ever thought it would go."
"I don't know what you're talking about, sir," Anderson said.
"You do," Lunsford said. "You won't look at their pictures. The only picture you looked at good was your mom."
Finally, D'Antonio took a compromising tone.
"Lukis, Lukis, Lukis," he said. "I don't have a crystal ball to know what the truth is. Only you do. And in all the years I've been doing this I've never seen a DNA hit being wrong."
Anderson had been in jail on the murder charge for over a month when a defense investigator dropped a stack of records on Kulick's desk. Look at them, the investigator said. Now.
They were Anderson's medical records. Because his murder charge could carry the death penalty, Kulick had the investigator pull everything pertinent to Anderson's medical history, including his mental health, in case they had to ask for leniency during sentencing.
She suspected Anderson could be a good candidate for such leniency. He spent much of his childhood homeless. In early adulthood, he was diagnosed with a mental health disorder and diabetes. And he had developed a mighty alcohol addiction. One day, while drunk, he stepped off a curb and into the path of a moving truck. He survived, but his memory was never quite right again. He lost track of days, sometimes several in a row.
That's not to say his life was bleak. He made friends easily. He had a coy sense of humor and dimples that shone like headlights. His buddies, many on the streets themselves, looked after him, as did some downtown shopkeepers. Kulick and her investigator had spoken to several of them. They shook their heads. Anderson might be a drunk, they said, but he wasn't a killer.
His rap sheet seemed to agree. It was filled with petty crimes: drunk in public, riding a bike under the influence, probation violations. The one serious conviction—the residential burglary that had caught Lunsford's attention—seemed more benign upon careful reading. According to the police report, Anderson had drunkenly broken the front window of a home and tried to crawl through. The horrified resident had pushed him back out with blankets. Police found him a few minutes later standing on the sidewalk, dazed and bleeding. Though nothing had been stolen, he had been charged with a felony and pleaded no contest. His DNA was added to the state criminal database.
The medical records showed that Anderson was also a regular in county hospitals. Most recently, he had arrived in an ambulance to Valley Medical Center, where he was declared inebriated nearly to the point of unconsciousness. Blood alcohol tests indicated he had consumed the equivalent of 21 beers. He spent the night detoxing. The next morning he was discharged, somewhat more sober.
The date on that record was November 29. If the record was right, Anderson had been in the hospital precisely as Raveesh Kumra was suffocating on duct tape miles away.
Kulick remembers turning to the investigator, who was staring back at her. She was used to alibis being partial and difficult to prove. This one was signed by hospital staff. More than anything, she felt terrified. "To know that you have a factually innocent client sitting in jail facing the death penalty is really scary," she said later. "You don't want to screw up."
She knew Lunsford and the prosecutors would try to find holes: Perhaps the date on the record was wrong, or someone had stolen his ID, or there was more than one Lukis Anderson.
So she and the investigator systematically retraced his day. Anderson had only patchy recollections of the night in question. But they found a record that a 7-Eleven clerk called authorities at 7:54 pm complaining that Anderson was panhandling. He moved on before the police arrived.
His meanderings took him four blocks east, to S&S Market. The clerk there told Kulick that Anderson sat down in front of the store at about 8:15 pm, already drunk, and got drunker. A couple of hours later, he wandered into the store and collapsed in an aisle. The clerk called the authorities.
The police arrived first, followed by a truck from the San Jose Fire Department. A paramedic with the fire department told Kulick he had picked up Anderson drunk so often that he knew his birth date by heart. Two other paramedics arrived with an ambulance. They wrestled Anderson onto a stretcher and took him to the hospital. According to his medical records, he was admitted at 10:45 pm. The doctor who treated him said Anderson remained in bed through the night.
Harinder Kumra had said the men who killed Raveesh rampaged through her house sometime between 11:30 pm and 1:30 am.
Kulick called the district attorney's office. She wanted to meet with them and Lunsford.
In 2008, German detectives were on the trail of the "Phantom of Heilbronn." A serial killer and thief, the Phantom murdered immigrants and a cop, robbed a gemstone trader, and munched on a cookie while burglarizing a caravan. Police mobilized across borders, offered a large reward, and racked up more than 16,000 hours on the hunt. But they struggled to discern a pattern to the crimes, other than the DNA profile the Phantom left at 40 crime scenes in Germany, France, and Austria.
At long last, they found the Phantom: An elderly Polish worker in a factory that produced the swabs police used to collect DNA. She had somehow contaminated the swabs as she worked. Crime scene investigators had, in turn, contaminated dozens of crime scenes with her DNA.
Contamination, the unintentional introduction of DNA into evidence by the very people investigating the crime, is the best understood form of transfer. And after Lunsford heard Kulick's presentation—then retraced Anderson's day himself, concluded he had jailed an innocent man, and felt sick to his stomach for a while—he counted contamination among his leading theories.
As the Phantom of Heilbronn case demonstrated, contamination can happen long before evidence arrives in a lab. A 2016 study [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27100680] by Gill, the British forensic researcher, found DNA on three-quarters of crime scene tools he tested, including cameras, measuring tapes, and gloves. Those items can pick up DNA at one scene and move it to the next.
Once it arrives in the lab, the risk continues: One set of researchers found [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26977932] stray DNA in even the cleanest parts of their lab. Worried that the very case files they worked on could be a source of contamination, they tested 20. Seventy-five percent held the DNA of people who hadn't handled the file.
In Santa Clara County, the district attorney's office reviewed the Kumra case and found no obvious evidence of errors or improper use of tools in the crime lab. They checked if Anderson's DNA had shown up in any other cases the lab had recently handled, and inadvertently wandered into the Kumra case. It had not.
So they began investigating a second theory: That Raveesh and Anderson somehow met in the hours or days before the homicide, at which point Anderson's DNA became caught under Raveesh's fingernails.
"We are convinced that at some point—we just don't know when in the 24 hours, 48 hours, or 72 hours beforehand—that their paths crossed," deputy district attorney Kevin Smith told a San Francisco Chronicle reporter.
There now exists a small pile of studies exploring how DNA moves: If a man shakes someone's hand and then uses the restroom, could their DNA wind up on his penis? (Yes.[https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/science-and-justice]) If someone drags another person by the ankles, how often does their profile clearly show up? (40 percent of the time.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26736139]) And, of utmost relevance to Lukis Anderson, how many of us walk around with traces of other people's DNA on our fingernails? (1 in 5.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680274])
Whether someone's DNA moves from one place to another—and then is found there—depends on a handful of factors: quantity (two transferred cells are less likely to be detected than 2,000), vigor of contact (a limp handshake relays less DNA than a bone-crushing one), the nature of the surfaces involved (a tabletop's chemical content affects how much DNA it picks up), and elapsed time (we're more likely carrying DNA of someone we just hugged than someone we hugged hours ago, since foreign DNA tends to rub off over time).
Then there's a person's shedding status: "Good" shedders lavish their DNA on their environment; "poor" shedders move through the world virtually undetectable, genetically speaking. In general, flaky, sweaty, or diseased skin is thought to shed more DNA than healthy, arid skin. Nail chewers, nose pickers, and habitual face touchers spread their DNA around, as do hands that haven't seen a bar of soap lately—discarded DNA can accumulate over time, and soap helps wash it away.
And some people simply seem to be naturally superior shedders. Mariya Goray, a forensic science researcher in van Oorschot's lab who coauthored the juice study with him, has found one of her colleagues to be an outrageously prodigious shedder. "He's amazing," she said, her voice tinged with admiration. "Maybe I'll do a study on him. And the study will just be called, 'James.'"
She hopes to develop a test to determine a person's shedder status, which could be deployed to assess a suspect's claims that their DNA arrived somewhere innocently.
Such a test could have been useful in the case [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html] of David Butler, an English cabdriver. In 2011, DNA found on the fingernails of a woman who had been murdered six years earlier was run through a database and matched Butler's. He swore he'd never met the woman. His defense attorney noted that he had a skin condition so severe that fellow cabbies had dubbed him "Flaky." Perhaps he had given a ride to the actual murderer that day, who inadvertently picked up Butler's DNA in the cab and later deposited it on the victim, they theorized.
Investigators didn't buy the explanation, but jurors did. Butler was acquitted after eight months in jail. Upon release, he excoriated police for their blind faith in the evidence.
"DNA has become the magic bullet for the police," Butler told the BBC. [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19412819] "They thought it was my DNA, ergo it must be me."
Traditional police work would have never steered police to Anderson. But the DNA hit led them to seek other evidence confirming his guilt. "It wasn't malicious. It was confirmation bias," Kulick says. "They got the DNA, and then they made up a story to fit it."
Had the case gone to trial, jurors may well have done the same. A 2008 series of studies [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-10844-002] by researchers at the University of Nevada, Yale, and Claremont McKenna College found that jurors rated DNA evidence as 95 percent accurate and 94 percent persuasive of a suspect's guilt.
Eleven leading DNA transfer scientists contacted for this story were in consensus that the criminal justice system must be willing to question DNA evidence. They were also in agreement about whose job it should be to navigate those queries: forensic scientists.
As it stands, forensic scientists generally stick to the question of source (whose DNA is this?) and leave activity (how did it get here?) for judges and juries to wrestle with. But the researchers contend that forensic scientists are best armed with the information necessary to answer that question.
Consider a case in which a man is accused of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. He looks mighty guilty when his DNA and a fragment of sperm is found on her underwear. But jurors might give the defense more credence if a forensic scientist familiarized them with a 2016 Canadian study [https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2816%2930073-4/fulltext] showing that fathers' DNA is frequently found on their daughters' clean underwear; occasionally, a fragment of sperm is there too. It migrates there in the wash.
This shift—from reporting on who to reporting on how—has been encouraged by the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. But the shift has been slow on that continent and virtually nonexistent in the United States, where defense attorneys have argued that forensic scientists—in many communities employed by the prosecutor's office or police department—should be careful to stick to the facts rather than make conjectures.
"The problem is that when forensic scientists get involved in those determinations, they're wrought with confirmation bias," says Jennifer Friedman, a Los Angeles County public defender.
Meanwhile, forensic scientists in the US have resisted the shift, arguing they lack the data to confidently testify about how DNA moves.
Van Oorschot and Gill concede this point. Only a handful of labs in Europe and Australia regularly research transfer. The forensic scientists interviewed for this story say they are not aware of any lab or university in the US that routinely does so.
Funding gets some of the blame: The Australian labs and some European labs get government dollars to study DNA transfer. But British forensic researcher and professor Georgina Meakin of University College London says she must find alternative ways to pay for her own transfer research; the Centre for Forensic Sciences, where Meakin works, has launched a crowdfunding page for a new lab to study trace evidence transfer. In the US, all the grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Institute of Justice for forensics research put together likely sum just $13.5 million a year, according to a 2016 report on forensic science by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST); of that, very little has been spent looking into DNA transfer.
"The folks with the greatest interest in making sure forensic science isn't misused are defendants," says Eric Lander, principal leader of the Human Genome Project, who cochaired PCAST under President Obama. "Defendants don't have an awful lot of power."
In 2009, after issuing a report harshly criticizing the paucity of science behind most forensics, the National Academy of Sciences urged Congress to create a new, independent federal agency to oversee the field. There was little political appetite to do that. Instead, in 2013, Obama created a 40-member National Commission on Forensic Science, filled it with people who saw forensics from radically different perspectives—prosecutors, defense attorneys, academics, lab analysts, and scientists—and made a rule that all actions must be approved by a supermajority. Naturally, the commission got off to a slow start. But ultimately it produced more than 40 recommendations and opinions. These lacked the teeth of a regulatory ruling, but the Justice Department was obligated to respond to them.
At the beginning, most of the commission's efforts were focused on improving other disciplines, "because DNA testing as a whole is so much better than much forensic science that we had focused a lot of our attention elsewhere," says US district judge Jed Rakoff, a member of the commission.
According to Rakoff and other members interviewed, the commission was just digging into issues touching on DNA transfer when attorney general Jeff Sessions took office last year. In April 2017, his department announced it would not renew the commission's charter. It never met again.
Then, in August, President Trump signed the Rapid DNA Act of 2017, allowing law enforcement to use new technology that produces DNA results in just 90 minutes. The bill had bipartisan support and received little press. But privacy advocates worry it may usher in an era of widespread "stop and spit" policing, in which law enforcement asks anyone they stop for a DNA sample. This is already occurring in towns in Florida, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, according to reporting by ProPublica [https://www.propublica.org/article/dna-dragnet-in-some-cities-police-go-from-stop-and-frisk-to-stop-and-spit]. If law enforcement deems there is probable cause, they can compel someone to provide DNA; otherwise, it is voluntary.
If stop-and-spit becomes more widely used and police databases swell, it could have a disproportionate impact on African Americans and Latinos, who are more often searched, ticketed, and arrested by police. In most states, a felony arrest is enough to add someone in perpetuity to the state database. Just this month, the California Supreme Court declined to overturn [https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dna-supreme-court-20180402-story.html] a provision requiring all people arrested or charged for a felony to give up their DNA; in Oklahoma, the DNA of any undocumented immigrant arrested on suspicion of any crime is added to a database. Those whose DNA appears in a database face a greater risk of being implicated in a crime they didn't commit.
It was Lunsford who figured it out in the end.
He was reading through Anderson's medical records and paused on the names of the ambulance paramedics who picked up Anderson from his repose on the sidewalk outside S&S Market. He had seen them before.
He pulled up the Kumra case files. Sure enough, there were the names again: Three hours after picking up Anderson, the two paramedics had responded to the Kumra mansion, where they checked Raveesh's vitals.
The prosecutors, defense attorney, and police agree that somehow, the paramedics must have moved Anderson's DNA from San Jose to Monte Sereno. Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has postulated that a pulse oximeter slipped over both patients' fingers may have been the culprit; Kulick thinks it could have been their uniforms or another piece of equipment. It may never be known for sure.
A spokesman for Rural/Metro Corporation, where the paramedics worked, told San Francisco TV station KPIX5 that the company had high sanitation standards, requiring paramedics to change gloves and sanitize the vehicles.
Deputy District Attorney Smith framed the incident as a freak accident. "It's a small world," he told a San Francisco Chronicle reporter.
