By May I
The final report of the Portuguese Police was published in June 2008. It comes to some conclusions about the scientific evidence, dismissing the relevance of a certain stain.
I am not qualified to dispute scientific evidence, but there are some intriguing questions which merit further investigation.
This is what the report had to say about the stain. “A stain on the cover of one of the beds in Madeleine’s room (not the one it was reported she slept in) which raised some suspicions, should be pointed out. Duly analysed, the stain consisted of a biological residue (saliva) that belonged to the child- Craig G who had been on holiday earlier, with his parents, in the same apartment” (Although the name of the child is contained in the PJ files, I’ve opted to use the pseudonym, Craig G, in this quote).
Returning to newspaper reports, there was an article in the. Mail Online, June 1st 2007, which seems to be a reference to this finding: “Madeleine: “Mystery DNA” found in her bedroom” “Police searching for Madeleine McCann have found DNA from a mystery “Sixth” person was in the bedroom where she was abducted, it has been claimed. The Portuguese police, Policia Judicaria, have handed the sample to the national forensic laboratories, the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, according to local newspaper 24 Horas. It does not match the DNA of Mr or Mrs McCann or their 3 children, the paper said. Neither does the DNA match that of the only named suspect in the case, property developer Robert Murat, the paper added...”
Other newspapers reported this finding and added that there were no matches to the other members of the “Tapas” group. This was subsequently confirmed in the PJ files as they show that DNA profiles were obtained for all of the group and Robert Murat. In the PJ files, there is a photograph of a bedspread, taken on May 4th (2317) Vol 1X.
The cover is purple/white and there is an exhibit number 5, marking the area of the stain. On May 9th, the Portuguese Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) is sent 1 piece of cloth in envelope 5. “ from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children’s’ room- not the bed M slept in. …fragment of mauve/violet cloth with square motifs, circular in form about 10 cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a crime light. Acid photophase test to detect semen en. 5. Semen needs to be detected by other means. Result weakly positive.” Then “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."
So far, we can deduce that semen would rule out Craig G, aged 3 as the source. Unlike Craig’s saliva deposit, which had apparently survived a wash, Madeleine’s DNA was, amazingly, nowhere to be found at the apartment.
Not a toothbrush, a hairbrush for her long hair, the clothes she wore that day, her toys?
Jose De Freitas, an officer from the Metropolitan Police, not the Leicestershire Police, was despatched to Rothley to return with a sample from M’s pillowcase.
Her DNA sample was later labelled SJM/1 by the FSS in Britain on May 22nd. The twins were labelled SBM /2 SBM/3 because there was originally some confusion about whether it was their or Madeleine’s DNA on pillowcase/cases obtained from Rothley.
The bed Madeleine was reported to have slept in was not the bed under the window, which is the bed referred to in this report. I presume this would be the bed Kate said she slept in after her argument with Gerry.
It was reported in 24 Horas that the cleaners had washed sheets, blankets and pillowcases in the McCanns’ apartment after they left.
If this was the normal procedure between guests, can we assume that the bedding had been washed twice since the saliva/semen was deposited?
If it wasn’t the normal procedure, why was it carried out following the McCanns’ departure?
The report continues “Autosomic STR’s were obtained from the following vestigios: root of 1 of the hairs collected from the bedroom floor of the Burgau apartment (Vg3), and in the lower zone of the fibre from the car boot. Table 1 also includes the profile of the spot from the counterpane, already sent previously."
The report then identifies 3 male DNA samples. On September 4th Goncalo Amaral (3252/3) sent 3 unidentified male profiles to the INML to check with the British database, delivered on the 9th and analysed on October 4th.
He was taken off the investigation on Oct 3rd, but this line of enquiry was continued by Paulo Rebelo when he took over the investigation on October 8th.
On 12.12.07.he asks for a forensic examination from the INML of ; “ A natureza da mancha (encontrada na colcha de uma das camas do apartamento 5A…) e que permitiu a indentificacao pela letra L. “
I’ll refer to them as Male 1, Male 2 and Male 3.
Male 3 is profile L, so I’ll call him Leo, to make it easier to see him as a person and not a letter Male1 sample is found in the car boot (the car rented by the McCanns) (1)
Male 2 is found in Burgau (Vg3) (2)
Male 3 = Leo is found on the bedspread and also hair roots - 1 at entrance to bedroom at Ocean Club, 2 in the entrance hall, 4 on the floor next to the window= 8 samples in total.
