Super-Kid

Excerpt from a censored comment (3) from Insane in our on "Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon":post:

“(…)

There were no ''blood splatters'' recovered from apartment 5a

The wall and floor stains labelled 9a and 9b were not attributed to the little boy whose DNA profile is listed as profile L. This is either pure invention on your part, or a complete inability to read and understand the files. Several hairs were recovered which matched the same DNA profile, and that presumably is what you are referring to, unless you were setting out to deliberately mislead.

The fact that there were hairs found which were shed by previous residents also gives the lie to the bollocks about the flat being subject to ''exaggerated cleaning''

Where do you get the idea that there was less DNA from former residents than expected? Support this claim with references please (she can't, so don't get your hopes up)

You can't ''selectively clean'' a room of the DNA of one individual whilst leaving others behind.

(…)”

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at Jun 22, 2013, 3:39:00 AM"

Nothing like starting the new season with Insane!

Why did we do it?

Because Insane, as s/he has done before on other occasions and for which we’re immensely grateful, has, with this particular comment, showed us the path to show you what we’ve always suspected but haven’t been able to, at least up to now, do with the clarity which you know we like to substantiate our statements: UK's Forensic Science Service (FSS) has NOT been, in our opinion, as transparent as it should about the Maddie case.

Thank you, Insane, without your comment we wouldn't have revisited this issue.

And as you'll see later in the post, the proof that we did revisit the subject because of it is that we detected an "imprecision"  made in our "Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon" post which we know have corrected.

So a big "thank you" to Insane in order, indeed!

We have always wanted to clarify what samples exactly were collected from the stains in Apartment’s 5A’s East and North walls as per picture above.

To start with, Insane is somewhat right when s/he says “there were no ''blood splatters'' recovered from apartment 5a” but that is if you want to be a hard purist bordering some sort of radical, or convenient, fundamentalism about conclusions.

In fact, nowhere in the PJ Files' FSS' Final Report, does it explicitly say that it was “blood” that was what was collected with the various swabs taken by PJ’s LPC from the referred walls. And floor. And couch.

For the newcomers, LPC is the acronym for Laboratório de Polícia Científica (Scientific Police Laboratory) which is, we would risk saying, the Portuguese equivalent to UK’s FSS.

The FSS' Final Report was supposed to wrap up and conclude about all forensic data within the PJ Files.

So although in the the PJ Files the word "blood" does appear directly related with the DNA vestiges found in Apartment 5A, its conclusive forensic document doesn't mention it.

But the FSS' Final Report also doesn’t say the stains found aren’t blood.

It simply doesn’t say what the stains are made of.

It’s common and popular knowledge, even for those who haven’t followed the case after 2008, that specialized UK Police dogs signaled the existence of blood and cadaverine inside apartment 5A.

For the hard purist bordering some sort of radical, or convenient, fundamentalism, AKA Black Hats, the dogs signaled the EVENTUAL existence of blood and cadaverine, but for the rest of us, the agenda-free, logical, reasonable and rational people, they did signal the existence of blood and cadaverine.

But irrelevant of each one’s opinion, or convenient opinion, on this subject, the fact is that these specialized dogs reacted inside apartment 5A to a stimulus when in certain precise locations: the area near the walls referred and the bedroom closet.

For us agenda-free, logical, reasonable and rational people the dogs reacted to the stimulus each one was trained to react to: one to blood, the other to cadaverine.

The BH say that the reactions from these specialized dogs are absolutely unreliable and so should be minimized or, better, totally ignored, as they don’t prove any existence of either cadaverine or blood.

To the BH the dogs’ reactions could have been due to an infinite number of possibilities including external and purposefully induced stimuli just to incriminate the McCanns.

Facts are facts and let’s stick to facts and the fact is that the dogs reacted in those locations.

Another fact is that LPC was sent into that apartment just because of the dogs, as per PJ Files' page 2191 (1) :

"For the effects seen convenient, it’s my duty to bring to your knowledge and in accordance with superior determination, today, around 20H00, LPC Assistant-Specialists, Mr Fernando Viegas and Mr Lino Rodrigues, after seeing the recorded images referring to the canine inspection conducted on the past day of 31/07/2007 in the apartment 5 A of the Ocean Club Urbanization, adequately shown in document joined in the inquiry, proceeded in the collection of the tiles where the dogs used in the diligence marked the eventual existence of hematic vestiges, as well as the permanence of a cadaver in that same location."