The trial against the other men implicated in the case moved forward. Austin's older sister, Fritz, testified in trials against him and Garcia. She also testified against a third man, Marcellous Drummer, whose DNA had been found on evidence from the Kumra crime scene months after the initial hits.
During the trials, Harinder Kumra told jurors she was still haunted by the image of the man who split her lip open. "Every day I see that face. Every night when I sleep, when there's a noise, I think it's him," she said. She has sold the mansion. Members of the Kumra family declined to comment for this story.
The DNA in the case did not go uncontested. Garcia's attorney argued that, like Anderson's, Garcia's DNA had arrived at the scene inadvertently. According to the attorney, Austin had come by the trap house where Garcia hung out to pick up Garcia's cousin; the cousin was in on the crime and had borrowed a box of gloves that Garcia frequently used, which is why Garcia's DNA was found on the gloves at the crime scene; the reason Garcia's cellphone pinged towers near Monte Sereno was because his cousin had borrowed it that night. However, the cousin died within weeks of the crime, and therefore wasn't questioned or investigated.
Jurors were not persuaded and convicted Garcia, along with Drummer and Austin, of murder, robbery of an inhabited place, and false imprisonment.
"I get it," says Garcia's attorney Christopher Givens. "People hear DNA and say, oh, sure you loaned your phone to someone."
A jury could have had the same reaction to Anderson, had his alibi not been discovered, Givens says. "The sad thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually pleaded to something. They probably would have offered him a deal, and he would have been scared enough to take it."
Garcia received a sentence of 37 years to life; Drummer and Austin's sentences were enhanced for gang affiliation to life without parole. Garcia and Austin have appeals pending. Fritz received a reduced sentence for her testimony. In 2017 she was released from jail after spending four years in custody.
Lunsford received accolades for his detective work in the Kumra case and has since been promoted to sergeant; his boss, D'Antonio, is now a captain. But Lunsford says his perspective on DNA has forever changed. "We shook hands, and I transferred on you, you transferred on me. It happens. It's just biological," he says.
Based on interviews with prosecutors, defense lawyers and DNA experts, Anderson's case is the clearest known case of DNA transference implicating an innocent man. It's impossible to say how often this kind of thing happens, but law enforcement officials argue that it is well outside the norm. "There is no piece of evidence or science which is absolutely perfect, but DNA is the closest we have," says District Attorney Rosen. "Mr. Anderson was a very unusual situation. We haven't come across it again."
Van Oorschot, the forensic science researcher whose 1997 paper revolutionized the field, cautions against disbelieving too much in the power of touch DNA to solve crimes. "I think it's made a huge impact in a positive way," he says. "But no one should ever rely solely on DNA evidence to judge what's going on."
Anderson's case has altered the criminal justice system in a small but important way, says Kulick.
"As defense attorneys, we used to get laughed out of the courtroom if in closing arguments we argued transfer," she says. "That was hocus-pocus. That was made up fiction. But Lukis showed us that it's real."
The cost of that demonstration was almost half a year of Anderson's life.
Being accused of murder was "gut-wrenching," he says. It pains him that he questioned his own innocence, even though, he says, "deep down I knew I didn't do it."
After he was released, Anderson returned to the streets. As is typical in cases where people are wrongly implicated in a crime, he received no compensation for his time in jail. He has continued to struggle with alcohol but has stayed out of major legal trouble since. He's applying for Social Security, which could help him finally secure housing.
Anderson feels certain he's not the only innocent person to be locked up because of transfer. He considers himself blessed by God to be free. And he has advice about DNA evidence: "There's more that's gotta be looked at than just the DNA," he says. "You've got to dig deeper a little more. Re-analyze. Do everything all over again … before you say 'this is what it is.' Because it may not necessarily be so."
*****
Lukis Anderson’s DNA was found on the nails of murder victim Raveesh Kumra in California.It was proved he was in hospital when the murder occurred.
When drunk on a sidewalk Anderson had been taken to hospital by paramedics.
Reading Anderson’s medical records, a police officer discovered that the same ambulance paramedics who attended Anderson had also responded to a call to the murder victim’s home, where they checked his vitals.
It was not known how the transfer occurred, it is PLAUSIBLE to have been the pulse oximeter uniforms or another equipment.
The company employing the paramedics say they required paramedics to change gloves and sanitize vehicles.
It was regarded by the Deputy DA as a freak accident.
3 men were subsequently found guilty and DNA evidence was used in evidence against them. Although one of the accused claimed transfer of his DNA, he was convicted by the jury.
Moral of the story is that not only the apparent displacement has a reasonable, logical and feasible explanation BUT that said explanation was investigated, the authorities investigated the reasons for it to have happened and came to a reasonable, logical and feasible conclusion.
Reading Anderson’s medical records, a police officer discovered that the same ambulance paramedics who attended Anderson had also responded to a call to the murder victim’s home, where they checked his vitals.
It was not known how the transfer occurred, it is PLAUSIBLE to have been the pulse oximeter uniforms or another equipment.
The company employing the paramedics say they required paramedics to change gloves and sanitize vehicles.
It was regarded by the Deputy DA as a freak accident.
3 men were subsequently found guilty and DNA evidence was used in evidence against them. Although one of the accused claimed transfer of his DNA, he was convicted by the jury.
Moral of the story is that not only the apparent displacement has a reasonable, logical and feasible explanation BUT that said explanation was investigated, the authorities investigated the reasons for it to have happened and came to a reasonable, logical and feasible conclusion.
The travelling DNA (Block 4 - Block 5 - villa - Scenic) or the dog lead DNA are NOT reasonable, logical or even feasible hypothesis and they insult everyone’s intelligence.
But they do show some despair on Frog’s part.
Bringing over this comment and respective reply from previous post:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous1 Apr 2019, 04:50:00
https://www.facebook.com/Sunrise/videos/436357527102057/?v=436357527102057
Replies
Anonymous1 Apr 2019, 10:06:00
The FSS didn’t lack the tools to analyse the data. They didn’t use the tools available to them. They did have Cryogenics software available to them as they had used it previously.
Maybe in 2007 it wasn’t as advanced as it is now, but there was no attempt to use the software available to them at the time.
Also bringing over this comment from previous post:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous1 Apr 2019, 11:05:00
https://www.9news.com.au/maddie
episode 6 the courtroom.
Our synopsis:
DeleteMark S speaks to Perlin on phone, suggesting he speaks to Met Police directly. Perlin says if he sends contact information he will do so. Government will run risk of admitting past mistakes.
Mark S has sent Perlin some of FSS codes which we imagine he means to be some data in PJ files.
Australian police officer Paul James, also barrister and PhD in medical science says the answer is always in the files and that he would engage Perlin as expert witness and give him everything he needs.
Fund discussed. Uncle Brian Kennedy on May 17 says fund “for all sorts of reasons but probably mainly for legal expenditure”. Why the focus on legal expenditure not search?
Enid O’Dowd, chartered accountant from Dublin interviewed. Estimates £4million raised for M fund. Through FOI she got info that Mc lawyers tried to set it up as a charity but couldn’t as no agreement could be reached about providing financial assistance to M’s family.
Enid says accounts have become increasingly less transparent since 2008. Only 13% of income appears to have been spent on search from accounts she studied.
Mark S says it seems £270 k spent on expenses compared to £250k on search fees for PI’s like M3 Why £321k on legal fees? (and we ask if £29K covers court costs, have they spent £292K on lawyers?).
Follows court recordings which we presume to be legal to have been made and legal to broadcast covert recordings.
Kate says she hasn’t worked since M abducted. She thinks she would be thought worse than cowardly if people believed what GA book said.
Gerry gave evidence for 25 minutes. Book caused anguish, despair but documentary was worse than book. Self, family friends seen as liars, cold ruthless who would hide rather help her if something happened. When files closed, made explicitly clear no evidence M is dead.
Mark S refers to Attorney Generla report of July 2008, which we are supposing to be the archiving dispatch, and says arguably not the only way to interpret that report as more probable M was dead, he goes on to say about it, that it was an apparent case of neglect and that there were no indications of a crime by K and G.
Tricia Cameron and Alan Pike say different things about K and G reaction to being made arguidos.
Tricia says they were affected by it but Pike says they expected it as normal for people closest to be investigated and had expected it to be sooner.
We won’t go through everything said on court tape as it’s best to listen to it.
Alessandra Veina (not sure of spelling) of M3 who were paid £50k pm, quit after not being paid. They lost contract in March 2008.
Francisco Marco claimed 12 days before Christmas 2007 that he knew who and how M taken and where she was, without any evidence.
She had followed one lead in France but concluded girl wasn’t M. Very little work done by M3. She believed M was victim of organised abduction and Mcs not involved.
We would like to make it cleat that it was only one line in the AG report (archiving dispatch?), quoted by Mark, saying more probable M was dead.
DeleteJust to clarify that it wasn’t Mark S concluding that.
VERY INTERESTING thread:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Mr_Bo_Jangles_1/status/1112664239611826176
Mark Dunn @Mr_Bo_Jangles_1
I'm staggered that none of the #McCann followers have mentioned the new up to date DNA testing that has been offered free of charge. Surely they want to bring Maddie home and clear the parents name, but no not one of them have given this a second look. Their silence is deafening.
3:33 am - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112670163126681602
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Mr_Bo_Jangles_1
The Met have had access to LiRa software since 2015 via Eurofins Forensics. It was developed by LGC who were one of the main private forensic companies used by UK police until taken over by Eurofin. Same capabilities as TrueAllele. #mccann
3:56 am - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/Mr_Bo_Jangles_1/status/1112670630342811648
Mark Dunn @Mr_Bo_Jangles_1
Replying to @FragrantFrog
Having access to it and using it are two different things #mccann
3:58 am - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112673655467794434
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Mr_Bo_Jangles_1
Why would the Met tell the public if they had retested anything & what new results were gained? Maybe retesting helped produce fresh leads or even the final lead. #mccann
4:10 am - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/Mr_Bo_Jangles_1/status/1112674068145291264
Mark Dunn @Mr_Bo_Jangles_1
Replying to @FragrantFrog
So why the deafening silence from the Met and the parents? Surely this offer could clear their name?
4:12 am - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112678148301340674
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Mr_Bo_Jangles_1
How would it clear their name? Madeleine's DNA could have easily been transferred into the boot of the car when they moved the family belongings from 5A to the rented villa. The DNA was a mixture - who were the other contributors?
4:28 am - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/Mr_Bo_Jangles_1/status/1112679017101094912
Mark Dunn @Mr_Bo_Jangles_1
Replying to @FragrantFrog
So you're not in favour of this offer to re test using up to date technology? #mccann
4:32 am - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112680818021937154
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Mr_Bo_Jangles_1
If there are samples which can be retested then I have no problem with that being done. However, the technology Perlin offers is already available in the UK & has been for many years so what is the probability it hasn't already been used?
4:39 am - 1 Apr 2019
*****
It looks like as if Perlin can distinguish transferred DNA:
https://www.cybgen.com/information/newsroom/2018/jul/DNA-transfer-in-Faquier-county-The-CVS-murder.shtml
https://www.cybgen.com/information/education/2019/ACDA/Perlin-DNA-transfer-for-lawyers/page.shtml
And to answer the Frog’s question on the last tweet published of the thread “However, the technology Perlin offers is already available in the UK & has been for many years so what is the probability it hasn't already been used?” the answer is very simple: if it had and it cleared the parents, it would have been splashed all over the headlines and it hasn’t.
https://twitter.com/DavidHuddo/status/1112805403283349505
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @DavidHuddo @Chinado59513358 and 48 others
Did you read about the case of a man's DNA found on a murder victim miles away from where the man was comatose in hospital at time of murder?
1:11 pm - 1 Apr 2019
*****
If there was a logical explanation for the DNA to have been there, then all is explained.
Likewise, if there’s a logical explanation for Maddie’s DNA to be in a car hired 20+ days after she disappeared by her parents, a car that the Portuguese justice system deemed proven that it had human blood and that it had been in contact with a human cadaver, then all is explained as well.
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112814076634202112
DeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @grand___wazoo @DavidHuddo and 48 others
Madeleine was in 5A with her family. The family belongings were transported in the Scenic to the rented villa. What are the odds of Madeleine's DNA not having been transferred onto something in the car? But whose is the rest of the DNA in the sample?
1:28 pm - 1 Apr 2019
*****
It all depends from where the DNA was extracted from. For example, if from a stain of bodily fluid ON the Scenic then the odds are nil, if she was alive, and 100% that they came directly from her dead body.
As far as we know – and we’ll stand corrected if wrong – the samples from the Scenic came directly from the surfaces of the vehicle and not from clothing or hairs. So the odds of dried bodily fluid from Maddie (because fluids do tend to dry up with time) being transferred from Block 5 to Block 4, from Block 4 to the villa and from the villa to the Scenic… are?
NIL
https://twitter.com/regretkay/status/1112831966569693190
DeleteThe Jam ( Justice And Morals ) @regretkay
Replying to @FragrantFrog @grand___wazoo and 48 others
Madeleines dna was found in the boot , wasn’t sure who’s was on the fob , but I will reiterate, to assume her dna was transported from 5a to car is just grasping ,, not a chance that happend.
2:39 pm - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112832935068164096
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @regretkay @grand___wazoo and 48 others
So you don't think there's a remote possibility it could have been transferred via a dog lead?
2:43 pm - 1 Apr 2019
*****
Maybe it was beamed up into the Scenic by Mr Scott from Star Trek’s Enterprise?
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112857091860058113
DeleteFor Textusa. Don't mock what you don't understand.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/forensics-gone-wrong-when-dna-snares-innocent #McCann
4:19 pm - 1 Apr 2019
*****
Frog,
We have and will continue to mock what is stupid. And until you provide a link to justify your DNA transference by dog lead, we will mock it because it deserves all the mocking it gets. This is about the death of a little girl and those who mock the evidence that may explain her fate deserve to be publicly mocked.
Other than that ridiculous and ridiculed dog-lead hypothesis of yours, you spoke of “a man's DNA found on a murder victim miles away from where the man was comatose in hospital at time of murder”. You did not give any details about and it’s impossible to know its specifics without them. The article you have now linked does not speak of anyone in a coma.
