tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post9195485820140574759..comments2023-10-30T07:28:35.018+00:00Comments on Textusa: TRUTHTextusahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-10095431580095912622015-09-25T07:57:18.895+01:002015-09-25T07:57:18.895+01:00Anonymous 25 Sep 2015, 00:10:00,
We understand yo...Anonymous 25 Sep 2015, 00:10:00,<br /><br />We understand you do and we're certain others have too when watching those videos.<br /><br />But we will not let go of the respect that other people's privacy deserve from us.<br /><br />Thank you for understanding.Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-25278210782110842952015-09-25T00:10:10.730+01:002015-09-25T00:10:10.730+01:00I have reasons for my incredulity, but I'm tot...I have reasons for my incredulity, but I'm totally cool. Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-82142531149833602152015-09-24T12:05:02.836+01:002015-09-24T12:05:02.836+01:00Bless, " not Textusa ". Added insults , ...Bless, " not Textusa ". Added insults , albeit in a fantastic font type. Excellent . You do amuse me . <br /><br />PS: I have upgraded your forensic's reply from a D to a B-. <br /><br />IsabelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-7814083836965583712015-09-24T09:05:55.748+01:002015-09-24T09:05:55.748+01:00Unpublished Anonymous at 24 Sep 2015, 03:20:00,
W... Unpublished Anonymous at 24 Sep 2015, 03:20:00,<br /><br />We have not published your comment because it's of a personal nature, and we respect fully the privacy of others.<br /><br />Hope you understand.Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-45184966943238251362015-09-23T15:46:50.613+01:002015-09-23T15:46:50.613+01:00Proper investigations start with believing nothing...Proper investigations start with believing nothing, these so-called investigators begin by believing something is true and proving by vague and oft spurious means that it is not, or is, or whatever their slanted subjective analysis and experts tell them. <br /><br />They already know they've been lied to, but fall into the trap of believing huge swathes of the narrative because they've been told or read it in the files. Gerry was right, they have nothing, legally and technically - NOTHING. They tie themselves up in twisted knots of frustration because their heads are filled with mountains of clutter. That's why they continue to fail and by extension cause untold misery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-68285695252113427622015-09-23T15:07:04.963+01:002015-09-23T15:07:04.963+01:00Two videos, my oh my, someone's running scared...Two videos, my oh my, someone's running scared. Shameful Black Hats!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-43919234197957910982015-09-23T10:15:58.479+01:002015-09-23T10:15:58.479+01:00Thanks for pointing us to these debates -as many a...Thanks for pointing us to these debates -as many as possible should read these, especially if you are inclined to believe any posts beginning with words to the effect of..'an expert has verified that .................' Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-87626569988142966162015-09-23T10:12:26.960+01:002015-09-23T10:12:26.960+01:00cont.
I agree with Nuala Seaton, this is not a ga...cont.<br /><br />I agree with Nuala Seaton, this is not a game of obfuscating and visual tricks.<br /><br />To your photoshopping experts I would put only one question: are the lenses of the sunglasses photoshopped?<br /><br />However, I would only be satisfied with only one answer from them: “yes”. And I can tell you right now that I would expect for their answer to be “no”.<br /><br />Before you criticise me I am not being disrespectful to them or stubbornly accepting only one answer as I’ll explain next.<br /><br />The answer “no” would be the most likely but for me would be inconclusive.<br /><br />Why? Because I think the lenses shown belong to the frame and that the frame belongs to the face. So I’m almost certain that the analysis by experts of the border between lenses/frame and the border between frame/head would both result in a conclusive “no, it’s not photoshopped”. And they would be correct.<br /><br />I have some limited experience in image formatting, am not an expert and my “work” is exposed in the images I publish on the blog. It’s limited but it is experience and is enough to allow me to know that what I would be asking your experts to detect (now we’re talking pixels and not physics) is very hard or even impossible to detect: the superimposition of solid colour over the exact same solid colour.<br /><br />What I think was done, was they cut the image by the middle of the frame of glasses from one picture and superimpose it over the image of the same pair of glasses of another picture. As the pair of glasses was the same in both the pictures so the tonalities of the frame in the image from which was taken would be the same as the one of the frame that was superimposed.<br /><br />The “scar” would be in the middle of the frame and not on the borders lenses/frame nor on the border frame/head. Those borders would be originals. The first from the image from where it was cut and the latter from the image in which it was pasted.<br /><br />Thus me saying it would be very hard or impossible to detect.<br /><br />In this matter I would be very pleased and attentive at what your experts would have to say about it. It would be their area of expertise and they would now be correctly directed was to what they would be looking for, with precision: only the frame of the glasses.<br /><br />If they said yes, they would prove my point but if they said no they wouldn’t disprove it for the reasons said.Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-83466663307228383292015-09-23T10:12:09.031+01:002015-09-23T10:12:09.031+01:00cont.