So, if there had been no dogs’ reactions then the LPC wouldn’t have collected a series of swabs from that particular area as listed in PJ Files' pages 2006 – 2007:

“IA - Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab;

1B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water;

2A - Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab;

2B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water:

3A - Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab;

3B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water;

4A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

4B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

5A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

5B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

6A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

6B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

7A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

7B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

8A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

8B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

9A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

9B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

10A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

10B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

11A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

11B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

12A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

12B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

13A - Stain on the wall recovered with a dry swab;

13B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;

14A - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with a dry swab;

14B - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with swab with distilled water;

15A - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with a dry swab;

15B - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with swab with distilled water;"

So we basically have 2 kinds of swabs from each stain, one dry and the other with distilled water.

PJ Files' pages 2192 to 2203 give us a very detailed visual report of the origins of each of these swabs. So there's absolutely no doubt as to what each swab means and exactly where it came from.

And here is where we found to have not been correct in our "Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon" post and for that we apologise.

However it is quite puzzling to see such a thorough and precise reader of the PJ Files, as apparently Insane proclaims to be, miss the opportunity to correct us when we said:

"If one doesn't forget that the Ocean Club cleaners aren't exactly "expert cleaners" one must ask why also the lack of expected amount of forensic data from former tourists in that apartment and, in particular, in that room?

We have, as far as we know, the evidence of the stain attributed to a 3 yr old.  

The wall and floor stains 9a&b are also attributed to him, which would contradict the blood splatters being from Paul “Labrador” Gordon in the living room who is said to have walked around the apartment trying to staunch bleeding after cutting himself shaving."

Insane does quote us by saying "The wall and floor stains labelled 9a and 9b" but doesn't correct us and by not correcting us makes the exact same imprecision. .

It is very clear that swabs 9 (A & B) are both from the same location and that is on the wall.

Nothing from the floor relates with swabs 9 (A & B).

But the point we made and that Insane so desperately tried, in vain, to contradict, remains unaltered: the stain from which swabs 9 (A & B) came from were attributed to Paul Gordon's son, C****** Gordon (CG).

As we said in our response to the said comment in the post it referred to, ""Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon", that Insane is wrong when s/he says: “The wall and floor stains labelled 9a and 9b were not attributed to the little boy whose DNA profile is listed as profile L. This is either pure invention on your part, or a complete inability to read and understand the files”. 

Insane is wrong and not just imprecise. FSS, by the words of JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol MlBiol RFP disagrees with Insane about swabs 9 (2):

"For informative purposes only, a database from voluntary samples was constructed with the purpose of monitoring information. In accordance with the available records, the database is made up 286 voluntary samples, four of which were rejected. The voluntary DNA profiles were compared with the following samples:

286A/2007/CRL1A & B

286A/2007/CRL4A & B

286A/2007/CRL9A & B

286A/72007/CRL16A & B

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

From the available records, I conclude that 281 voluntary samples were eliminated as contributors of DNA to the above list of profile search, since its profile did not coincide with the profile sought; consequently, the DNA can not have originated from them.

I further conclude that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with CG (bar code 51156964). I believe that CG 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."

286 voluntary samples?

We sure would like to see that list.

Just looking at the staggering number of samples of almost three hundred, one can't help but wonder their origin.

How many were taken from guests and PdL ex-Pats?

We know that Rajinder Balu and Neil Berry were swabbed for samples but we sure would like to know who else, guest or ex-Pat, also was...

If that was the case, why?  Were they, then, considering the possibility of relating guests and ex-Pats with DNA found on the walls of the apartment Maddie disappeared from?

And why were 4 samples rejected? Just because?

All this is pure speculation as we don't know who is on that list.

From John Lowe’s words quoted above, it seems he has somewhat of a hesitation about CG’s birth date but none whatsoever that swabs 9 (A & B) are from this particular little boy, thus very firmly and adamantly contradicting Insane who we think should revise his/hers “this is either pure invention on your part, or a complete inability to read and understand the files.“

The FSS is, after discarding 281 other possibilities, absolutely certain that the wall stain labelled 9 (A & B) is from CG, Paul Gordon’s son.