Did we mock that case? No. What we mocked was the ridiculousness of your proposal of how Maddie’s DNA would have travelled from 5A to one of the surfaces of the Scenic via Block 4 and the rental villa.
That, we mocked and will continue to mock because it deserves all the mockery it can get.
About the case of the man in a coma – which we don’t know what in reality is – what we said and maintain is that, if what you said is true, then there has to be a reasonable explanation for what happened.
If his DNA was found miles away when he was in a coma, that DNA appearance HAS to be explained.
What cannot happen would be to say “it’s his DNA, he was in a coma, let’s disregard the entire thing, it doesn’t matter how it got there”.
And that is what you people do with the dog alerts in the Maddie case:
- The dogs signalled blood and cadaver (proven facts by the Portuguese justice system) and you say that without scientific corroboration it can’t be proven it’s Maddie (we agree on that);
- and as there wasn’t a scientific corroboration you go on to say it can’t be Maddie (we disagree totally on that as the absence of a confirmation is not a contradiction of a presence – exact same point made by the Portuguese courts that having the arguido status lifted (absence of confirmation of guilt at the time) does not mean in any way that one has been cleared (the possibility of guilt remains);
- and because you say it’s not Maddie, there’s no need to explain who the blood and cadaver scent belongs to that the dogs alerted to, you basically suggest let’s all just disregard those facts.
By the way, have you noticed what hypocrites you people are?
You say dogs cannot be trusted, their results MUST be corroborated by science but then you go and diss science by saying it’s unreliable and untrustworthy. You say do not trust the dogs without science and then end up saying don’t trust science because it’s unreliable.
Since you are such a great fan of fiction based on real facts – not seeing you being so enthusiastic about Sandra Felgueiras lately, wonder why – we would like to remind you of something we published in our post “The Third Option”:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2016/03/third-option.html
“POST SCRIPTUM #1 (13MAR16 10H00):
Concerning Insane’s “scientific expertise” in what pertains the Maddie case we think the following dialogue that we captured from the TV Series The People V. OJ Simpson – American Crime Story (Episode 3) representing a meeting of OJ Simpson’s legal team discussing tactics to follow on physical evidence is quite a read:
Alan Dershowitz - You know what, time is short so let’s get to your biggest obstacle, the overwhelming physical evidence, all of which seems to support the conclusion that OJ did it.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteRobert Shapiro - Ok, we understand that, so why don’t you tell us something we don’t know, why don’t you suggest something?
AD - Barry?
Barry Scheck - Well, how much do you gentleman know about DNA evidence?
RS - Pretend not much…
BS - That’s ok, because not a lot of people do. But it is on the verge of revolutionising criminal law, in a couple of years it will be at the crux of any case of violence without eye witnesses.
RS - Can you see DNA through a microscope?
BS - No, a DNA molecule is about 2 nanometres in width where a human hair is about 80 thousand nanometres, so it presents representation with electrons and scanning tunnelling, atomic force microscopes…
RS - Ok, ok, cut to the quick… can you use DNA to show it was someone else?
BS - Not at all, I mean the chances of one individual’s DNA profile matching another person is extremely small, it is roughly one in a billion.
RS - Great, we’re screwed! What’s your contribution here anyway?
AD - Hold on Bob, you’re so emotional…
RS - Oh, c’mon, c’mon…
AD - Barry, clarify your strategy.
BS - Ok, I’m not going to contest the DNA matches, I’m going to keep them out of court entirely! If it can be shown that there may have been errors in the collection or the handling of the samples used for the prosecution’s DNA analysis we could contest the validity of the evidence itself! At best, we get some of it thrown out, at worst we get the jury to question it, the very idea!
AD - We will attack every assumption, question every single molecule of evidence, every aspect of how that molecule was gathered, handled and analysed! We will disrupt their presentation of physical evidence at every turn! We will hack at them! Make every piece of evidence presented either thrown out, untrustworthy or confusing! No quarter!
The OJ Simpson trial was in 1994/1995.
Over 20 years ago.
Yet, the tactics to disrupt the credibility of physical evidence do continue to be used to this day. And so familiar to us all in this case.”
*****
By the way and back to your man in a coma case, do you seriously believe that if that case had a profile as high as the Maddie one, an explanation as to why his DNA was found somewhere else when he was in a coma wouldn’t have been found?
Lastly, one has nothing, one has to resort to this:
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112850710717239296
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @CarlaSpade
Good evening Carla. The dogs can't tell us what they alerted to.
Could have been the stale smell of swingers for all you know.
Where is your definitive evidence of swinging?
3:54 pm - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112832935068164096
DeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @regretkay @grand___wazoo and 48 others
So you don't think there's a remote possibility it could have been transferred via a dog lead?
2:43 pm - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/Anvil161Anvil16/status/1112850391488757760
Whispering @Anvil161Anvil16
Replying to @FragrantFrog @regretkay and 48 others
A dog lead, yes. Cadaver and blood. #mccann
3:53 pm - 1 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112851969964740614
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16 @regretkay and 48 others
You haven't watched Grime very closely, have you?
3:59 pm - 1 Apr 2019
*****
The Frog insists on this ridiculousness but now confirms she’s making a very serious accusation against Martin Grime.
The Frog has replied:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113128947808645125
1/2 #mccann For Textusa.
DNA was transferred via paramedics' finger pulse oximeter. They attended the accused & their next call was to the murder victim miles away.
1. Grime with lead in left hand touching bed in 5A.
2. Grime with lead in left hand touching back of sofa in 5A
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3KgsJ9X0AEbCb6.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3KgzO2XcAAw9N6.jpg
10:19 am - 2 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113129817388519424
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
2/2 #mccann For Textusa
3. Grime with lead in left hand b4 car search
4. Grime with lead in right hand b4 car search
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3KhPDFX0AASxYm.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3KhUecWsAEZZxi.jpg
10:23 am - 2 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113134320976359426
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
BTW Textusa - if you think I'm inventing stuff - the case of Lukis Anderson.
https://www.lcp-law.com/lukis-anderson-almost-wrongly-convicted-by-his-own-dna/ #mccann
10:41 am - 2 Apr 2019
Transcription of the article linked up by the Frog:
Deletehttps://www.lcp-law.com/lukis-anderson-almost-wrongly-convicted-by-his-own-dna/
LUKIS ANDERSON: ALMOST WRONGLY CONVICTED BY HIS OWN DNA
by Gabriel Gross-Stein
On November 29, 2012, Raveesh Kumar was killed during the robbery of his California home. He was tied up and gagged by the robbers, and suffocated because the duct tape covered his nose and mouth. Three weeks later, Lukis Anderson was charged with the murder. His DNA had been found underneath Kumar’s fingernails.
Anderson was a homeless man who usually stayed around San Jose. His DNA was in the databank because he had previously been convicted of a felony in California. What’s more, Anderson had been convicted of a felony robbery. After his arrest, he told his lawyer that he had no idea who the deceased was, but that he drank a lot, so he wasn’t sure what happened.
Anderson’s lawyer got copies of his medical records because she thought that his medical history might help him get a more lenient sentence. When she received the records, she realized that she had hit the jackpot: the records showed that Anderson had been admitted to the hospital on November 29, having drunk the equivalent of 21 beers, and was not discharged until the next morning. It was impossible for him to have committed the murder – he was in the hospital when it happened. He had an airtight alibi.
Once this material was presented to prosecutors, the charge against Anderson was dropped. It turned out that Kumar had been in the same ambulance and dealt with the same paramedics on the same day that Anderson had. No one knows exactly how the DNA transfer happened. It is possible that it was transferred on the clothes of the paramedic, or that the two men shared the same finger pulse oximeter. But for the good luck that the records existed and the good work of his lawyer, Anderson could easily have been convicted of Kumar’s murder.
The scientific community only has a basic understanding of DNA deposition (how and when DNA is transferred). In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada was poised to deal with dueling experts on this exact issue in a case called R. v. Awer, but decided the appeal on other grounds. In Awer, there was a significant difference of opinion between the Crown expert and the defence expert as to whether the DNA in that case could have been transferred while it was dry, or only while it was wet. One opinion meant conviction, but the other opened up the possibility for an acquittal.
Defence lawyers need to be prepared to understand and deal with the factors experts still don’t know when it comes to the use of DNA in the courtroom. The question of how someone’s DNA got where it did is crucial to a criminal trial, and experts can and do go beyond their expertise in closing off possibilities of indirect transfer of DNA or other mechanisms of innocent transfer. While DNA can be a great tool to prove that someone was wrongly convicted, it can also easily be misinterpreted and lead to wrongful convictions, as almost happened in the case of Lukis Anderson.
We inform readers that we have now replied to the Frog's tweets via a Post Scriptum to the present post.
DeleteNot only it contains images as it would be too long of a comment.
The Frog has replied:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113240863990263808
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Chinado59513358 and 49 others
And 4 Tex, who follows my tweets avidly- if you read the long article you posted about Anderson you can answer your own q. DNA relating to Madeleine not found at loci you showed so Grime not touching irrelevant. Maddie's DNA didn't need to come from visible sample 2 b transferred
5:44 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
Frog,
So, to be clear, according to you, something coming from a NOT visible sample adheres to a surface (glove or dog lead) so is, according to simple mathematics that states that a part of something cannot be bigger than that something, smaller than the NOT visible original sample.
From that surface, that NOT visible sample, smaller than the NOT visible sample it originated from, adheres to the surface of the Scenic. Again, just by using logic it has to be smaller than a NOT visible sample it adhered from which in turn is smaller than the NOT visible original sample.
And that sample (Scenic), which is smaller than a NOT visible sample (glove or dog lead) that in itself is smaller than the NOT visible original sample (apartment) becomes visible! Yeah, right…
Oh, and the forensic personnel specifically educated to handle crime scenes and sent to analyse the forensics of a very high-profile case, apparently were not aware of this possibility and did not double check what they should use before testing for samples.
We would imagine, for example, if anything you say is true there would be a rule that gloves and dog leads be used only ONCE in such circumstances and then disposed of. Oh, there’s that rule for gloves? But you said gloves could have…
Frog, you also seem to not have noticed that the freak transfer that happened in the case – you brought up – mentioned of the “long article” happened all in one night. Meaning the biological fluids had not dried up, they were, as you say, sticky, as in transferable. Which explains why the freak occurrence happened.
In your theory, Maddie’s DNA, in visible (there were many visible samples as picture shows) or NOT visible samples, were still not dry after 3 months in situ and were still then “sticky” enough to be transferred via gloves or dog lead. What’s the expression? Yeah, right…
Frog,
DeleteYou seemed to have missed this tweet in reply to your one:
https://twitter.com/grand___wazoo/status/1112982836989059072
The Grand Wazoo @grand___wazoo
Replying to @FragrantFrog
Here’s a more recent article about the inaccuracies in DNA testing, be sure to read the last three paragraphs, Froggy. #mccann
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dna-testing.html
12:39 am - 2 Apr 2019
*****
The last 3 paragraphs:
"People serving time behind bars based on shoddy DNA methods may disagree. It is uncomfortable to read the study’s authors praising labs for their careful work when they get things right, but offering sophomoric excuses for them when they get things wrong. Scientists in crime labs need clear feedback to change entrenched, error-prone methods, and they should be strongly encouraged to re-examine old cases where such methods were used.
The good news is that there are methods to reanalyze old DNA mixture data using computer programs that can help analysts correct errors, without any new lab testing. In fact, one lesson from the study is that while only seven of the 108 labs in the study properly excluded the innocent profile, one of them used such a program (TrueAllele by Cybergenetics). Many crime labs now have access to these programs and use them on current cases. But they could and should easily go back and re-examine old DNA mixtures to correct tragic mistakes.
In fact, we have shown that this is possible. Working with Cybergenetics analysts and Innocence Network organizations in four states, our Boise State University laboratory has re-examined a few select cases and already persuaded courts to overturn a conviction in New Mexico, two in Indiana and two in Montana. We have also helped identify a new suspect in a 23-year-old murder."
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113573620444475394
DeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Ntown1976Nick
Touching items in 5A & rented villa which may have had traces of Madeleine's DNA on them, then touching the dog lead. Dog lead in right & left hand at car search, Grime taps places in boot. so opportunity for cross contamination. Unlike gloves, lead is re-used, even for training!
3:46 pm - 3 Apr 2019
*****
You know where it’s certain for Maddie’s DNA to be found? In whatever apartment Grime stayed in when he was in Luz. It must be rife with it.
And in his home back in the UK.
And the little restaurant he went to last month (supposing he does go to restaurants), he must have also cross-contaminated there..
And don’t get us start talking about that lead. One couldn't make up what cross-contamination that lead has been up to since… or maybe one could?
Good question for the Frog: is it possible that ALL the biological samples collected in 5A had nothing to do with the apartment at all but were all brought there by Grime and his dog lead from previous trainings and cases?
The codes you mention above (Mark S forwards) could very well just be the identification labels on the samples (as he doesn't have the numerical data), for example:
ReplyDeleteA mixed, low-level DNA result, appearing to be from at least three people, was obtained from the cellular material collected (harvested) from the baggage compartment lined with fabric (286C/2007-CRL/10(1)) of the motor vehicle. That sample was submitted to tests to obtain DNA profiles through the LCN technique.
Anonymous 1 Apr 2019, 22:20:00,
Deletehttps://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
It could be this sort of data which Mark sent to Perlin.
We are aware of the details of the sample from the car luggage area, said to be with contributions from 3 people.
We think Mark would have sent digital data rather than information about how the samples were coded.
An example:
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/OA_1_1/01_volume_I_o_apenso_I_Page_277.jpg
Mark S does not have the digital data, that is what he tried to get from the Met. They obviously won't hand it over to a journalist. What he has at the moment is the same as you and I which are the John Lowe reports from the files (which is what Dr Perlin is talking about in the DNA podcast)
DeleteAnonymous 2 Apr 2019, 08:18:00,
DeleteIs this not digital data?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/OA_1_1/01_volume_I_o_apenso_I_Page_277.jpg
Your comment says all Mark had was Lowe report but this is all in Lowe report.
Some of the info is digital data from DNA. Not the samples from Scenic or 5A obviously.
That's the graph which is produced from the digital data and is Maddie's DNA not the sample from the boot which has multiple DNA contributors, therefore incomplete data.