So, can Craig be the source of the 8 samples? The stain on the bedcover is now said to be his saliva, but what about the 7 hair roots?
Rebelo sent the 3 profiles for analysis and asked for the profiles of two other guests, Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Singh Balu to be compared.
There is no result of this in the PJ files, as far as I have discovered.
Berry and Balu ordered Take–aways from the Tapas the night Madeleine disappeared. They were later asked to account for their movements between 6pm and 11pm that night.
Their rogatory statements are available but their initial statements to the UK police are not included in the publicly released files.
There is no date on the following correspondence from pages 3578-3582 or to whom it was addressed at the INML. “It was possible to define the autosomic STR profile of the sperm stain detected on the bedspread of one of the beds in the bedroom where the child went missing. It has already been checked that there is no matching between the obtained genetic profile and the profile of various samples of reference, which includes the ones of parents, friends and others.”
Could "others" be Balu and Berry? We don’t know. The request goes on to ask for this to be tested against the 3 previous occupants of the apartment. Simon Andrew Fawkes, Carlo D’Ambrosio and Paul Anthony Gordon with the DNA profile L.
This is L’s profile D3S1358 15-18 CSFIPO 10-11 HUMTHOI 9.3 Penta D9 D21511 29-32 VWA 18 D18551 17-18 D8S1179 12-13 Penta E 7-8 TPOX 11 D5S818 12-13 Fibra 20-24 D13S317 12-14 D2S1338 18-25 D78520 10-12 D19S433 13-15 D16S539 11 XY
“We also request a reply as regards the previous queries concerning the collected mouth swabs from Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Sing Balu as well as their DNA profiles.”
It seems Rebelo was not receiving the information he needed as promptly as he should have? I made note of some comments on blogs, some of which are now defunct, relating to the semen/saliva debate, as some people appeared to have inside knowledge.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the date of the first comment: “My source tells me that the Portuguese used the wrong chemical to identify semen before it was sent to the FSS. They used a saliva identifier and not semen. The chemical corrupted the sample and rendered it useless and this degradation was the reason it was sent to the FSS”
Second comment on 14.2.10. “The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved” This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..
Raymond Hewlett’s estranged son Wayne claimed to have a letter from his now deceased, formerly estranged father in September 2010, denying his involvement in Madeleine’s death, but claiming she had been taken by gypsies.
But… wait for it … the son had destroyed it, in what was derided by many wise commentators as ”the dog ate my homework” excuse.
In February 2011, Kate McCann wanted Hewlett’s German widow to tell her what she knew and Mrs Hewlett was reported as being very resentful about this intrusion.
Kate dismisses Hewlett as a suspect in her book and the Hewlett story now seems to have died with him.
To date, there has been no attempt to link Profile L/Leo to him, but we now have a pending review by Scotland Yard. It will be interesting to see where that goes!
Could Leo’s profile may be the result of some other adult activity on the bed in question? Or the stain may indeed been from the child’s saliva, but how does that explain the 7 hairs of the same profile? What about the stain on the mattress; was that also from profile L?
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I’m implying Leo was the abductor, I can only say that I’m sure the McCanns would have been the first people to come to such a conclusion on reading the PJ files.
However, this evidence doesn’t even merit a mention in Kate’s book.
Their own timeline places an intruder in the apartment when Gerry said he made his check and hardly gives any time for any molestation of the child before the alleged abduction. I agree with the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral and others; that the evidence suggested that Madeleine died as the result of an accident in her parents’ apartment.
Paulo Rebelo seems to have suffered the same foot-dragging behaviour from the UK on providing the information he requested as his predecessor, Goncalo Amaral.
As a consequence, we may never know for certain who Profile L was. Rebelo had FAR more to investigate before the case was shelved.
Notes:
(1) These vehicles were checked out by Rebelo:
- Audi model A4 10-91-PF Malinka
- Renault Kangoo 07-20-UI Luis Antonio
- Volkswagen Passat 57-12-HP L Antoni
- There was also a Volkswagen camper van 44-77-KD - Jenny Murat/ Robert Murat – car 6 of the 10 searched by the dogs in the garage in Portimao.
The car hired by the McCanns was a Renault Scenic reg: 59 DA 27
(2) The Burgau apartment is the Solimar/ Sol e Mar where DNA profiles of a person of the maternal line of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found on 5/5/07.
The report explains why these profiles do not prove they were the profiles of RM or JT, merely a person of the same maternal lines - cousin, child, sibling, aunt… A subject for a post in its own right.