From me (Maria Santos):
Anthony Bennett, I ...cont.<br /><br />From me (Maria Santos):<br />Anthony Bennett, I will not get personal with you. Not because it’s you, because I don’t get personal with anyone in this case. I discuss only fact. When I disagree with something someone has said, it’s not personal, it’s debating fact.<br /><br />I am the voice for Madeleine and so are you if the reasons driving you are the same as mine. I am the voice, you are the voice and so is everyone who at heart wants to see the truth surface about Maddie.<br /><br />Am I the owner of the truth? No, I’m not.<br /><br />Are you? No, you aren’t.<br /><br />In the end I can be proven to be, or it can be you or someone else. Only then will we know who was right but only for the sake of knowing. This is not a competition. This is a collective effort to force out a truth that has been blocked by those who think they can block it from us.<br /><br />To either of us say or act as if we own the truth, is arrogance. I have many shortfalls but don’t think arrogance is one of them.<br /><br />I have already pointed out to you that the experts you keep repeating have deemed the last photo as “photoshop-free” are completely useless for the discussion we have had here, unless they have expertise in other areas than the ones you’ve mentioned.<br /><br />I am not putting them down or minimising their opinions. As you’ll see I would very much like to hear their opinion on something. But this is NOT about photoshopping this is about the physics of imagery. This is not their area of expertise.<br /><br />I’ll exemplify. This is what self-proclaimed expert Darren Ware Ware replied to Isabel Oliveira concerning the fact that the photographer’s reflection doesn’t appear on the lenses:<br /><br />“Isabel... in answer to your question: It all depends on a complex variety of factors. Key ones are distance between the camera and the subject, and the shape (i.e. convexity) of whatever is reflecting back to you. So, for example, in a portrait taken close up you'll see a very wide angled reflection (such as a whole room) of the area behind the photographer...but in the case of the Lat Photo the photographer was possibly 5 meters away from the subject and so the reflected image would be a very narrow field of view. Why can't you see the photographer in his lenses? Simply because, since at that distance the field of view would be narrow, there's a greater chance of not seeing the photographer than doing so.”<br /><br />Darren speaks only of physics. Not a single word about pixels.<br /><br />Angles, distances, shapes (i.e. convexity), angles and fields. This is what is being discussed.<br /><br />Now note how Darren does not refer to this “complex variety of factors” [his words] when simplifying things his way so say that a reflection of 1 or 2ft of the edge of the pool would fill up a whole lens located at “possibly 5 meters away” when the reflections of objects on lenses are a fraction of their real size. Those 1 or 2 feet would be millimetres.<br /><br />On the image, taken from his video, where he claims he has proven his point there’s the proof of the opposite: reflected on the lens of the mannequin’s sunglasses is the contour of the edge of the bed.<br /><br />Yes, the bed is smaller than the pool, however the edge of the bed is much nearer to the mannequin’s sunglasses than the edge of the pool would be to Gerry’s.<br /><br />Darren’s little experiment is very useful because it shows what Gerry’s lenses were supposed to show but aren’t.<br /><br />When asked to replicate on the lenses what is in the image, Darren shys away from the challenge because he says he needs sunlight. He doesn’t. We’re not asking for any more quality of image than the one he showed with the lighting he had which he used to prove his point. If the lighting was good enough then, then it would be good enough to rise up to the challenge.<br /><br />He had (has) all the tools he needs to replicate: the mannequin with sunglasses, a round bed and a camera.<br /><br />cont.Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-31077827922054131502015-09-23T10:09:10.049+01:002015-09-23T10:09:10.049+01:00This post has 2 replies to date, from Darren Ware ...This post has 2 replies to date, from Darren Ware (author of videos) and myself:<br /><br />Darren Ware:<br />Stick a very small mirror (especially one that's slightly convex), onto someone's head (or clip it on their spectacles)...get them to sit on the floor...then walk 5meters from them...look at each other and take a photo. The chances will be slim of cap...<br /><br />Maria Santos:<br />Darren Ware, "Stick a very small mirror". No can do. Only sunglasses to be used as reflecting surface. Any other is cheating results.<br /><br />But you already know that.Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-84098925816595858332015-09-23T10:07:39.688+01:002015-09-23T10:07:39.688+01:00cont
From me (Maria Santos):