DeleteAnonymous 2 Apr 2019, 12:30:00,
DeleteExactly. If he had the complete data in the files, would he need to ask OG for it?
What we have said is that what we think Mark S sent him was what is in the files. Saving Dr Perlin the trouble of going through all the files himself.
We didn't say we think Mark S sent complete data. Why on earth would he have it to send it in the first place?
Thank you, I think we are on the same page.
DeleteMark S has tweeted to answer the FSS / TrueAllele conundrum.
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1113001540757798913?s=19
Just FAO of anon 10:06, it's 'Cybergenetics' not 'Cryogenics'. Cryogenics is a very different thing, more in the region of science fiction than fact (freezing heads or bodies to be brought back to life later and such). Easy mistake to make, neither are common terms.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know why I wrote Cryogenics when I meant Cybergenetics!
DeleteThanks for correction.
https://www.thermofisher.com/uk/en/home/brands/applied-biosystems.html
ReplyDeleteApplied Biosystems is on the header of DNA data from FSS.
Jane Tanner has previously worked for Thermofisher Scientific . Known as Fisher Scientific when she worked for them. Just a strange coincidence?
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1111635607296593921
ReplyDeleteChina doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @EricaCantona7
That Netflix abomination proves 2 things.
1/ They lied about everything.
2/ The elite who came up with the hoax are desperate to make the McCann’s look innocent.
REPUTATIONS ARE AT RISK AS THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE 3/5/07.
7:25 am - 29 Mar 2019
*****
Spot on!
https://twitter.com/NancyParks8/status/1111371604284440576
ReplyDeleteNancy Parks @NancyParks8
Replying to @thetruthnessie @Esjabe1 and
Debbie Lee Perry is spreading the lies about the swinging & all kinds of garbage & I haven't seen one of youMcCann haters tell her she's lying.
1:56 PM - 28 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Joysetruth/status/1111374307383373827
familaw @Joysetruth
Replying to @NancyParks8 @thetruthnessie and
Mainly because we don't know it's a lie, and that's what she believes. I'm not convinced but respect her right to believe it's so
2:07 PM - 28 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/thetruthnessie/status/1111375176191471617
Vanessa Jackson @thetruthnessie
Replying to @Joysetruth @NancyParks8 and
Thank you joy . I was about to come back to her and tell her pretty much the same thing. It’s Debbie’s right to believe in the swinging thing even if we don’t agree. At least she’s here for Maddie like us and that’s good enough for me .
2:11 PM - 28 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/NancyParks8/status/1111397211609288704
Nancy Parks @NancyParks8
Replying to @thetruthnessie @Joysetruth and
No one that's vilifying Madelenes parents are here for her, like it or not they are a family, a packaged deal.
3:38 PM - 28 Mar 2019
*****
So believing in the swinging theory is “vilifying Madelenes parents”? Why? Isn’t it legal? Something no one cares about?
https://twitter.com/lindale70139487/status/1113469509971714048
DeleteLinda Lee M.A. @lindale70139487
Replying to @EricaCantona7 @grand___wazoo and 47 others
Textusa started this silly theory...........time it was dropped.......its not a crime....fgs!!
8:53 am - 3 Apr 2019
*****
So… not a vilification then? You guys must synch your watches!
And apparently, swinging is so normalised that it's, apparently, so, so boring....
Deletehttps://twitter.com/lindale70139487/status/1113473704061800450
Linda Lee M.A. @lindale70139487
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @thetruthnessie and 47 others
SwingingYaaaawn doesn't raise an eyebrow these days......and a few docs and a few others in a run down holiday club I very much doubt it......
9:09 am - 3 Apr 2019
But see who disagrees TOTALLY with Linda Lee. No other than Clarence Mitchell himself (our caps):
Deletehttp://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/7nov7/STAR-05-11-07.htm
Original Source: STAR: MONDAY 05 NOVEMBER 2007
BY Jerry Lawton
MADELEINE McCanns’ parents were seething last night after a top criminologist called for a probe into claims they were swingers.
Former police inspector Jose Barra da Costa urged detectives to investigate rumours that the couple indulged in wife-swapping.
The university professor, who has assisted in several murder investigations, admitted that the line of inquiry was “dark”.
But he said Portuguese police should have checked it out in case it was relevant to their inquiries into the disappearance of Madeleine on May 3, just before her fourth birthday.
Paulo Rebelo, the detective in charge of the case, has now vowed to undertake a “root and branch” review of the entire case, wherever it might lead.
Da Costa’s comments sparked outrage from Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry, both 39.
At the weekend, Kate wept in church while hearing priests pray for the “miracle” return of her daughter.
The couple’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “THIS IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE, DEEPLY HURTFUL AND COMPLETELY LUDICROUS. IT IS NOT TRUE TO SUGGEST THEY ARE OR EVER HAVE BEEN SWINGERS.
“IT IS OBVIOUSLY DEFAMATORY AND HE – AND ALL THOSE WHO SPREAD RUMOURS LIKE THIS – HAD BETTER BE AWARE THAT OUR LAWYERS ARE WATCHING.
“KATE AND GERRY ARE EXTREMELY ANGRY. IT ALMOST DEFIES BELIEF THAT ANYONE COULD CAST SUCH AN OBSCENE, ENTIRELY FALSE SLUR ON A COUPLE SO DEVASTATED BY THE LOSS OF THEIR DAUGHTER.”
Da Costa claimed he had been passed the “swinging” allegations by a former police colleague who was working on the case.
Although he had no evidence to back up the allegation, it had circulated on the web.
Net gossips said the couple’s home town of Rothley, Leics, was not far from Loughborough – dubbed the “swingers’ capital of Britain”.
One newspaper even sent undercover investigators to a swingers’ club in the town to ask if anyone knew the McCanns.
But, even though the couple have been named official suspects in the disappearance, detectives have at no point suggested wife-swapping has played any part in their inquiries.
Yesterday, da Costa told Portuguese newspaper 24 Hours that police had bungled by refusing to look into the rumours.
He said: “I mentioned the swinging matter, because it was what people were speaking about on internet sites and in the coffee shops of Praia da Luz where the McCanns used to go.
“That was given as one example of a point in the investigation that should have been cleared up.
“Although it’s dark, it’s an aspect which had to be checked out – just like many others.”
He also blasted police for failing to pinpoint the “minute by minute” movements of the McCanns and their pals the night Madeleine vanished.
He added that the McCanns should have been charged with “gross negligence” for leaving Madeleine and twins Sean and Amelie, two, alone in their holiday apartment.
Detectives yesterday hit back by pointing out that 285 children had been reported missing in Portugal since Madeleine disappeared – and all had been found safe and well.
Police have accused Kate of accidentally killing her daughter after giving her sedatives. Police allege that the couple then disposed of the body.
The McCanns vehemently deny any involvement, insisting Madeleine was abducted.
On Saturday – exactly six months since her daughter vanished – Kate sobbed uncontrollably during a prayer vigil at the Church of St Mary and St John near her home.
Devout Catholics Kate and Gerry had earlier taken Sean and Amelie to the church “for a few moments of solitude” before the service.
An excited Sean ran up to a collage of photos of his missing sister, touched each one and said: “My Madeleine!”
*****
"Seething"? Why?
https://twitter.com/MancunianMEDlC/status/1113703884986441729
DeleteSOCIALIZED MEDICINE @MancunianMEDlC
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @regretkay and 47 others
Swinging isn't illegal ... So why would the #McCanns promote Paedophillia which is ... With Gerry being on the register ??
12:24 am - 4 Apr 2019
*****
Please provide proof of “Gerry being on the register ??”
Thank you.
This was quick!
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113716263040245760
China doll @Chinado59513358
China doll Retweeted SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
What register is Gerry on exactly?
China doll added,
https://twitter.com/MancunianMEDlC/status/1113703884986441729
1:13 am - 4 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/MancunianMEDlC/status/1113716405071941632
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE @MancunianMEDlC
Replying to @Chinado59513358
Ask Text
1:14 am - 4 Apr 2019
And that clears all up.
Thank you China!
https://twitter.com/MancunianMEDlC/status/1113716581929029632
DeleteSOCIALIZED MEDICINE @MancunianMEDlC
FollowFollow @MancunianMEDlC
More
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @regretkay and 46 others
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3S3S1YXsAAeZB_.jpg
1:14 am - 4 Apr 2019
[Picture attached says this from the top (we didn’t copy all the picture says, as it would be a waste of time and effort:
“...the rounds currently on Twitter. Much or it revolves around this claim by a certain KaOssis.
Posted verbatim.
[italic] [blue font] Gerry McCann [/blue font] was convicted for child sex abuses in 2002, althought the evidence has been hacked and emptied from the case file by someone who has access to the National Sex Offenders Register, namely [blue font] Jim Gamble [/blue font] though the CEOP mainframe connected to every [blue font] police station [/blue font] crime files in the UK, [underline] the reference for this conviction still exists [/underline] in the judicial reference files and confirms that [bold] Gerald P McCann was placed on the Child Sex Offenders Register [/bold] following conviction in court, and is still on that register today! [/italic]]
*****
As far as we know, the PJ Files or any other known document don't use blue font.
Basically one just picks up what someone wrote somewhere on the internet and calls it proof.
And this is the “hard evidence” our critics follow.
https://twitter.com/lindale70139487/status/1113717724784549894
DeleteLinda Lee M.A. @lindale70139487
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @MancunianMEDlC and 47 others
you are miles behind love.........and please drop the swinging.........it didn't happen...ok...!!
1:19 am - 4 Apr 2019
*****
So, guess we must accept this as PROOF that swinging did not happen. Someone says it didn’t and that, apparently, is enough “hard evidence”.
Mark S has now tweeted the following clarification:
ReplyDelete(with thanks to Anonymous 2 Apr 2019, 14:44:00)
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1113001540757798913
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
1/ Since Episode 5 of Maddie, 'The DNA', a few people have been in touch to ask about this press release, which talks about a relationship between Dr Mark Perlin's Cybergenetics and the FSS in 2004 #McCann
https://www.cybgen.com/information/press-release/2004/Forensic-Science-Service-Expands-License-for-Cybergenetics-Automated-DNA-Data-Review-Technology/page.shtml
1:53 am - 2 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1113001542154477568
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
2/ That press release left some people confused, as it may have appeared that in 2004 the FSS already had access to the TrueAllele technology that Dr Perlin was speaking about in episode 5, the tech that could solve those 'inconclusive' DNA samples #McCann
1:53 am - 2 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1113001543836422146
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
3/ So I got in touch with Dr Perlin to explain the background to that 2004 deal between Cybergenetics and the FSS. This will clear up any confusion. The following are direct quotes from Dr Perlin #McCann
1:53 am - 2 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1113001546361368576
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
4/ "Cybergenetics contracts with the FSS [in 2004] were for analysing single source DNA items," said Dr Perlin. (Remember, many of the McCann DNA samples were mixed with multiple people + too complex for FSS) #McCann.
1:53 am - 2 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1113001547770679297
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
5/ "This second contract cited [in the press release] expanded our TrueAllele Databank (single source) work with the FSS from buccal swabs (National DNA Database) to property crime. The work did NOT include analysing DNA mixtures, as in [the Madeleine McCann] case." #McCann
1:53 am - 2 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1113001549402267648
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
6/ I hope that clears that up. As an aside, the Maddie podcast ticked over 1 million downloads last night. A massive thank you to all of you for your support! #McCann
1:53 am - 2 Apr 2019
I withdraw my comment about FSS not using Cybernetics software available to them in 2007, as it wasn’t the same software as currently used by Mark Perlin. However, was it possible for them to have sent the results to him at the time or to the N Zealand lab? Maybe in 2007, the software wasn’t as advanced as it is now.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-dna-perlin-operation-grange-maddie-podcast/0e861bfc-e835-408d-9fbd-e795935aa553
ReplyDeleteEXCLUSIVE: Scotland Yard silent over top expert's offer to test McCann DNA for free, as $20m police operation requests more public money
By Mark Saunokonoko
10:43am Apr 2, 2019
London Metropolitan Police are refusing to comment on a potentially case-changing pro bono offer by one of the world's top DNA scientists to analyse important DNA samples linked to Madeleine McCann's disappearance for a UK investigation which has cost taxpayers more than $20m.
The revelations that American DNA expert Dr Mark Perlin could potentially unlock a series of "inconclusive" samples that stumped UK forensic scientists in 2007 was first aired in Maddie, a Nine.com.au multi-episode podcast investigating the baffling disappearance of British girl Madeleine.
Some of those DNA samples were lifted from the boot of a rental car hired by Kate and Gerry McCann 25 days after Madeleine vanished, in May 2007.
Last night Scotland Yard, which is on the brink of applying for another tranche of UK government funding, told Nine.com.au: "The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remains ongoing. We are not providing a running commentary."
Nine.com.au understands the UK Home Office is currently considering a request to extend funding for Operation Grange for a further year, until the end of March 2020.
It is believed the Home Office may inject $550,000 to keep the Scotland Yard investigation alive. Since launching in 2011, Operation Grange has cost British taxpayers $21.6 million.
In the Maddie podcast, it was detailed how detectives working on the Madeleine McCann case were notified one year ago about Dr Perlin's advanced testing methods, reputedly the most sophisticated in the world, and his pro bono offer to assist the investigation.
Dr Perlin says Operation Grange, the UK's investigation into the McCann case, never responded to that 2018 offer. Further inquiries to London Metropolitan Police from Nine.com.au about Dr Perlin's offer last week also went unanswered.
A successful analysis of the McCann DNA samples by Dr Perlin could potentially blow open a dead end in the cold case by either confirming or conclusively ruling out some of the questions around the DNA samples.
In 2007, specialist cadaver and blood dogs made a number of alerts in the McCann holiday apartment and a rental car hired several weeks after Madeleine was reported missing.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteMany of those DNA samples were returned "inconclusive", halting police lines of inquiry into the possible presence of Madeleine McCann's DNA in the rental car.
Dr Perlin claims his Pittsburgh lab Cybergenetics, which has identified victims of the September 11 attack on New York's World Trade Centre, can routinely unlock the kind of samples the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS) struggled to successfully analyse.