The final report of the Portuguese Police was published in June 2008. It comes to some conclusions about the scientific evidence, dismissing the relevance of a certain stain.
I am not qualified to dispute scientific evidence, but there are some intriguing questions which merit further investigation.
This is what the report had to say about the stain. “A stain on the cover of one of the beds in Madeleine’s room (not the one it was reported she slept in) which raised some suspicions, should be pointed out. Duly analysed, the stain consisted of a biological residue (saliva) that belonged to the child- Craig G who had been on holiday earlier, with his parents, in the same apartment” (Although the name of the child is contained in the PJ files, I’ve opted to use the pseudonym, Craig G, in this quote).
Returning to newspaper reports, there was an article in the. Mail Online, June 1st 2007, which seems to be a reference to this finding: “Madeleine: “Mystery DNA” found in her bedroom” “Police searching for Madeleine McCann have found DNA from a mystery “Sixth” person was in the bedroom where she was abducted, it has been claimed. The Portuguese police, Policia Judicaria, have handed the sample to the national forensic laboratories, the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, according to local newspaper 24 Horas. It does not match the DNA of Mr or Mrs McCann or their 3 children, the paper said. Neither does the DNA match that of the only named suspect in the case, property developer Robert Murat, the paper added...”
Other newspapers reported this finding and added that there were no matches to the other members of the “Tapas” group. This was subsequently confirmed in the PJ files as they show that DNA profiles were obtained for all of the group and Robert Murat. In the PJ files, there is a photograph of a bedspread, taken on May 4th (2317) Vol 1X.
The cover is purple/white and there is an exhibit number 5, marking the area of the stain. On May 9th, the Portuguese Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) is sent 1 piece of cloth in envelope 5. “ from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children’s’ room- not the bed M slept in. …fragment of mauve/violet cloth with square motifs, circular in form about 10 cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a crime light. Acid photophase test to detect semen en. 5. Semen needs to be detected by other means. Result weakly positive.” Then “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."
So far, we can deduce that semen would rule out Craig G, aged 3 as the source. Unlike Craig’s saliva deposit, which had apparently survived a wash, Madeleine’s DNA was, amazingly, nowhere to be found at the apartment.
Not a toothbrush, a hairbrush for her long hair, the clothes she wore that day, her toys?
Jose De Freitas, an officer from the Metropolitan Police, not the Leicestershire Police, was despatched to Rothley to return with a sample from M’s pillowcase.
Her DNA sample was later labelled SJM/1 by the FSS in Britain on May 22nd. The twins were labelled SBM /2 SBM/3 because there was originally some confusion about whether it was their or Madeleine’s DNA on pillowcase/cases obtained from Rothley.
The bed Madeleine was reported to have slept in was not the bed under the window, which is the bed referred to in this report. I presume this would be the bed Kate said she slept in after her argument with Gerry.
It was reported in 24 Horas that the cleaners had washed sheets, blankets and pillowcases in the McCanns’ apartment after they left.
If this was the normal procedure between guests, can we assume that the bedding had been washed twice since the saliva/semen was deposited?
If it wasn’t the normal procedure, why was it carried out following the McCanns’ departure?
The report continues “Autosomic STR’s were obtained from the following vestigios: root of 1 of the hairs collected from the bedroom floor of the Burgau apartment (Vg3), and in the lower zone of the fibre from the car boot. Table 1 also includes the profile of the spot from the counterpane, already sent previously."
The report then identifies 3 male DNA samples. On September 4th Goncalo Amaral (3252/3) sent 3 unidentified male profiles to the INML to check with the British database, delivered on the 9th and analysed on October 4th.
He was taken off the investigation on Oct 3rd, but this line of enquiry was continued by Paulo Rebelo when he took over the investigation on October 8th.
On 12.12.07.he asks for a forensic examination from the INML of ; “ A natureza da mancha (encontrada na colcha de uma das camas do apartamento 5A…) e que permitiu a indentificacao pela letra L. “
I’ll refer to them as Male 1, Male 2 and Male 3.
Male 3 is profile L, so I’ll call him Leo, to make it easier to see him as a person and not a letter Male1 sample is found in the car boot (the car rented by the McCanns) (1)
Male 2 is found in Burgau (Vg3) (2)
Male 3 = Leo is found on the bedspread and also hair roots - 1 at entrance to bedroom at Ocean Club, 2 in the entrance hall, 4 on the floor next to the window= 8 samples in total.