And this very CERTAINTY is a very puzzling one for the FSS to have when it says it has it!

Of the listed, swabs 4 to 13 were taken from the East (4, 5, 6 and 13) and North (7 to 12) walls of the apartment.

As we have said, fortunately for us all, the LPC did do a very detailed photographic report of this diligence. One particular photo proves to be of particular significance::

It shows clearly the floor tiles.

These floor tiles, as you’ll hopefully see in later posts, are, in our opinion of capital importance in determining the probable cause of Maddie’s death. But that, as we said, is for later.

Today we want to focus that these tiles are standard in size: 30 cm x 30 cm.

We can then use these tiles as the baseline to a grid that we can superimpose and determine with an acceptable degree of precision the dimensions of the space which we are talking about: the East wall is 3 metres long and the North wall 60 centimetres.

CG, if born on 29 January 2005 would have been 2 yrs and 3 months old when he was in that apartment. Another imprecision made on the "Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon"post: we said he was 3 yrs old.

This imprecision about CG's age is of particular importance as a 3 yr old male is significantly taller than a 2 yr and 3 month one.

The average height for a 2yr male is 34,2 inches or 87 centimetres.

This is how the height of CG would relate with the location of stain 9:

Remember also that contrary to what we believe in but according with what the Black Hats want you to believe, the FSS worked under the assumption that the apartment wasn’t meticulously cleaned. So all the stains found there are all the stains there were, for the FSS, ever there to be found.

As you know, we believe that on the early evening of May 3rd, 2007 there was an immense amount of biological evidence that could have been retrieved.

This amount of evidence was substantially diminished with the first cleaning done on that some  night by the T9, but we're sure that there certainly remained a significant amount that a team of forensic experts could retrieve if it was looking to find evidence of a death instead of being pressured into pursuing an absurd bogus abduction theory.

But after the specialized cleaning team, who we suppose to have been the "6-cleaners", was done with the apartment only the evidence that slipped through the cracks could have been found. And it was found, may we remind you again, because of the dogs.

No dogs and we wouldn’t be talking now about stain #9, or CG's stain.

So, for the FSS, the listed stains are all the biological evidence there ever was on those walls related to this case.

This begs the fundamental question: in which possible, plausible, logical, reasonable, rational and realistic scenario is a 2yr old little boy able to leave a tiny amount of his DNA up on a wall where he can’t possibly reach?

Let us debunk immediately what we think is, after certainly putting some thought into it, the most likely BH answer to the question we’ve just made: it’s simple, the little boy perched himself on the couch and leaned against the wall.

First, we don’t think a fingerprint or a palmprint leaves sufficient traces of DNA on any surface. We’ve never seen in any of the very popular and modern police TV series, including those specialized in forensics, anyone testing a fingerprint for DNA.

Second, and most importantly, it’s neither possible, nor plausible, nor logical, nor reasonable, nor rational and nor realistic.

The floor tiles, those very important and significant floor tiles also allow us to determine, again with an acceptable degree of precision the dimensions of the couches present in apartment 5A: 1,60 cm x 80 cm.

Someone perching himself on one of the ends of one of these couches would be about 60 cm from the ground.

The fact that the couch is 160 cm long means that that between the couch and the North wall there was a space of 70 cm, this, in case the couch was centered.

However, this space could be wider as it would be natural to "de-centre" couch A away from the North wall because of the relative position of couch B.

Realistically this space would be between 70 to 80 cm. But we like to play the odds always against us, so we’ll stick to the 70 cm.

We will disregard completely the fact that a 2yr old wouldn't have the motor skills required to be able to get himself in such a position, nor ask how would he get out of it without hurting himself and we’ll even pretend that we aren't aware that the couch would slide away from the wall and cause the little boy to fall.

We’ll just say it’s impossible for the little boy to reach the place where UK's Forensic Science Service says he has left his DNA.

If it was possible, which it isn’t, for the little boy to perch himself on the couch and lean against the wall, then one would have to ask what kind of DNA sample did he leave in those circumstances?

Did he spit against the wall?

Again, if it was possible, which it isn’t, for the little boy to perch himself on the couch and lean against the wall, then one would have to ask how did he leave so little of his DNA, in such an odd location, in said circumstances?