A senior FSS scientist, Dr John Lowe, told Portuguese police the samples were "too complex" and challenging for his team.
"Let's look at the question that is being asked," Dr Lowe wrote about a DNA sample taken from the boot compartment of a silver Renault Scenic leased by Mr and Mrs McCann.
"Is there DNA from Madeline (sic) on the swab?
"It would be very easy to say, 'Yes' simply because of the number of [DNA] components within the result that are also in her reference sample," continued Dr Lowe.
Ultimately, Dr Lowe said the FSS could not answer that potentially critical question.
https://imageresizer.static9.net.au/M76CJoPWx0MSmkM-TFrRdeNB4cQ=/800x0/smart/http%3A%2F%2Fprod.static9.net.au%2Ffs%2F392b9fd5-607e-4056-8dbd-d4bdc9097c21
Dr Perlin said the FSS tests "failed" because its methods used were outdated and inadequate, compared to the modern computer analysis Cybergenetics has used to assist police forces around the world.
Since 2007, the McCanns have strenuously denied they were involved in the disappearance of their daughter. Nine.com.au does not suggest any involvement on their part.
Madeleine, then aged three, went missing while on holiday with her family in Praia da Luz, a coastal town on Portugal's Algarve.
LISTEN TO LATEST EPISODES OF MADDIE NOW
Maps, graphics, stories and all episodes of Maddie here: nine.com.au/maddie
© Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2019
And, surprisingly, from the Sun:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8771145/madeleine-mccann-cops-test-dna-samples/
STONY SILENCE
Madeleine McCann cops ignore expert’s offer to re-test ‘inconclusive’ DNA samples in hope of finally finding Maddie
Dr Mark Perlin claims his high-tech US lab can get results that were not possible 12 years ago
By Felix Allen
2nd April 2019, 10:32 am
Updated: 2nd April 2019, 11:06 am
SCOTLAND Yard has ignored an offer by a leading forensic scientist to re-test "inconclusive" DNA samples in the hope of finally solving what happened to Madeleine McCann, reports claim.
US forensics expert Dr Mark Perlin reckons new techniques could blow the case wide open - but says detectives snubbed his offer to analyse samples for free.
The evidence relates to swabs lifted from the McCann family's holiday flat and hire car after sniffer dogs allegedly detected the "scent of death".
Portuguese police sent samples to by analysed by the UK's Forensic Science Service in Birmingham.
Senior scientist Dr John Lowe told cops some DNA components matched Maddie's - but the samples were "too complex for meaningful interpretation".
But Dr Perlin believes the methods used at the time are now out of date, reports Australia's Nine News.
He claims his Pittsburgh lab Cybergenetics, which helped identified 9/11 victims, can routinely unlock the kind of samples the FSS struggled with.
The latest episode of Nine News's Maddie podcast reveals detectives on Scotland Yard's Operation Grange probe were told a year ago of Dr Perlin's advanced techniques and his offer to re-test samples - but did not respond.
Further enquiries about Dr Perlin's offer by Nine.com.au last week also went unanswered, the site claims.
Successful analysis of the DNA could potentially transform the world's most famous missing person's case by confirming or conclusively ruling out key lines of enquiry.
SWAB TEST 'TOO COMPLEX'
Cops reached a dead end when the tests came back inconclusive 12 years ago.
One crucial swab was from the boot of a silver Renault Scenic that Kate and Gerry McCann leased 25 days after Madeleine vanished in Praia da Luz.
Dr Lowe told Portuguese police at the time: "Let's look at the question that is being asked. "Is there DNA from Madeleine on the swab?
"It would be very easy to say 'Yes' simply because of the number of [DNA] components within the result that are also in her reference sample."
Ultimately, Dr Lowe said the FSS could not answer that critical question because the lab was unable to separate a mix of DNA components from at least three people
Dr Perlin, who has worked with police forces around the world, claims his advanced computer software can interpret complex results like these in a way that was not possible in 2007.
He told Nine's podcast investigation: "If a lab can produce informative data, even if it is complex and mixed, but they can't interpret it then you can have tremendous injustice - of guilty people not being convicted, or innocent people staying in prison.
"What is needed is an objective and accurate interpretation that can scientifically resolve the DNA."
The Met Police said: "The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remains ongoing. We are not providing a running commentary."
Kate and Gerry McCann have repeatedly denied any involvement in their daughter's disappearance and were cleared of wrongdoing.
Police believe Madeleine was snatched by a paedophile or a member of a trafficking gang.
Scotland Yard is waiting hear if the Home Office will grant a further £150,000 to continue its £12million search for another 12 months.
Then this pathetic “reply”. A call-out for sympathy. Why?
Deletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8653012/are-madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-still-together/
UNITED
Are Madeleine McCann’s parents Kate and Gerry still married 12 years after she vanished?
The couple had been husband and wife for nine years when their daughter vanished in May 2007
By Dan Hall
3rd April 2019, 10:21 am
Updated: 3rd April 2019, 10:26 am
MADELEINE McCann's parents have been desperately searching for their daughter since she went missing while holidaying in Portugal 12 years ago.
But have Kate and Gerry McCann remained married since she disappeared at the age of three? Here's everything you need to know.
Who are Kate and Gerry McCann?
Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry are both practising Catholics who met in Glasgow in 1993.
Kate became a GP after studying medicine at the University of Dundee while Gerry has been a consultant cardiologist since 2005.
The couple got married in 1998 before having their first child, Madeleine, in 2003.
They also have twin children, a boy and a girl, who were born in 2005.
Kate and Gerry had been married for nine years when Madeleine disappeared on the night of May 3, 2007.
Are they still together?
Shortly after Madeleine vanished, Kate said their marriage nearly broke down as she withdrew into herself.
She stopped reading, playing music or even having sex with her husband Gerry.
And the couple were gripped by the fear that a paedophile may have taken their daughter.
Writing about that period in her autobiography, Kate said: "Tortured as I was by these images, it's not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.
"I worried about Gerry and me.
"I worried that if I didn't get our sex life on track our whole relationship would break down."
Kate went on to credit Gerry's understanding and the couple's resilience for the endurance of their marriage.
They remain together to this day, despite the stresses of intense media scrutiny on their lives.
Why did they become the centre of scrutiny?
When three-year-old Maddie vanished from the family's Pria da Luz holiday apartment on the Algarve, Gerry and Kate were dining with friends in a nearby restaurant.
Within 24 hours of their child's disappearance, they held a press conference to make the first in a string of public appeals to help find Madeleine.
In the intervening years, the couple have constantly kept the search alive for their daughter.
Over the course of the investigation, they have both been considered "persons of interest".
A new Netflix documentary released in March 2019 called The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is drawing the couple back into public attention, despite their refusal to be involved in or with the film.
This article has been re-dated and posted pretty much daily since 18th March. If he's getting paid for each posting, complete money for old rope (and that's being kind).
DeleteDoug D
Doug D,
DeleteThank you.
We knew it was a rehash but the timing, together with the lack of any content, is what makes it interesting.
And look at who has embraced completely NotTextusa’s forward shifting of the Smith sighting's timeline: the Frog.
ReplyDeletePlease read this thread very attentively because it contains many, many useful gems:
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113206288631107585
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @PollyGraph69 @NancyParks8 and 48 others
Yep, you only have to watch that BBC rubbish to know that.
Bilton tried to say that the Smiths had changed their minds about “Smithman” .. they hadn’t at all & had to contact the BBC to correct it.
#Shameful
3:27 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113206844867141634
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
According to Gemma O'D.....no-one else.
3:29 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113207744570507269
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @FragrantFrog @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
And how would you know that Frog? It was even repeated in that god awful McCann whitewash on Netflix.
3:33 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113208276576079874
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
Hmmm did the Netflix documentary feature anyone who had had direct contact with the Smith family in 2008 & when the efits were drawn up?
3:35 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113209556690178048
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @FragrantFrog @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
Wasn’t it Metado 3? I had no patience to watch the whole thing, didn’t they appear?
3:40 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113221523257679877
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
Brian Kennedy.
4:27 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113222944824745984
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @FragrantFrog @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
So are you saying that the Smith’s told Brian Kennedy that they had changed their mind about Smithman?
4:33 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113225768434380801
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
You don't produce an efit of a person you've identified - especially an efit which bears little resemblance to that named person.
4:44 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113227073328484352
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @FragrantFrog @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
Mr Smith said that he was 60/80% sure that the man he saw walking down the steps of the plane was the same man that he saw on that fateful night carrying a child in his arms .. Gerry McCann.
Are you saying that he has since changed his mind?
4:49 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113232029133541376
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
I think Mr Smith played a blinder......
5:09 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113232705695752192
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @FragrantFrog @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
In what way exactly?
5:12 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113233468274675715
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
Sending the PI's off to look for someone resembling his efit (not Peter's one) and not involving the PJ.
5:15 pm - 2 Apr 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113234342006882304
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @FragrantFrog @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
And what would he have to gain from doing that?
5:18 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113235569058906112
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
That would depend on the reason behind it. For as long as Smithman remained unidentified there would always be a defence tool should anyone else be charged without Madeleine being located.
5:23 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113238200074539009
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @FragrantFrog @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
The Smiths had nothing to gain from telling the truth other than to help the police with their enquiries.
It just mucked up GM’s plans them not coming forward earlier when he had others to put him at the Ocean club at the same time 🤥
5:34 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113238920903442437
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
The Smiths cleared Murat & implicated Gerry. That's pretty substantial "evidence" given the dearth of circumstantial or forensic evidence. BTW - the Smith's timeline - who checked that out, and when?
5:36 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/DavidHuddo/status/1113244735680937985
David Hudson @DavidHuddo
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Chinado59513358 and 48 others
The timeline was proven by the time on the@printed bill in the bar
6:00 pm - 2 Apr 2019 From Bromley, London
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113245722818818048
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @DavidHuddo @Chinado59513358 and 48 others
Half an hour after the times given in evidence by Martin & Peter. So how long were they really in Kelly's for after 9.30pm & why didn't Amaral check that out?
6:03 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113249742090383360
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @FragrantFrog @DavidHuddo and 48 others
Why are you trying so desperately to discredit the Smiths Frog? ... anyone would think it was you who were running around town trying to be seen that night ...
6:19 pm - 2 Apr 2019
Let’s start with this tweet:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113238920903442437
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
The Smiths cleared Murat & implicated Gerry. That's pretty substantial "evidence" given the dearth of circumstantial or forensic evidence. BTW - the Smith's timeline - who checked that out, and when?
5:36 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
The clearance of Murat is something we have seen used before and it really baffles us. The Smith sighting clears Murat of what? It clears him of being at 21:50/22:00 on Rua da Escola Primária on May 3 2007. It clears him from absolutely nothing else.
And does that clear him of any wrong doing in the Maddie case? We don’t see how. For example, imagining that he indeed planned Maddie’s abduction, what does him not being at the Smith sighting not being somewhere else with Maddie and Smithman just be an innocent walker by?
And if the man was indeed carrying Maddie, in what way does it clear Murat of being the planner but not the one executing it?
But the best bit about this tweet is that by saying “& implicated Gerry” the Frog is recognising the obvious fact that the timeline as is in the files – and there’s no reason to alter it in any way – is that it implicates Gerry.
Pushing the sighting forward half an hour or more, places Smithman in Rua da Escola Primária at the same time he’s in or near apartment 5A after the alarm. It exonerates Gerry and that’s why the Frog supports it.
Oh, and look who has come to defend Karen Lowe Sanders on “swinging”! 😂😂😂😂😂
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BourgeoisViews/status/1113501541271519233
BourgeoisViews @BourgeoisViews
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @EricaCantona7 and 47 others
Karen is not being paid to say anything. She just doesn't accept what you claim about "swinging."
11:00 am - 3 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1113512505672982528
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @BourgeoisViews @Chinado59513358 and 47 others
Thank you BV, on planet Dolt, swinging is the reason for everything and people who don’t believe are automatically shills. Meanwhile back on earth ........
11:44 am - 3 Apr 2019
*****
What an endorsement! 😂😂😂😂😂
https://twitter.com/jules999x/status/1113517081088151554
ReplyDeleteJules ♡ @jules999x
Replying to @AndyFish19 @Chinado59513358 and 48 others
Tex is a man...Confirmed by China.. #McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3QB4GnWwAci39h.jpg
12:02 pm - 3 Apr 2019
*****
Jules,
The exact same questions to you that we have put to Mr Thompson:
- at 25 Mar 2019, 17:52:00:
“When are you going to out the correct gender of those part of the Justice For Madeleine FB group?
You know, those who have pretended to be of a different gender than their FB profile shows and that hasn’t bothered you for years?
We will be waiting, as it’s such a subject that bothers you.”
- at 26 Mar 2019, 10:50:00
“Which one of the 2 members from Justice For Madeleine admin group who are not of the gender they say they are, are you going to expose first?
Are you going to expose them at the same time?”
And to be clear, we’re talking about 2 of the following people:
Kirstie Murray, Jules Chrimes, Ben Thompson, Paul Rees, Natalie Charlesworth, Netty Estelle and Trish Hills Allen.
You are either gender-obsessed or you’re not. Let’s see.
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1113698065964204032
DeleteChina doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @jules999x @AndyFish19 and 48 others
Try outing your own lot instead of picking on the Textusa team.
#Hypocrites
12:01 am - 4 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/MrDelorean2/status/1114834476784390144
DeleteMr Delorean @MrDelorean2
A woman who pretends to be a man, supporting a petition to clear people she wants locked up.
These people have no authenticity, none.
#mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3iwClcXoAA9cIX.jpg
3:17 am - 7 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1114850781629431808
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @MrDelorean2
Not sure where you got your info from, but I can assure you that account, is defo a man.. #McCann
4:21 am - 7 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/LoverandomIeigh/status/1114858397818654720
Rebecca ©️ 💃 @LoverandomIeigh
Replying to @Jules1602xx @MrDelorean2
😂😂😂😂😂
4:52 am - 7 Apr 2019 From South Dublin, Ireland
https://twitter.com/1matthewwright1/status/1114836579560902657
The Suppressionals @1matthewwright1
Replying to @MrDelorean2
How would you ever know if this is a woman pretending to be a man? Of course you 'good guys' don't doxx and stalk 😉 #mccann
3:25 am - 7 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/mccannscamexpos/status/1114867222495862785
☆BELFAST BANSHEE☆ @mccannscamexpos
Replying to @1matthewwright1 @MrDelorean2
Wtf does it matter if its a man or a woman and they are actually being very clever so jog on troll
5:27 am - 7 Apr 2019
*****
Interesting how suddenly “gender-doxxing” (supposedly) becomes an insignificant, irrelevant and totally unimportant thing to be considered and it’s even considered something disgusting to do.