So, can Craig be the source of the 8 samples? The stain on the bedcover is now said to be his saliva, but what about the 7 hair roots?
Rebelo sent the 3 profiles for analysis and asked for the profiles of two other guests, Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Singh Balu to be compared.
There is no result of this in the PJ files, as far as I have discovered.
Berry and Balu ordered Take–aways from the Tapas the night Madeleine disappeared. They were later asked to account for their movements between 6pm and 11pm that night.
Their rogatory statements are available but their initial statements to the UK police are not included in the publicly released files.
There is no date on the following correspondence from pages 3578-3582 or to whom it was addressed at the INML. “It was possible to define the autosomic STR profile of the sperm stain detected on the bedspread of one of the beds in the bedroom where the child went missing. It has already been checked that there is no matching between the obtained genetic profile and the profile of various samples of reference, which includes the ones of parents, friends and others.”
Could "others" be Balu and Berry? We don’t know. The request goes on to ask for this to be tested against the 3 previous occupants of the apartment. Simon Andrew Fawkes, Carlo D’Ambrosio and Paul Anthony Gordon with the DNA profile L.
This is L’s profile D3S1358 15-18 CSFIPO 10-11 HUMTHOI 9.3 Penta D9 D21511 29-32 VWA 18 D18551 17-18 D8S1179 12-13 Penta E 7-8 TPOX 11 D5S818 12-13 Fibra 20-24 D13S317 12-14 D2S1338 18-25 D78520 10-12 D19S433 13-15 D16S539 11 XY
“We also request a reply as regards the previous queries concerning the collected mouth swabs from Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Sing Balu as well as their DNA profiles.”
It seems Rebelo was not receiving the information he needed as promptly as he should have? I made note of some comments on blogs, some of which are now defunct, relating to the semen/saliva debate, as some people appeared to have inside knowledge.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the date of the first comment: “My source tells me that the Portuguese used the wrong chemical to identify semen before it was sent to the FSS. They used a saliva identifier and not semen. The chemical corrupted the sample and rendered it useless and this degradation was the reason it was sent to the FSS”
Second comment on 14.2.10. “The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved” This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..
Raymond Hewlett’s estranged son Wayne claimed to have a letter from his now deceased, formerly estranged father in September 2010, denying his involvement in Madeleine’s death, but claiming she had been taken by gypsies.
But… wait for it … the son had destroyed it, in what was derided by many wise commentators as ”the dog ate my homework” excuse.
In February 2011, Kate McCann wanted Hewlett’s German widow to tell her what she knew and Mrs Hewlett was reported as being very resentful about this intrusion.
Kate dismisses Hewlett as a suspect in her book and the Hewlett story now seems to have died with him.
To date, there has been no attempt to link Profile L/Leo to him, but we now have a pending review by Scotland Yard. It will be interesting to see where that goes!
Could Leo’s profile may be the result of some other adult activity on the bed in question? Or the stain may indeed been from the child’s saliva, but how does that explain the 7 hairs of the same profile? What about the stain on the mattress; was that also from profile L?
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I’m implying Leo was the abductor, I can only say that I’m sure the McCanns would have been the first people to come to such a conclusion on reading the PJ files.
However, this evidence doesn’t even merit a mention in Kate’s book.
Their own timeline places an intruder in the apartment when Gerry said he made his check and hardly gives any time for any molestation of the child before the alleged abduction. I agree with the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral and others; that the evidence suggested that Madeleine died as the result of an accident in her parents’ apartment.
Paulo Rebelo seems to have suffered the same foot-dragging behaviour from the UK on providing the information he requested as his predecessor, Goncalo Amaral.
As a consequence, we may never know for certain who Profile L was. Rebelo had FAR more to investigate before the case was shelved.
Notes:
(1) These vehicles were checked out by Rebelo:
- Audi model A4 10-91-PF Malinka
- Renault Kangoo 07-20-UI Luis Antonio
- Volkswagen Passat 57-12-HP L Antoni
- There was also a Volkswagen camper van 44-77-KD - Jenny Murat/ Robert Murat – car 6 of the 10 searched by the dogs in the garage in Portimao.
The car hired by the McCanns was a Renault Scenic reg: 59 DA 27
(2) The Burgau apartment is the Solimar/ Sol e Mar where DNA profiles of a person of the maternal line of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found on 5/5/07.
The report explains why these profiles do not prove they were the profiles of RM or JT, merely a person of the same maternal lines - cousin, child, sibling, aunt… A subject for a post in its own right.