It rules out spitting, even if you even had even considered it.
 

And, no, no use saying that CG secretly wears a cape and is able to fly.

It's simply not a possible, nor a plausible, nor a logical, nor a reasonable, nor a rational or even a realistic scenario.

If a possible, nor a plausible, nor a logical, nor a reasonable, nor a rational or even a realistic reason cannot be presented to explain how CG, a 2yr old boy, left his DNA in a very little, if ever, used corner of an apartment at an height he can't possibly reach as UK's FSS, via John Lowe, clearly states that he does, then we can only conclude that this statement is, in the very least, very questionable.

By the way, one thing John Lowe was able to achieve with his certainty in attributing stain 9 to CG was to blow to smithereens all and any conspiracy theories whereby these stains could have been planted just to incriminate the McCanns.

Namely that this dastardly criminal deed of introducing false evidence could have been perpetrated by Mr Amaral.

Well, according with John Lowe's written statement for that to have happened it would necessarily mean that whoever intended to plant such false evidence, more precisely stain 9, would, somehow, have gotten hold of some of CG's DNA then having been able to get into the apartment and then put CG's DNA up on the North wall.

Mr. Amaral was gone before the Gordon family came on the scene. 


Post Scriptum:

About the fierce battle that we said was raging in the UK and Portugal over the subject Maddie McCann, not a word. We're enjoying too much watching all the skirmishes and  the squirming to spoil our fun.


Post-post Scriptum:

We have received the following comment from Anon #17: 

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Super-Kid":

Just a thought: when my son was aged 2-3 he still liked to be carried. If CG was being carried or lifted by an adult perhaps he would have been able to reach the height of the stain that he is supposed to have made. I am a long-time reader and admirer of your blog, Textusa.

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Sep 2, 2013, 8:51:00 PM" 

Anon #17, first of all, thank you for your comment.

You have brought up the ONLY physical possibility for CG to be high enough to leave a tiny, minuscule and invisible to the naked eyes speck of his DNA on the North wall.

The problem with your hypothesis is that although possible, it isn't plausible, nor logical, nor reasonable, nor rational, nor even realistic.

In photo 1, the arrow shows where the stain was found.

In photo 2, the star shows, seen from another angle, the location of the same stain, behind the sliding doors and up on the North wall.

Both photos show how cluttered with furniture that particular corner of the living-room was, making it naturally inaccessible. We see absolutely no reason to pick up a 2 yr old child and take him there.

Besides being very, very unlikely (will not use the word absurd out of politeness) for an adult to be there with a 2 yr old in his/her arms, there's still the problem of the positioning of both of them as picture 3 shows.

With some contortionism and pre-planned intent and aiming, no question that it would be possible.

Not seeing any space, or reason, to take CG there by the hand and then, there, lift him up to make the stain he's supposed to have made.

He could have run off alone into that corner. Perfectly possible situation but in which he would have been lifted off there by an adult, probably with a knee on the couch or maybe by setting aside the other one to free space to get to the child. In either case, the lifting motion would be away from the corner and no way would CG touch the location of stain 9.  

Add to that the fact that CG's mother, Saleigh Gordon, is very specific that CG didn't hurt himself when she says "During our stay Paul cut his face whilst shaving and the cut bled for some time. Neither the children nor I injured ourselves".

If he wasn't injured, as his mother said did an adult lift him up so he could spit on the wall? In that particular corner? And just a speck that's tiny, minuscule and invisible to the naked eye?

I hope we have fully clarified and that you agree with us that the hypothesis you raised is indeed possible, if you really wanted CG to leave a tiny speck in that particular wall at that particular height, but just isn't it isn't plausible, nor logical, nor reasonable, nor rational, nor even realistic and that's why we didn't even include it in the post.

But, thanks to you, having revisited the subject in detail, the scenario you conjured up in our minds, aiming CG at the wall to spit, did make us laugh.

Thank you for bringing a smile to our faces!