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113239564229980160
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
I haven't read the blogs from their inception. Apart from Da Costa's mutterings & hard-drives checked for swinging, I have no clue as to why anyone would think the MW holiday was a swingers convention.
5:39 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
The Frog recognises the hard-drives were checked for swinging (she overlooks the PJ visit that is in the files to St Phunurius where parties of sexual nature took place).
We have seen how imaginative the Frog was to try and pull off the absurd cross-contamination via dog lead from 5A to the Scenic.
Now observe the same imagination to try and justify the results returned for “swing” in the hard-drives:
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1095701031126814721
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @Jules1602xx @Chinado59513358 and 42 others
I can’t believe they can base a search on a golf swing, or a playground. So Malinka, a local, looked for swinging at the end of the week, while the McCanns has been there for 5 days #unbelievable
7:07 am - 13 Feb 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1100345991713222658
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @grand___wazoo @PollyGraph69
If you look at the search results for swinging, most of them show swinging as in playgrounds, golf, and lively resorts, as in his golf swing, swings and roundabouts , a swinging vibrant nightlife etc
2:45 am - 26 Feb 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1104003230365872130
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @jules999x @Chinado59513358 @Anvil161Anvil16
I’m wondering if it has some weird form of astigmatism where it can’t make the shape of furniture out properly and shows the searches for swinging as all for swinging in the sexual sense, rather than a golf swing, a playground item or a lively town
4:57 am - 8 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1113470921082310657
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @Joysetruth and 47 others
I think we can all agree then that there was no swinging, no proof of swinging and no plans for swinging. Even the page of searches only shows swinging in the sexual sense a few times
8:58 am - 3 Apr 2019
*****
According to KLS, when someone wants to find a golf course, the obvious word to use is “swing” because, as everyone knows, each golf course has its own particular and distinctive golf swing. As if. The dog-lead cross-contamination starts to be credible.
And of course, who hasn’t searched the internet, based on the word “swing” to find playgrounds in… Portugal?
And of course, Praia da Luz is so enormous that 2 of its residents, Malinka (who had no children) and Murat (who had a daughter living in the UK) wouldn’t know if there were “baloiços” (playground swings in Portuguese) there or not and needed to search the internet for them.
But that’s as far as our imagination could go. We tried but honestly could not establish any link between the word “swing” and roundabouts – in Portuguese “rotundas”. Not even to ridicule it. Apologies to our readers.
And look how this same individual was so happy how the Netflix documentary, clearly a pro-McCann product, did not mention swinging!
Deletehttps://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1106535063443906560
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @Chinado59513358 @Joysetruth
Watching the Netflix documentary , I think we can safely say that the #McCann s did dine in the Tapas most nights with no sign of swinging
5:38 am - 15 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1106535525442355201
SheLLxx 💯 Silverdoniaxx @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @EricaCantona7 @Chinado59513358 @Joysetruth
LOL I concur with that Karen completely. Not going to be good for 'some' it may seem...
5:40 am - 15 Mar 2019
And about the dinners, we saw 7 glasses, some plates passed around and lots of feet. No panning of the BRT.
Very strange (NOT) for a product that apparently didn't hold back on details, such as setting up a very detailed swarthy PJ "operation room"...
Did Netflix have them huddled over a timeline, changing the details, or discussing what to do with a body?
DeleteOr what drugs to use for sedation....
What did they expect?!
Anonymous 4 Apr 2019, 23:49:00
DeleteAnd about the swinging references, Karen Lowe Sanders obviously missed the UK places mentioned, which we published, including Leicester (Murat or Malinka – both well-known gold lovers – wanting to know all about a specific golf swing only used by the golfers from a specific golf club near the McCanns?), swing houses in Algarve (again, certainly looking for indoor golf swings or maybe indoor playground swings, and raise a hand if you haven’t surfed the internet looking for that?) and swinging yacht trips (oh, nothing like swinging a gold ball into the middle of the ocean from a boat, so, naturally let’s surf the internet for and look for that!).
Deliberately avoiding the more explicit references is intellectual dishonesty. But then we all know intellectual honesty is not exactly these people’s forte.
This all betrays a complete ignorance of how any word search works. The PJ searched for the words ''swing'' and ''swinging'', therefore any document, temporary internet file, web page in the browsing history etc where the word ''swing'' or ''swinging'' appeared would flag up. It doesn't mean the user had been searching for ''swing''. I can't believe you don't understand this
DeleteAnonymous 5 Apr 2019, 19:42:00,
DeleteThen why weren't the returns repeated more or less in ALL hard-drives? PJ searched for the word "swing" (it did not search for the word "swinging") in all of them. In fact, it is the ONLY word searched in ALL hard-drives.
Let us guess. It was the dog-lead that transferred the results into those specific hard-drives...
Oh, and you don't believe in Erica? Are you confirming that the tosh she's saying is absolutely daft?
There is no indication they did search all of them. Also, as the one which did return a result was in the items seized from Malinka, it could have been a customers - he has spoken about the fact that not all the items seized were his.
DeleteI have no idea what the rest of your reply is referring to.
Anonymous 5 Apr 2019, 22:04:00,
DeleteAll the information about the forensic examinations by the PJ on ALL computers are on the following links:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_3.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_4.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_5.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_6.htm
There were 24 overall searched terms and listed in alphabetical order: “eiddam”, “encomenda”, “kid”, “lolita”, “mad”, “Madd”, “Maddie”, “Maddy”, “Madel(ale)ine”, “Madelaine”, “Madeleine”, “Malinka”, “Murat”, “pack”, “package”, “pacote”, “pedo”, “Robert”, “Robert Murat”, “Serg(ily)”, “Sergei”, “Sergey”, “Sophie” and “swing”.
Only 2 keywords, “swing” and “lolita” were searched for on ALL computers/hard drives.
“Sophie” was investigated on all computers/hard drives but computer “904”.
The word “swing” was returned only 2 computers/hard drives: “814” and “904”.
Computers/hard drives “340”, “370”, “483”, “558”, “705”, “904”, “987” and “1054” did not return anything for the word swinging.
(Cont)
Anonymous 5 Apr 2019, 22:04:00,
DeleteAll the information about the forensic examinations by the PJ on ALL computers are on the following links:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_3.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_4.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_5.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_6.htm
There were 24 overall searched terms and listed in alphabetical order: “eiddam”, “encomenda”, “kid”, “lolita”, “mad”, “Madd”, “Maddie”, “Maddy”, “Madel(ale)ine”, “Madelaine”, “Madeleine”, “Malinka”, “Murat”, “pack”, “package”, “pacote”, “pedo”, “Robert”, “Robert Murat”, “Serg(ily)”, “Sergei”, “Sergey”, “Sophie” and “swing”.
Only 2 keywords, “swing” and “lolita” were searched for on ALL computers/hard drives.
“Sophie” was investigated on all computers/hard drives but computer “904”.
The word “swing” was returned only 2 computers/hard drives: “814” and “904”.
Computers/hard drives “340”, “370”, “483”, “558”, “705”, “904”, “987” and “1054” did not return anything for the word "swing".
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteThese were the pages of returns for computer/hard drive “814”:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p855.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p856.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p857.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p858.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p859.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p860.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p861.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p862.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p863.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p864.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p865.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p866.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p867.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p868.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p869.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p870.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p871.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p872.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p873.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p874.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p875.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p876.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p877.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p878.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p879.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p880.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p881.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p882.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p883.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p884.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p885.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p886.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p887.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p888.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p889.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p890.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p891.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p892.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA5_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_5_p893.jpg
1. Please justify, after you said “I can't believe you don't understand this”, why did 8 of the 10 computers not flag up anything for the word “swing” as “therefore any document, temporary internet file, web page in the browsing history etc where the word ''swing'' or ''swinging'' appeared would flag up”.
2. Please provide a link Malinka said “he has spoken about the fact that not all the items seized were his”. It seems that the “dog-lead” for the computer forensics is now “customers”.
3. Please confirm that you agree that all that Karen Lowe Sanders has said about this subject is cobblegook.
You still don't get it, do you?
DeleteThe point I was making is that any occurence of the word 'swing' would flag up - nobody was searching for 'golf swing' or children's swings or whatever. That's the bit that you seem incapable of understanding
As regards the rest, I'm not interested. And there is no such word as cobblegook
Anonymous 6 Apr 2019, 00:35:00,
DeleteThere is no word cobblegook? Oh, we thought since you were just making stuff up, we could do the same and so invented that word.
There is also no such word as occurence either.
DeleteIt’s occurrence.
Of course, we couldn’t let this slide:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1112054849741438976
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @McCannFacts @PollyGraph69
You say there was no swinging Kill a dog.. so why did you feel the need to threaten Textusa? Only people who want to cover up the truth would go out of their way to do that.
11:11 am - 30 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/McCannFacts/status/1112295904860622848
Kill a Dog 🌐 @McCannFacts
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69
Threaten? I've only read my Blog that Textusa writes once. He's irrelevant. #mccann
3:09 am - 31 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1112299050848653312
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @McCannFacts @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69
Did you threaten him [Textusa]?
3:22 am - 31 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1112299050848653312
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @EricaCantona7 @McCannFacts and 2 others
No he didn't.. Tex is a drama queen.. 😴
3:26 am - 31 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1112308225121099776
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @Jules1602xx @McCannFacts and 2 others
So it’s another lie? Quite a few adding up
3:31 am - 31 Mar 2019
*****
The threats to the blog made by Killa Dog were shown in this post:
https://textusa.blogspot.com/2019/02/threat.html
These were the tweets with the clear threats:
Tweet #1:
https://twitter.com/McCannFacts/status/1079971916939739136
Kill a Dog 🌐 @McCannFacts
This is just awful.
https://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/11/scare-tactics.html … What was it the IRA said about getting Thatcher? #mccann XXX
9:25 pm - 31 Dec 2018
Tweet #2:
https://twitter.com/McCannFacts/status/1095674444343848960
Kill a Dog 🌐 @McCannFacts
Hey TEXT, didn't find the IRA quote? Here, I'll help you. XXX #mccann "Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always."
5:21 am - 13 Feb 2019
Please note how Jules came in Killa Dog’s defense.
Also note that Tweet#1 has the following 2 replies (recognise the names?):
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1080042852376289280
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @McCannFacts
No shit Sherlock...
2:07 am - 1 Jan 2019
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1080050396926787584
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @McCannFacts
What does Lady T [Thatcher] have to do with the drivel?
2:37 am - 1 Jan 2019
Jules and Karen Lowe Sanders, 2 people who are perfectly fine with threats made publicly.
Karen LS asks what Mrs Thatcher has to do with this? Killa’s threat.
DeleteIt had to do with the Brighton hotel bombing during the Conservative Party Conference. Killing and maiming many in the hotel, but not Mrs Thatcher.
The quote refers to the IRA threatening that whilst they only have to be lucky once, their potential victims had to be lucky always.
Karen LS should check her knowledge of modern history and ask herself if threats like this are acceptable in any circumstances.
It was a sick reference by Killa, referring to the stalking of a girl.
Killing politicians and threatening people on twitter is the subject of amusement to these people.
Interesting tweet from the Frog regarding the fact that Praia da Luz was deserted on May 4:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1112146989561597957
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @CarlaSpade
There were plenty of people on the streets if you look hard enough for the photographs. Were the Dutch, German & Irish tourists swinging too iyo?
5:17 pm - 30 Mar 2019
*****
The point is that IF there were hundreds of people searching (which the photos show there weren’t) and IF there was a media storm (which both photos show there wasn’t and Sandra Felgueiras has confirmed it) then one would NOT need to “look hard enough”. But according to you, one has to do so. And even so, sorry, we still cannot see “plenty of people” in the May 4 photographs or footages.
Were the “Dutch, German & Irish tourists swinging too”? We don’t know who was swinging, all we know is that Luz on May 4 was practically deserted.
As far as we know, nationality is not a requirement to be part of these elite circles. The elites of nations mingle with each other – not saying specifically swinging – as they use the same international leisure resorts only accessible to their purses. Also, let’s not forget, that the cultural elites also connect.
Also, any national cultural and intellectual elite prides itself in their internationalism.
As we think that what was going on in Luz involved some people from the highest elites of the UK, those whose reputation was deemed absolutely necessary to protect to the point of disregarding the death of a little girl and make her absence due to her accidental death be because of an abduction, we wouldn’t rule out “Dutch, German & Irish” nationals being present as well.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-18-dna-samples-perlin-operation-grange-maddie-podcast/6bd27f6a-5390-47f4-8f0f-3f845330253b
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6 Apr 2019, 10:03:00,
DeleteThank you!
Quite a challenge to OG!
Bringing it over to the blog:
News / World
EXCLUSIVE: Maddie McCann podcast triggers dramatic offer from US lab to solve 18 vital DNA samples
By Mark Saunokonoko
3:28pm Apr 6, 2019
Following an investigation by nine.com.au, a formal request from one of the world's leading DNA scientists has been lodged with London Metropolitan Police for access to 18 complex DNA samples which are potentially loaded with vital clues about Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
There is hope that Dr Mark Perlin's powerful computational DNA testing methods could blow open the cold case by successfully cracking the 18 samples which frustratingly stumped a UK lab in 2007.
The offer comes after revelations about the case in nine.com.au's podcast series Maddie.
Dr Perlin, chief scientist at Cybergenetics, a renowned laboratory in Pittsburgh, US, sent a formal pro bono offer to detectives at Operation Grange to analyse that particular set of DNA samples, which had all been ruled "inconclusive", "too meagre" and "weak" by UK scientists during the original 14-month Portuguese police investigation.