Nuala Seaton, agree...cont<br /><br />From me (Maria Santos):<br /><br />Nuala Seaton, agree totally with you.<br /><br />Isabel Oliveira's question has just unlocked for me the mystery. Gerry is looking straight at the camera, the glasses are perpendicular to the viewer and at about the same height. The photographer would have to be reflected. Not should but had to! The glasses are perpendicular to the camera.<br /><br />And it could be easily seen it was not Kate.<br /><br />My opinion is this.<br /><br />Photo of Maddie taken during week, could be Sunday, could be any other day, under the context of holiday. It could even have been taken by the childcare people or by the McCanns.<br /><br />There was a need to to create family time. The few pics taken of Maddie dictate what can be done. This probably was the only photo she took around pool.<br /><br />After Maddie died, and it could be on the date you say (the heat had passed, media were domesticated to reporting when McCanns gave press conference, clothes and sunlight seem to fit and explains why it took so long for picture to surface), Gerry and Amelie pose for pic.<br /><br />In "studio" the photographer reflection problem is detected. Probably when the whole picture set up. It needs to be solved. They simply took the glasses from other image taken that afternoon and was pasted over the original.<br /><br />The picture from where they copied glasses from would be one where Gerry would have them vertically on his shirt, and the reflection being of the opposite border of pool from where he's seating.<br /><br />The choice of picture from where to choose from was most likely conditioned with the photographer's reflection. Most pictures would have it. This one didn't because the glasses were on his chest and the angle makes what is reflected to be beneath the horizon line of camera, thus the other side of the border.<br /><br />All this, obviously, MY opinion. My thanks to you and Isabel. It's always the bits and pieces of unconditioned debate that allows one to withdraw the best conclusions.<br /><br />contTextusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-30152164305696465112015-09-23T10:05:50.516+01:002015-09-23T10:05:50.516+01:00I'm bringing over what I consider the posts th...I'm bringing over what I consider the posts that sum up conclusions reached.<br /><br />From Nuala:<br /><br />Anthony Bennett I'm not interested in what your experts had to say. We don't know who they are and we don't know what questions they were asked. Besides which no-one should blindly take the word of an expert and I'm surprised that you do. Anyone who has seen expert witnesses giving testimony in court cases knows two experts on the same subject can have totally opposing views.<br /><br />So expecting to shut down this debate with the "experts" argument isn't going to work. We're intelligent people with minds of our own and we use them.<br /><br />The reflection in GM's sunglasses is impossible. The photo was photoshopped.<br /><br />Isabel Oliveira has asked Darren Ware a perfectly valid question about the photographer's reflection not being in GM's sunglasses. So far he's ignored her question, so we await his response.<br /><br />It's my belief that the reason the reflection in GM's sunglasses had to be photoshopped is because it DID show the reflection of the person taking the photograph, and that person wasn't Kate McCann.<br /><br />It's also my belief that the base photo (at the pool) was taken around 17th/18th May 2007 and the image of Maddie was added in afterwards. There are photos here of GM wearing the same clothes as in the Last Photo and AM with her pink hat:<br /><br />http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/1857.htm<br /><br />contTextusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-19436790742522552332015-09-23T09:55:48.053+01:002015-09-23T09:55:48.053+01:00Anonymous 23 Sep 2015, 00:07:00,
It's not one...Anonymous 23 Sep 2015, 00:07:00,<br /><br />It's not one but 2 very useful videos. They prove how impossible it is to replicate the reflection seen on Gerry's sunglasses on the photo known as the last photo. <br /><br />We recommend that people follow the interesting debate taking place on the "Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann" FB page:<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1670008623243624/<br /><br />and<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1670982866479533/Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-89095212514588150952015-09-23T00:07:15.666+01:002015-09-23T00:07:15.666+01:00Yet another futile video has appeared on CMoMM to ...Yet another futile video has appeared on CMoMM to confound the gullible in terms of the ludicrous last photo. What total jokers!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-29574433971948951092015-09-22T16:50:10.262+01:002015-09-22T16:50:10.262+01:00Anonymous 18 Sep 2015, 16:48:00, Anonymous 22 Sep ...Anonymous 18 Sep 2015, 16:48:00, Anonymous 22 Sep 2015, 16:45:00,<br /><br />Could you please provide me ONE story where swingers were outed (please not articles where organisers/hosts show their faces) where a parallel of "not minding they have exposed us" can be established?Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-13215786251958971982015-09-22T16:45:20.636+01:002015-09-22T16:45:20.636+01:00AGREED. Just imagine how much a story like, ' ...AGREED. Just imagine how much a story like, ' I swung along with ?? from the T9' would fetch. Irresistible to anyone short of a bob or two who was actually there and happened to be so liberated that they just didn't care what 'people thought' about them. No 'swinging' isn't the shared interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-62533412780987389022015-09-22T16:44:59.357+01:002015-09-22T16:44:59.357+01:00"Dear", tut. Behave. What I stated withi..."Dear", tut. Behave. What I stated within the context of your comment in your blog was that the FSS did not perform a test to determine the origin of body fluids. Am I incorrect? No, I thought not.<br /><br />Isabel Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-57087025327785541722015-09-22T15:14:42.440+01:002015-09-22T15:14:42.440+01:00Censored comment received from Insane:
"Not ...Censored comment received from Insane:<br /><br />"Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "TRUTH":<br /><br />Are you attempting to make a point, Isabel? Because if you are, you are failing miserably.<br />Why don't you come back when you have read the files properly, dear.<br />You and Textusa seem utterly incapable of realising that without the entirety of the reports on this sample, it is like switching a football match on with 15 minutes to go and assuming that the scoreline at that instant is the final score.<br />You claimed no test was done to determine the origin of the body fluid. That is a complete lie. As I stated, the Phadebas test gave a positive result for saliva.<br />There is no mystery about this, other than the one (censored) has tried to engineer<br /><br />Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 22 Sep 2015, 14:47:00"Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-4723598513220040762015-09-22T14:34:50.962+01:002015-09-22T14:34:50.962+01:00Thank you Natasha Don for your article and continu...Thank you Natasha Don for your article and continued support for Mr Goncalo Amaral in his appeal case.<br />We can only hope that political influences have no relevance and they go for the Truth, which in some way based on probabilities? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-29266650425990540052015-09-22T12:57:00.069+01:002015-09-22T12:57:00.069+01:00http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/11/mystery-of-prof...http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/11/mystery-of-profile-l.htmlTextusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-85923417605600506092015-09-22T12:55:58.589+01:002015-09-22T12:55:58.589+01:00https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=689157496...https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6891574965172458848#overviewstats<br /><br />Posted by portugalpress on September 22, 2015<br />Appeal to raise money for Maddie cop’s legal costs gets huge cash boost<br /><br /><br />An anonymous group of Portuguese “business and legal workers” have ploughed over €5,500 (£4000) into the online appeal, set up by a young single mother to raise money for beleaguered ex-Maddie cop Gonçalo Amaral. Amaral’s appeal against the €600,000 in damages awarded against him in the civil case taken out by the parents of missing Madeleine is due to be decided by Lisbon’s Appellate Court “any day now”.<br /><br />The cash boost has brought the Legal Defence for Gonçalo Amaral to over €65,000 (£47,010).<br /><br />Donated in the Portuguese language, the text claims to be from “an anonymous group of business and legal workers who are appalled by what has happened”.<br /><br />It continues: “Portugal and Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British gutter press have tried to drive a wedge between us.<br /><br />“We can all see what they are trying to do, freezing Dr Amaral’s assets to prevent him from defending himself, whilst using the donated millions to sue him.<br /><br />“That is not justice. It is not right.<br /><br />“The McCanns lost five out of the seven issues, but the British press has not reported that, nor the strong terms used by the judge against their so called ‘evidence’.<br /><br />“They have to pay 60% of the costs, but the British press has not reported that” either, the text continues, stressing that “this small donation is to ensure that this act of hate and venom does not succeed”.<br /><br />The donation - arriving in the legal fund early on Tuesday morning - has been widely shared on social media where a veritable avalanche of support for Amaral has accompanied him for the past eight years. But so far it has been ignored by the British mainstream media.<br /><br />As to the former PJ detective’s appeal against the ruling that effectively orders him to pay the McCann’s over €600,000 in damages, that is advancing now through the Appellate Court in Lisbon.<br /><br />As a friend of the former detective’s explained, “it is not a public process. There is no court date.<br /><br />“At some point, the judges reach a verdict and then they communicate that verdict to all parties. There is however no deadline. It may take weeks or months until we hear anything”.<br /><br />natasha.donn@algarveresident.comTextusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-40521067516382419062015-09-22T11:58:14.192+01:002015-09-22T11:58:14.192+01:00cont.