Footnotes: 

(1)  In Portuguese and as per PJ Files, what we have quoted about the LPC's  diligence in Apartment 5A: 

"Para os efeitos tidos por convenientes, cumpre-me levar ao connehcimento de V. Exa e conforme determinação superior, no dia de hoje, por cerca das 20H00, os Especialistas-adjuntos do LPC, Srs. Fernando Viegas e Lino Rodrigues, após visualizarem as imagnes gravadas referentes à inspecção canina realizada no passado dia 31/07/2007 no Apartamento 5 A da urbanização Ocean Club, devidamente explanada em auto junto ao inquérito, procederam à recolha dos mosaicos onde os cães utilizados na diligência assinalaram a eventual existência de vestígios hemáticos, bem como a permanência de uma cadáver nesse mesmo local."

(2)  In Portuguese and as per PJ Files, what we have quoted FSS having said about stain 9 and CG: 

"Com fim informativo apenas, foi construída uma base de dados de amostras voluntárias, com o propósito de informação monotorizada. De acordo com os registos disponíveis, a base de dados consta de 286 amostras voluntárias, quatro das quais foram rejeitadas. Os perfis voluntários de ADN foram comparados com as seguintes amostras:

286A/2007/CRL1A & B

286A/2007/CRL4A & B

286A/2007/CRL9A & B

286A/72007/CRL16A & B

As amostras voluntárias foram também comparadas com “mancha crime1”, um perfil de ADN obtido pelos cientistas Portugueses usando o seu sistema de perfis de ADN. O perfil foi recuperado de uma suspeita de sémen retirada de um cobertor no apartamento 5.

Dos registos disponíveis, concluo que 281 amostras voluntárias foram eliminadas como contrinuidores de ADN relativamente à lista de buscas de perfis acima referida, visto que o seu perfil não coincidia com o perfil procurado; nessa sequência, o ADN não pode ter tido origem nos mesmos.

Mais concluo que, os perfis de ADN obtidos na “mancha crime 1” e 286A/2007/CRL 9A & B coincidem com C****** Gordon (cod. barras 51156964). Creio que C****** Gordon nasceu no dia 29 de janeiro de 2005, e se é este o caso, na minha opinião, o perfil da ADN obtido na “mancha crime 1” não é resultado de sémen encontrado no cobertor."

(3)  As we've used an excerpt of Insane's comment we think you're entitled to know if fully uncensored: 

"Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post ""Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon":

Textusa - whose understanding of basic science is somewhat on a par with that enjoyed by a packet of digestive biscuits - shared this little gem with you earlier.

If one doesn't forget that the Ocean Club cleaners aren't exactly "expert cleaners"one must ask why also the lack of expected amount of forensic data from former tourists in that apartment and, in particular, in that room?

We have, as far as we know, the evidence of the stain attributed to a 3 yr old.

The wall and floor stains 9a&b are also attributed to him, which would contradict the blood splatters being fromPaul “Labrador” Gordon in the living room who is said to have walked around the apartment trying to staunch bleeding after cutting himself shaving.

We call him Paul “Labrador” Gordon like aLabrador he seems to shake his body with such energy that sprays walls with his blood. But that's hearsay and you know what we think about hearsay.

But if you look at the cleansing of the kids room under the "Clean Party Floor” phenomenon perspective then suddenly you may understand many things.

What if they weren’t cleaning Maddie’s DNA in that room but cleaning all traces of those who had been present in that room in the last days?

A few points, dimwit

There were no ''blood splatters'' recovered from apartment 5a
The wall and floor stains labelled 9a and 9b were not attributed to the little boy whose DNA profile is listed as profile L. This is either pure invention on your part, or a complete inability to read and understand the files. Several hairs were recovered which matched the same DNA profile, and that presumably is what you are referring to, unless you were setting out to deliberately mislead.
The fact that there were hairs found which were shed by previous residents also gives the lie to the bollocks about the flat being subject to ''exaggerated cleaning''
Where do you get the idea that there was less DNA from former residents than expected? Support this claim with references please (she can't, so don't get your hopes up)
You can't ''selectively clean'' a room of the DNA of one individual whilst leaving others behind.
You know what the basic problem is, Textusa?

You and your sidekicks are fucking thick. This was all covered in a previous thread, but as ever you prefer to believe the shite you have read in newspapers and on blogs. I hope none of you have children. For one thing, I'd hate to think what kind of example you set them and secondly it seems actively cruel to send them into the world with a genetic profile which is barely a base pair away from something which could feature as the Vegetarian special of the day.

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at Jun 22, 2013, 3:39:00 AM"