Two of the 18 DNA samples Dr Perlin wants to look at were lifted from the boot of a rental car hired by Kate and Gerry McCann 25 days after Madeleine mysteriously vanished while on holiday in Portugal, almost 12 years ago.
Having reviewed a 2007 Forensic Science Service (FSS) report supplied by nine.com.au, Dr Perlin said it was "possible" Madeleine's DNA was present in the McCann hire car, potentially opening up or ruling out a line of the police inquiry, which had stalled with the "inconclusive" results.
The other 16 samples of interest to Dr Perlin were taken from areas inside the McCann holiday apartment in 2007 by a Portuguese forensic team. Dr Perlin will discuss the 18 DNA samples in greater detail in Monday's upcoming episode of Maddie.
In Dr Perlin's email to Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Wall, who heads up Operation Grange, the UK strike force investigating Madeleine's disappearance, he confirmed he would conduct analysis of the 18 samples for no cost. Scotland Yard's Operation Grange, launched in 2011, has cost British taxpayers more than $20 million and it has recently requested further funding from the UK Home Office.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteCybergenetics and Dr Perlin's analysis could either confirm or conclusively rule out some of the questions around the DNA samples.
Mr and Mrs McCann, both doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, have strenuously denied they were involved in the disappearance of their daughter. Nine.com.au does not suggest any involvement on their part.
As revealed in earlier episodes of Maddie, Nine.com.au's multi-episode podcast investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, Dr Perlin has pioneered world-renowned DNA testing technology able to solve crime scene evidence once thought to be indecipherable.
Dr Perlin's testing methods have helped identify victims of the 9/11 terror attack on New York's World Trade Centre and overturned wrongful convictions based on dodgy DNA evidence.
The now closed FSS in Birmingham had "failed" with the limited DNA testing methods it used to analyse a raft of "inconclusive" McCann samples, Dr Perlin said.
"[If] a lab can produce informative data, even if it is complex and mixed, but they can't interpret it then you can have tremendous injustice; of guilty people not being convicted, of innocent people staying in prison," Dr Perlin said. "What is needed is an objective and accurate interpretation that can scientifically resolve the DNA."
Dr Perlin said forensic and law enforcement agencies around the world, such as the FSS and other official UK bodies, routinely hold and archive the DNA data his lab Cybergenetics needs to make an accurate analysis and possibly help unlock the Maddie mystery.
"It would be a great way to resolve the case using modern technology and get a definitive answer to at least this one question that had perplexed the FSS ten years ago," he said.
Portuguese police had focused on the McCann hire car and certain areas inside the family's Algarve holiday apartment after intensive search work by two specialist British cadaver dogs, three months after Madeleine went missing. The two dogs had alerted inside the apartment, car and on several personal family possessions. Any alerts by cadaver dogs need to be corroborated by additional evidence, such as DNA.
One month after the dogs had searched those areas, Madeleine's parents were declared arguidos, formal suspects.
Arguidos status was lifted from Mr and Mrs McCann when the Portuguese police investigation was shelved in August 2008.
Aged three when she vanished in May 2007, Madeleine would turn 16 in 2019.
Episode seven of Maddie will be released on Monday, April 8.
LISTEN TO LATEST EPISODES OF MADDIE NOW
Maps, graphics, stories and all episodes of Maddie here: nine.com.au/maddie
© Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2019
https://twitter.com/MancunianMEDlC/status/1114297565607079937
ReplyDeleteSOCIALIZED MEDICINE @MancunianMEDlC
Replying to @CarlaSpade
I haven't got a clue who neil berry is ... Because you think it was an accident doesn't make it an accident ...
3:43 pm - 5 Apr 2019
*****
And yet he “knows”, based solely on social media, that Gerry is on some sort of register which he’s not.
One can only conclude that this individual is not here to seek the truth about what happened to Maddie but only either to spread misinformation or to validate the idea he created in his mind that Maddie HAD to be a victim of paedo.
She cannot have died accidentally, for people like him she HAD to have died raped at the hands of a paedo and they will not accept anything else. It’s almost like these people feel that anyone saying she died of an accident is personally insulting them.
Verdi on CMOMM is saying Perlin’s offer is a commercial venture, supported by Aquila who says Portugal have primacy. Would love to hear your thoughts, please.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6 Apr 2019, 16:26:00,
DeleteWe have LOADS of thoughts on the subject but prefer to keep them to ourselves for now. We don't want to interfere in any way with the attention and visibility being brought to the forensics of the case by Mark S which we think is very helpful to the truth.
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1114588498126868480
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @nowayjomo
Even the dogs could have transferred DNA from one place to another...Keela can be seen licking the floor in 5A behind the sofa which she did to help her scenting process.
10:59 am - 6 Apr 2019
*****
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
So the FSS couldn’t distinguish between DNA of a dog and DNA of a human?
DeleteI’m sure Mark Perlin can.
People are now calling out, and rightly so, this individual:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/s8P5e2FNUOY
https://youtu.be/l5oFbb4By0E
We will abstain from repeating here the adjectives used by some. Not pleasant.
What some seem to be forgetting is this:
https://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/see-how-to-be-an-armchair-detective-at-weston-s-winter-gardens-1-5811400
WIN: Former Scotland Yard investigator talks about how to solve cold cases
PUBLISHED: 09:00 09 December 2018 | UPDATED: 09:59 09 December 2018
Eleanor Young
An evening of true crime studies awaits a Weston audience.
How To Be An Armchair Detective will see former Senior Investigating Officer, Metropolitan Police Murder Squad Colin Sutton and YouTube’s The Armchair Detective Alan Vinnicombe will tell the secrets of solving a cold case.
Colin is most famously regarded as the officer to lead the investigations to convict Levi Bellfield and Delroy Grant.
He spend nine years of his police career as Senior Investigating Officer for the Metropolitan Police’s Murder Squad.
Among the dozens of investigations he lef, the most notable was Bellfield, who was found guilty and jailed for killing Marsha McDonnell, Amélie Delagrange and the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy.
But most infamously he was found guilty of killing 13-year-old Milly Dowler.
The show will be at the Winter Gardens, in Royal Parade, at 7.30pm on December 16.
Tickets, priced £15, are available online at tour@armchairdetective.co.uk
The Mercury has teamed up with Alan Vinnicombe to offer five pairs of tickets to the show.
To enter this competition, answer the following question: What is the name of show?
Send your name, address and phone number to Armchair Detective competition, Weston Mercury, 32 Waterloo Street, Weston, BS23 1LW or enter online at www.westonmercury.co.uk before 10am on December 13.
By entering you agree to be contacted about it by Archant.
Competition closed
Thanks for your interest but this competition has now closed
*****
Colin Sutton. Someone who had a significant importance in Sonia Poulton’s video last year.
Colin Sutton, to whom we’ve dedicated 2 posts:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2017/05/new-knight-in-town.html
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/02/sutton-is-name-meddling-is-game.html
Interestingly, some who are now on social media helping, rightly so, denouncing the so called Armchair Detective, were the same who refused at the time to echo our posts on Colin Sutton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8P5e2FNUOY&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1P5G9LRCwvCQFEQP6F5RbxnWga8TGD8fqjSg34-8YRKdz3cxf0Gf294u4
DeleteDoes anyone else agree with me that AD’s speech is rather slurred ?
https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/the-missing-calls
ReplyDeleteOur synopsis:
ReplyDeleteJoseph Moura, a Portuguese speaking PI from Boston, used by CBS news was undercover in PdL for couple of weeks. Says he sat at tapas table and ate there.
Spoke to staff. Bartender and waitress in the first week. They describe tapas members as having left for periods of 15 and 30 minutes. This is a reporting error because what is meant is the intervals they supposedly left to check, not how long they were gone for. The time intervals of the checking refer to the PJ interviews with staff on May 4, but Moura says the bartender and waitress clearly told him that nobody left the table on May 3.
“There was no checking system on the night of May 3rd”. The checking routines are described but he doesn’t believe there were any checks.
“They got nervous and disposed of the body” was a possibility Moura mentioned. He states categorically that he believes M is dead and that she was abducted. He believed she was dead from the beginning.
Mark Perlin says of cellular material that a serology report would have been available. Bio-mapping of areas of apartment could be done.
Transfer of DNA possible but not usual.
Colin Sutton says transfer could theoretically happened in apartment but depends where found, amount and if possible attempts made to clean it up in cracks and crevasses.
Mrs Fenn and crying incident mentioned and denied by Mcs.
Mr Amaral said mobile call logs of K and G had been manipulated and some deleted. Detective Mark McClish says that was odd and a red flag.
Jane Tanner texted Christine Flaxman, a DNA expert who worked for FSS from 1998- 2007.
Portuguese judge declined PJ requests for information on calls and texts.
Crèche records, 19/20 signings by K were McCann, only 1 was Healy. After Quiz Night when G (allegedly) spoke to Quiz Mistress.
As always, we welcome for any corrections as it’s a first listening whilst dealing with other distracting matters.
This is what Joseph Moura said in the past:
Deletehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/bombshell-mccann-reports-disputed/
Bombshell McCann Reports Disputed
Top Private Eye: No Way Woman Saw Abductor, Or Prober Hired By Parents Knows Who Has Her
2007 Nov 19
A leading private investigator who went undercover for 48 Hours Mystery takes issue with a woman's claim that she saw what may have been little Madeleine McCann being carried off by her kidnapper.
He also dismisses the assertion by an investigator hired by the 4-year-old British girl's parents that he knows who took Maddie and how, and where her abductor is now.
He went on to say he believes Maddie is dead, and it doesn't appear her parents were involved in the crime.
She disappeared at a Portuguese resort almost seven months ago when her parents left her alone in the family's suite while they ate dinner out.
48 Hours Mystery spent months probing the case, going undercover in Portugal, in search of the truth.
In a world exclusive, the show talked to a potential key witness.
Jane Tanner told the program, "As I was walking up the road, this man ... was walking across the top of the road, carrying a small child. And the thing that I noticed the most was he was holding her, and I could see her bare feet . . . and the bottom of the pajamas. ... It was just complete shock and complete horror that, you know, I might have seen Madeline being abducted."
After months of reported "Maddie" sightings, Francisco Marco, a Spanish investigator hired by a supporter of the McCanns, is asserting, "We're 100 percent sure that she is alive. ... I know the kidnapper and we know where he is. We know who he is. And we know how he has done it."
When pressed, Marco claimed he couldn't say any more while working the case.
Maddie' mother, Kate McCann, insists, "I strongly believe that Madeleine is out there."
But Joseph Moura, the private eye hired by 48 Hours Mystery says he disregards the claims from both Tanner and Marco.
On The Early Show Monday, Moura told co-anchor Hannah Storm he doesn't believe Marco, and described Marco's statements as "pretty ridiculous."
A member of the public claims to have seen Maddy two days after her abduction in central Portugal, in a van with a man and woman and, perhaps, another man.
Moura was also having none of that, saying it wasn't likely.
"The police had 160 police officers working on this case. If this was a set of facts consistent with the real case, they would have identified this person by now," Moura said.
But he indicated he doesn't feel Maddie's parents were involved in her disappearance.
(Cont)
(Cont)
Delete"Having worked the case and been there to identify a timeline, which was the real important part of this case, the timeline -- was there a window of opportunity for these people to have committed some type of crime and then dispose of the body? We find that the timeline doesn't fit.
"They couldn't possibly have been involved, whether it was accidental or not, they would have had to dispose of the body and there just wasn't enough time."
Moura noted that Maddie's parents were out to dinner five nights in a row with the same people, saying, "They had set a pattern. Every night was 8:30 sharp that they had reservations at the restaurant, and they all went there to dinner, they had between six and seven bottles of wine, they had their dinner. So, when you start looking at that time element, looking at the waiters who served them, looking at the bartenders who brought them the bottles of wine, that's how you set up that timeframe we were talking about."
The McCanns weren't the only ones who left their kids alone at the resort at night, Moura pointed out -- all the people they dined with did, even though a babysitting service was available.
He sat at the same restaurant table the McCanns were at the night Maddie vanished, and their room isn't visible form there, Moura said, noting, "They had no visuals whatsoever."
Moura didn't think Kate McCann refusing to take a lie detector test mattered much. "I think a lie detector test is inconclusive," he said. "I wouldn't take one. I would never advise my client to take one. So, that doesn't necessarily bother me."
As for Jane Tanner, Moura told Storm she "gives a very inconsistent story. It's not a truthful story, and I'm not quite sure why she did it. I mean, the fact is that it would be impossible for all these people to be getting up, going to check on the children, going out for walks, when they had an hour-and-20-minute timeframe. They had their dinner, they had seven bottles of wine, they had their coffees. There's just not enough time to do all these things. She never left their table that night."
© 2007 CBS. All rights reserved.
*****
Not all of his opinions given above were given to Mark S but he did say to Mark that he believed it was an abduction.
Back in the early days (2007?), I remember seeing this man on TV where he appeared. He said he was sitting at the table the Tapas sat at. Not sure if this was before I got interested in the case – I’ve already explained that it was in a supermarket while looking through Mr Amaral’s book - but from memory (and memory can play tricks) I remember I found odd the size and frailty of the table this man (no, at that time, even if after MrAmaral’s book I believed in the Tapas dinners and fully understood why the arrow in his picture was pointing to what it was pointing) and the fact that it was right next to the tarpaulin, unlike the table on the Frog’s event esplanade picture and the fictional one from Brunt’s image fidgety.
We have looked for that video and have been unable to find it. If anyone has a link to it, we would be really grateful.
https://youtu.be/ItbwWRSfcxw?t=984 This is the 48 hours episode. There is no clear shot of the table despite him saying that he was at the same one. There are a few shaky 'secret camera' walks between tables and a panning shot of food and wine flutes that could've been taken anywhere but that's it.
DeleteAnonymous 8 Apr 2019, 16:23:00,
DeleteThank you!
If this is what my memory had registered, it’s not. That does not mean that it isn’t the video we were looking for.
Why it may not be? Because, as I said, this was before I became interested in the case but by then I, like the majority of the world, had the certainty that there had been no abduction, that the dogs had pointed their noses to the apartment and to the Scenic and the fact the McCanns were allowed to fly out of the country was clear to me – and to the rest of the world – that the couple had to do with Maddie’s disappearance and that they were being protected by the UK government and that the Portuguese government was either in agreement or if not, then they were powerless to do anything about it against the “might” of the British.