CONCLUSIONS
First: In total in the two pha...cont.<br /><br />CONCLUSIONS<br /><br />First: In total in the two phases of the case there were 25 reference samples and 447 vestiges studied: 1 spot on the counterpane; 2 objects from the car boot and 444 hairs. The macro- and microscopic analyses of the 444 hairs revealed that 432 were humano and 12 non-human, no result being obtained for 98 hairs and only partial results for l9 hairs. With respect to the plastic object from the car boot no results were obtained.<br /><br />Second: The search for saliva in the mark on the counterpane from one of the beds in apartament 5A of tourist resort Ocean Club was positive.<br /><br />OFFICIAL LETTER N.' 004080, dated 12/12/2007, that solicited "examinations as appropriate, with the view to determine the nature of the mark (found on the counterpane [quilt/bedspread] of one of the beds in apartment 5A of the tourist resort OCEAN CLUB in Praia da Luz) and if it permits the identification of the profile indicated by letter (L)".<br /><br />There were no matches between the reference sample genetic profiles and the following analysed samples:<br /><br />- Mark on the cloth fragment collected from apartament Ocean Club (counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom - env. 5).<br /><br />From Lowe Report<br /><br />This is a request from Paulo Rebelo to John Lowe/FSS : We further request the DNA profile comparison concerning the English citizens that stayed in the apartment throughout 2007, where the above-referred sperm stain was found.<br />-FAWKES, SIMON ANDREW<br />-DAMBROSIO, CARLO<br />-GORDON, PAUL ANTHONY<br /><br />With the DNA profile<br /><br />D3S1358 15-18 CSFIPO 10-11<br />HUMTHOI 9.3 Penta D 9<br />D21511 29-32.2 VWA 18<br />D18551 17-18 D8S1179 12-13<br />Penta E 7-8 TPOX 11<br />D5S818 12-13 Fibra 20-24<br />D13S317 12-14 D2SI338 18-25<br />D75820 10-12 D19S433 13-15<br />D16S539 11 Amelogemine XY<br /><br />Obtained by the INML, IP from a bedspread of a bed located next to the window of the children - s bedroom in Apartment 5A, block A, in the Ocean Club, tourist resort, Praia da Luz, Lagos, with the results obtained by this laboratory.<br /><br />Lowe’s Answer on May 22nd 2008:<br /><br />The voluntary samples were also compared with 'crime stain 1', a DNA profile obtained by Portuguese scientists using their DNA profile system. The profile was recovered from suspected semen on a blanket in the apartment 5.<br /><br />From the available records, I conclude that 281 voluntary samples were eliminated as contributors of DNA to the list of search profiles above, since its profile does not match the profile sought; consequently, the DNA can not have originated from them.<br /><br />I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with Charlie Gordon (bar code 51156964). I believe that Charlie Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.<br /><br />IsabelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-49351776143410258112015-09-22T11:57:25.871+01:002015-09-22T11:57:25.871+01:00I'm Isabel, my response was too long for a sin...I'm Isabel, my response was too long for a single post and had to be divided, so here it is:<br /><br />From Not Textusa to me, published in his blog:<br /><br />“ A letter has flooded in from some half-witted twat by the name of Isabel, who posted the following on Textusa<br />I really am sick and tired of explaining this to the thicky sisters. All this information is IN THE FILES, with the exception of the explanation of what the Phadebas test actually tests for, which comes from my personal knowledge<br /><br />I have left the following reply, which Textusa probably won't publish, hence my publishing it here too “<br /><br />Dear “Not Textusa” , I so dislike it when you get too angry. All your dark humorous style goes down the drain then. Shame. Tut.<br /><br />Now , your original answer to point 12 was as follows:<br /><br />“No, it is from him, as confirmed by DNA analysis by the FSS. The bed cover did not contain semen; you are well aware of this. “<br /><br />All I wanted you to have done was to actually write what you now wrote here as a reply . Chasing the adventurous itinerary of sample 5, which you had not done properly. If anything, my comment made you write a more accurate account of the sample's analysis.<br /><br />Don’t take it for granted that only you are thorough enough to read and understand forensic reports.<br /><br />You did forget to include, to be thorough, that when analysed in March 2008, the Portuguese Institute of Legal Medicine did not match the saliva sample to any profile. A further request was sent in 2008 to the FSS still referring to the sample as semen, although, yes, a test in December had showed saliva in the sample. . The request also asked for a DNA match to 3 other people, whose DNA was in possession of Portuguese entities as shown by the correspondence below. It was John Lowe and the FSS that extracted the Gordon child DNA from said sample and consider it to be saliva due to child’s age.<br /><br />So drop the insults , they really do no favours to your style, and consider I have contributed to your writing of a far more , although not totally, accurate and complete answer.<br />--------------------------------<br />Results from the Portuguese Institute of Legal Medicine<br /><br />OFFICIAL LETTER N.' 004080, dated 12/12/2007, that solicited "examinations as appropriate, with the view to determine the nature of the mark (found on the counterpane [quilt/bedspread] of one of the beds in apartment 5A of the tourist resort OCEAN CLUB in Praia da Luz) and if it permits the identification of the profile indicated by letter (L)".<br /><br />In the 1st fase, were received 258 vestigios and 12 reference samples - oral swabs [swatches] from 11 individuals. The vestigios included 257 hairs [generic] and one speck detected in a cloth fragment collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the bedroom of the children in apartament 5A (envelope 5), as mentioned in the previous report.<br /><br />Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n'. 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom.<br /><br />Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n'. 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Positive.<br /><br />3- Study of the nuclear DNA<br /><br />Autosomic STRs results were obtained from the following vestigios: root of one of the hairs collected from the bedroom floor of the Burgau apartment (Vg3) and in the lower zone of te fibre from the car boot. Table 1 includes, also, the profile of the spot from the counterpane, already sent previously.<br /><br />25 reference samples.<br />- 447 vestigios, comprising:<br />>> 444 hairs, of which 432 were human;<br />>> 1 mark on a counterpane;<br />>> 2 objects from a car boot.<br /><br />L 4 1 Mark counterpane bed (saliva)(env5)<br /><br />contAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-50990268591499763342015-09-22T10:13:39.409+01:002015-09-22T10:13:39.409+01:00This fantastic £4,000 donation is followed by anot...This fantastic £4,000 donation is followed by another 2:<br /><br />£100<br />Bravo Bravo<br />50 mins ago<br />Always a delight to see a donation made to this wonderful fund for Dr Amaral set up by Leanne Baulch. -----This morning to see the latest donations by a group of employees from various companies, and the message this donation carried is magnificent.---- Bravo to one and all who contributed to the donation. <br /><br />£35<br />Karen Laverick<br />33 mins ago<br />Just logged in to pay my monthly payday troll fee & thought my heart would burst at the amazingly generous donations from a group of anonymous workers... Let's hope we can get this fund up to £50,000 by the trial. Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6891574965172458848.post-88060918703425666042015-09-22T10:08:28.560+01:002015-09-22T10:08:28.560+01:00WOW!
https://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
...WOW! <br /><br />https://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA<br /><br />£4,000<br />Anônimo Anônimo<br />1 hour ago<br />De um grupo anónimo de funcionários de empresas e do meio legal que estão estupefactos com o que aconteceu. Portugal e a Grã-Bretanha são velhos aliados, mas os McCann e os tablóides britânicos tentaram separar-nos. Todos vemos perfeitamente aquilo que estão a tentar fazer, congelando os bens do Dr Amaral para o impedir de se defender, enquanto usam os milhões que lhes foram doados pelo público para o processar. Isto não é justiça. Isto está errado. Os McCann perderam 5 das suas 7 pretensões, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou, nem tão-pouco reportou as palavras duras utilizadas pela juíza em relação às suas supostas 'provas'. Têm de pagar 60% das custas, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou. Esta pequena doação destina-se a assegurar que este venenoso acto de ódio não seja bem sucedido. Acreditamos que um dia a verdade será contada, embora seja improvável que sejam os pais a fazê-lo.<br /><br />***************<br /><br />Translation, with thanks to Lisa Edington of FB<br />https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1671425559768597/<br /><br />An anonymous group of employees of companies and legal means that are stunned by what happened. Portugal and Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British tabloids tried to separate us . All see perfectly what we are trying to do , freezing the assets of Dr Amaral to prevent him from defending himself, while using the millions they have been donated by the public to the process . This is not justice. This is wrong . The McCanns have lost 5 of their 7 pretensions, but the British press not reported , nor even reported the harsh words used by the judge in relation to his alleged ' evidence ' . They have to pay 60 % of costs , but the British press not reported . This small donation is intended to ensure that this venomous hatred act is not successful. We believe that one day the truth will be told, although it is unlikely to be parents to do so.<br /><br />****************<br /><br />What other words can one say but... WOW?Textusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160632687242190030noreply@blogger.com