So, what stuck to my memory was seeing this Portuguese PI – pardon the disrespect for that particular profession but to me the images had “corny” smeared all over them – saying that there was an abduction, when evidently there wasn’t. So, my brain registered this Portuguese immigrant from the US seeking his 15 minutes of fame. That, and only that is the reason he registered in my brain.
And what my brain registered about this man’s appearance was him in an interview (very much like the one in the video) but at Tapas because the tarpaulin was behind him. And my memory registered the frailty of the table he was sitting at, a square one, which was visible. Also remember seeing him during a clip in the middle of the evening news and not in a documentary as in this video.
Why it may be? Because the images from inside the Tapas bar – not to be confused with the inside of the esplanade – are familiar.
But that could be my brain playing with the images from the inside the bar that we get to see in the documentary made by the Chilean TV (the one where the hairdresser says they had dinner at Chaplin’s).
And, of course, it can be because my memory is playing tricks on me.
So we can’t say if this is when I saw Mr Moura back in 2007 or if it was another, shorter video.
Irrelevant of that, what matters is that now we can see VERY INTERESTING imagery from the inside the Tapas esplanade. Very, very telling.
About Joseph Moura:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-moura-checking-system-tapas-bar-maddie-podcast/cb175973-2cd0-4eb5-8c50-5dc89a571c17
News/World
Undercover investigator claims 'nobody left the table' to check kids on night Maddie disappeared
By Mark Saunokonoko
3:15pm Apr 9, 2019
A US private investigator who worked undercover at the holiday resort where Madeleine McCann vanished has made claims that appear to cast doubt on the controversial parental checking system Kate, Gerry and the Tapas 7 told police they were conducting on the night the three-year-old vanished.
In a remarkable interview on the Maddie podcast, Boston-based investigator Joseph Moura claimed a bartender and waitress who served the McCanns and their friends at the now infamous tapas restaurant on May 3 told him "nobody left the table that evening".
Moura worked one week undercover at the Ocean Club Resort after Maddie vanished, when US broadcaster CBS News hired him to investigate details surrounding Madeleine's disappearance for its flagship show, 48 Hours.
Nobody knew Moura, an American who speaks Portuguese, was a private investigator. In Maddie, Moura explained how he stayed at the Ocean Club resort and spent a lot of time getting to know employees, particularly workers at the tapas restaurant.
"[The employees] had no idea that I was working with 48 Hours and CBS. I was just a tourist who happened to speak their language. So I got to know them pretty well in that period of time, when you're spending a lot of time by the pool and you're spending time at the bar and the restaurant," he said.
"They clearly told me that that particular night that nobody left the table. That goes by the bartender and that goes by the waitresses. Nobody left the table that evening."
[image: https://imageresizer.static9.net.au/1BN0UtVRcdJnPCXbX7mNpoY_mFc=/800x0/smart/http%3A%2F%2Fprod.static9.net.au%2Ffs%2F8fdedcfb-3a43-4baf-b47e-506b83e419bf]
It is possible the bartender and restaurant wait staff did not see Mr and Mrs McCann and their friends getting up to leave the table to regularly check on their children.
According to police statements, members of the group departed the tapas table a number of times that evening.
Between 8.55pm and 9:30pm, the group of nine adults said they conducted a total of five checks. At 10pm, Kate McCann said she went to the apartment and discovered Madeleine was gone.
All six tapas restaurant staff who worked that night were interviewed by police on May 4, the day after Maddie vanished.
Three of the four front-of-house employees told police they saw one man leave the table that night. The other waiter said he noticed two men left during dinner at separate times.
One waitress told police workers learned that a girl had gone missing after a woman, probably Kate, left the table and raised the alarm.
In his police statement, a waiter said although he had seen just one man leave the table on May 3 that it was usual for someone in the group to visit the apartments to check the children.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteFollowing his work on the case, Moura concluded Madeleine had been abducted on the night of May 3, 2007.
When asked why the group would have given statements saying they checked on the children regularly if that were not the case, Moura speculated that one possible reason might be the public perception of the McCanns and their friends, many of them doctors, leaving their kids alone at night.
"The family and the friends were really embarrassed," Moura said.
[image: https://imageresizer.static9.net.au/F7186k_HA1_Ndjj5aSZtMjUpILI=/800x0/smart/http%3A%2F%2Fprod.static9.net.au%2Ffs%2F3ff905a3-c508-4faa-9085-36c9c15c53da]
While evidence available to Portuguese police suggested the group did check on the children multiple times, Moura's claims illustrate the difficulty of confirming even the smallest of details from the day of Maddie's disappearance
Mr and Mrs McCann, doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, have strenuously denied they were involved in the disappearance of their daughter. Nine.com.au does not suggest any involvement on their part.
The McCanns believed an intruder struck while they were out, snatching Madeleine from a bedroom where she was sleeping alongside her younger brother and sister, Sean and Amelie.
Mr and Mrs McCann said an abductor could have monitored their nightly routine, as they left Madeleine, Sean and Amelie alone each night to eat at the tapas bar.
The Maddie podcast, a multi-episode investigation of Madeleine's disappearance, has clocked over one-million downloads since launching last month. It quickly reached number one in the UK, Australia and New Zealand iTunes charts.
Aged three when she vanished, Madeleine would turn 16 in 2019.
LISTEN TO LATEST EPISODES OF MADDIE NOW
Maps, graphics, stories and all episodes of Maddie here: nine.com.au/maddie
© Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2019
Errmm... waitresses? Which waitresses?
DeleteUnlike we usually do, above we have included the links of 2 pictures in the article:
Deletehttps://imageresizer.static9.net.au/1BN0UtVRcdJnPCXbX7mNpoY_mFc=/800x0/smart/http%3A%2F%2Fprod.static9.net.au%2Ffs%2F8fdedcfb-3a43-4baf-b47e-506b83e419bf]
Is a still from this video (submitted by Anonymous 8 Apr 2019, 16:23:00)
https://youtu.be/ItbwWRSfcxw?t=984
https://imageresizer.static9.net.au/F7186k_HA1_Ndjj5aSZtMjUpILI=/800x0/smart/http%3A%2F%2Fprod.static9.net.au%2Ffs%2F3ff905a3-c508-4faa-9085-36c9c15c53da]
Is a still from this video:
https://youtu.be/OTYfVjt2-Eo
The closest I can find is Kitchen Assistant Svetlana Vitorino, who said on May 4th:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm#sv
'Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'
By the 8th she has changed to;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm
'The group's children did not dine with them. She remembers that on the day the child disappeared there was some confusion, with some people who left the table after ordering, one of the meals even being sent back, as someone had asked them to delay the meal for a little while.
She doe[sic] not know very well for what reason the adults rose from the table, she thinks it concerns the girl's disappearance. She did see that one of the plates was returned almost intact and they were asked to "delay" its cooking for a while, it was a grilled beef steak ordered by a man, whom she cannot identify.
At a certain moment, only an older woman remained at the table. The witness saw afterwards that they were looking for a girl, many people were helping to search.'
So, not only is she not a waitress, she also changed her story within 4 days (2 days before second set of tapas 9 interviews and all the changes within them).
If we're being charitable, it's also possible he got anecdotal accounts from Tapas waitresses who were working while he was there, but who weren't on shift the night of the 3rd. Not clear what dates he stayed but I believe the 48 hours episode aired in late 2007, which is obviously well before staff rotas for the week were released in the files.
DeleteWhere has her story changed?
DeleteFrom saying that the man away for 30 mins was presumably the husband of the lady who raised the alarm (and his return prompting her departure), to the T9 version where Russ (not Madeleine's father) left his food cold during his check. And now theres 'some confusion' and DW left alone at the table 'at some point'. No mention of a man returning then a woman leaving precipitating everyone else leaving. Very specific things introduced, and very specific things omitted. Only thing kept the same is DW remaining at the table.
Deletehttps://www.anorak.co.uk/177088/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-when-waiters-attack-kate-mccann-childcare-inc-and-feudal-powers.html
ReplyDeleteI suspect this is the bartender/ waiter Moura spoke to. Was his wife Maria the waitress at the Mill, in PJ files?
Maybe Mark Saunokonoko could ask Moura to confirm if this is the person he spoke to?
We have forgotten to highlight something from tweet thread we published in our comment at 3 Apr 2019, 19:46:00 and that was this tweet from the Frog:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1113235569058906112
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
That would depend on the reason behind it. For as long as Smithman remained unidentified there would always be a defence tool should anyone else be charged without Madeleine being located.
5:23 pm - 2 Apr 2019
*****
We couldn’t have said it better and we have tried. The Frog succinctly explains why the Smith sighting was provoked by Gerry.
It happened to have been the Smiths, but if it has been the Roberts or the Johnsons and if it had been elsewhere in Luz, we would be talking about it now as the Roberts or Johnson sightings wherever in Luz they would have happened.
The one that happened and the hypothetical ones above only share what is important: an unidentified man seen by independent witnesses carrying a girl in Praia da Luz after 21:15 (time of Tannerman sighting).
And “as long as Smithman [or hypotheticals Robertman or Johnsonman] remained unidentified there would always be a defence tool should anyone else [for example, the McCanns] be charged without Madeleine being located”.
The Frog is indeed very precise and concise. And correct.
And because Smithman did NOT remain unidentified, the Frog back in May 2018 was already supporting NotTextusa’s shifting forward of the Smith’s timeline in the PJ Files, casting doubts over it:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/994689716804050945
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @xxMichellesxx and 2 others
The page number is correct but the translation is wrong, which is misleading to an English-speaking reader. What it tells you is no-one in PJ bothered to verify Smith family timeline until 2/10/07, which meant 9.50 sighting time was wrong. There are several such errors.
2:24 pm - 10 May 2018
We have been asked offline why the times of the tweets published are “very odd”. The reason is that Twitter account we have created (0 tweets, 0 following and 0 followers) which we use to read tweets was set by default to US Pacific time.
ReplyDeleteAs we are technologically handicapped, we didn’t realise that all needed to correct the situation was to change the time-zone settings. We have done just that. From now one tweets will appear with GMT.
A tweet we have read, and because we subscribe to its content we are now publishing to confirm that times now published are GMT:
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1115911925978869762
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
#WednesdayWisdom
Just because your intentions are pure; never assume the recipient isn't playing you like a cheap banjo.
However; don't stop trusting. It's their twisted mind - not yours.
10:38 am - 10 Apr 2019
Post Scriptum:
We do have of tweets archived for future use. Before publishing them we will try to update them to GMT but probably some will escape and will still be published with the US Pacific time. However, as we always publish the link to the respective tweet, the reader can always confirm when they were originally published.
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1110713200876511232
ReplyDeleteMark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Can DNA dead-end in Madeleine cold case be suddenly blown open?
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-dna-evidence-car-perlin-cybergenetics-maddie-podcast/97e1ae48-2391-4d10-805d-2055a67e49ca #McCann #MadeleineMcCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2oLpPJUkAAKca6.jpg
1:20 am - 27 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/patricksmedia/status/1115451589878112256
Patrick Gleeson @patricksmedia
Replying to @saunokonoko
So something Madeleine touched may have been put in a car rented by her parents? So? Or her parents rent car after her disappearance and drive a long way looking for her? So? Any insinuation they are guilty of murdering their own daughter is shameful.
4:09 am - 9 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115758935162535936
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @patricksmedia
Patrick, I have never insinuated anyone murdered Madeleine. As Dr Mark Perlin, chief scientist at Cybergenetics says in Ep 7, there's a whole science to DNA transference. Here's some direct quotes from Dr Perlin when I asked him about transference #McCann
12:30 am - 10 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115759227870502912
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @saunokonoko @patricksmedia
"Secondary DNA transfer could occur, for example, imagine there was a suitcase in someone's apartment and DNA was left in some reasonably large quantity on that suitcase and then that suitcase was moved into the luggage compartment of the car."
12:31 am - 10 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115759349593296901
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @saunokonoko @patricksmedia
"Then the DNA from the person who had left it at another location, could, have it be deposited at a new location. That would mean that the person was never present. But that their DNA had been transferred to a location to where the DNA was found. That's DNA transfer."
12:32 am - 10 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115759413669662720
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @saunokonoko @patricksmedia
"There's a whole science to DNA transfer. It's not that common. It can happen."
12:32 am - 10 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115760049098379264
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @saunokonoko @patricksmedia
I also asked Colin Sutton, who solved 30+ homicides about DNA transference. Here's what he said: "I've never come across it myself. Theoretically it can happen if there is a substantial source of DNA."
12:35 am - 10 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115760189133615104
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @saunokonoko @patricksmedia
"So if you had something like a blood-soaked rag and wiped it somewhere else then it would come off. But it would depend very much on the amount of source material where it came from, I would think." -- Colin Sutton
12:35 am - 10 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115765259418005504
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @saunokonoko @patricksmedia
For clarity, I'm not suggesting a blood-soaked rag was anywhere near the rental car. That's just Colin explaining his understanding of how transference can sometimes happen. The car DNA is def of interest, otherwise police wouldn't have tried (and failed) to analyse it in 2007.
12:55 am - 10 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115758935162535936
DeleteMark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @patricksmedia
Patrick, I have never insinuated anyone murdered Madeleine. As Dr Mark Perlin, chief scientist at Cybergenetics says in Ep 7, there's a whole science to DNA transference. Here's some direct quotes from Dr Perlin when I asked him about transference #McCann
12:30 am - 10 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/McCannFacts/status/1115764003253510144
Killa Dog 🌐 @McCannFacts
Replying to @saunokonoko @patricksmedia
You know exactly what you insinuate Sunbeam, with your “Private Eyesque” disclaimers. #mccann
4:50 PM - 9 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1115794196311318533
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @McCannFacts @patricksmedia
Michael, the offer for an interview still stands if you want to discuss further.
6:50 PM - 9 Apr 2019
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-perlin-solve-car-dna-gamechanger-sutton-maddie-podcast/a1bac740-7b66-4a3d-b1d3-28ae8e3bf530
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 11 Apr 2019, 08:09:00,
DeleteThank you!
As we have just published a new post, we are going to bring this article over to the blog there.
Hope you understand.