DNA is... DNA

As we said in our last post, Super-Kid, we’ve always been curious about the stains found on the East and North walls, on the floor near these walls and on the couch.

Not that we’re really curious. We aren’t.

We know what they are and why they are where they were found. The difficulty resides in explaining why we think they are what they are and why they are where they are.

You, by now, know our methodology: step by step, brick by brick. Being tirelessly thorough and patient.

A thousand mile journey does not only start with one step, as the Chinese so wisely say, but, most importantly and using the same reasoning, is in fact made up by millions of such small steps from beginning to end, patient and tirelessly walked.

So we’ll say for now, and for argument's sake, that we’re curious about those stains.

The only consensual thing about them, officially and unofficially, is that they are… stains.

Stains that were found after a dog specialized in finding minuscule traces of blood signaled the location. No dog, no stains.

Let’s now see what the FSS has to say about these stains in PJ FILES FSS's Final Report (FFR) (1).

As it’s quite a tiresome and complex reading, we’ve decided to break it down into three major parts: "DNA Results", "Probably Originating From" and "FSS’ Final Opinion".

Today we’ll focus only on the first, what FFR states to have been the DNA Results obtained from those stains.

Stains on FLOOR:

# 1 - incomplete

# 2 - mixed

# 3 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)

Stains on EAST wall:

# 4 - incomplete

# 5 - mixed

# 6 - too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison

# 13 - unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

Stains on NORTH wall:

# 7 - mixed

# 8 - too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison

# 9 - incomplete

# 10 - mixed

# 11 - unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

# 12 - mixed

Stains on COUCH:

# 14 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)

# 15 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)

We can then group them by the "strength" of DNA Results:

Stains clearly with DNA (11 out of 15):

- Incomplete (3 out of 15): stains 1, 4 and 9

- Mixed (5 out of 15): stains 2, 5, 7, 10 and 12

- Weak and incomplete, then mixed, low-level (3 out of 15): stains 3, 14 and 15

Stains with vestiges of DNA (2 out of 15)

- Too meagre (2 out of 15): stains 6 and 8

Stains with no vestiges of DNA (2 out of 15)

- Unfruitful (2 out of 15): stains 11 and 13

Let us state the very obvious: DNA was found in the swabbed stains.

Only 13% of the stains, or 2 out of 15, returned fruitless results in FSS’ quest in finding DNA in them.

It means that according to FSS, DNA was found in 73% of the stains. Or in 87% of them if one is to consider that “vestiges” of DNA, as one should, is DNA.

For example, as said on May 22, 2008 in PJ Files Cartas Rogatorias Vol 8 Pages 5 - 7, 4 samples, 1, 4, 9 and 16, were sent by FSS to be tested against the UK National database - this contains DNA samples of anyone arrested for a recordable offence.

One of which we know is said to have had enough DNA found present to be testable and that it could be linked to crime stain 1: CG's stain 9.

Our good and helpful friend Insane was absolutely adamant: “There were no ''blood splatters'' recovered from apartment 5a”

And we’ve given Insane some reason. Let us remind you what we did say in our Super-Kid post:

"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.

(...)

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

So although in 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."

Attentive as always, Insane immediately replied with an assertive "The reason why the FSS don't mention the so-called blood splatter swabs is because they didn't analyse them - that was your lot, the Portuguese forensic equivalent."

It seems like we're before a case of a fly repeatedly banging against a glass pane window, Insane being the fly and the PJ Files the window, as in its pages 3212 - 3213 it, once again contradicts Insane when it says the following about the diligence envolving the swab collection that took place in Apartment 5A (2):

"On 4 August 2007, at 15h00, a team from Sector de Local de Crime [SLC – Sector of Crime Scene] of the Laboratório de Polícia Centífica [LPC - Scientific Police Laboratory] made up by the signatories, went, at the request of PJ’s Departamento de Investigação Criminal [DIC – Criminal Investigation Department] of Portimao, to a residence at Apartment 5A, Bloco A, of the touristic resort “Ocean Club” – Praia da Luz in Lagos with the purpose to proceed in collecting vestiges at the location.

According with the request of PJ’s DIC of Portimao criminal investigation elements (3) present at the location, the signatories should proceed to the visualization, by naked eye and by the use of a source of alternate light source with appropriate wavelengths appropriate to the effect, and to the collection of all stains (4) existing on the floor and on the wall of the living room near the location from where there were previously lifted and collected four floor tiles, and on the back of a blue fabric couch that was near that wall.
We were informed by them that the referred collections should be done through swabs usually used the English Police (which were given to us by the referred elements) and that it should not be used any of the indication tests that permit the identification of what type of vestiges that the referred stains could contain 

According to the abovesaid it was also requested that the signatories were to contact a scientific advisor of English nationality, named Jonathan Smith, so that he would indicate the manner in which to proceed with the collection of the referred stains.
In that contact the signatories were told that they should use in the collection of each stain two (2) swabs: being one applied directly on top of the stain, and the other previously moistened with distilled water and afterwards applied on top of the referred stain."

So we have Portuguese forensic crime scene experts, collecting vestiges from stains with British swabs, according to British collection techniques and under direct British mentoring and supervision so that the swabs were to be analyzed in a Portuguese lab?

LCN was the brainchild of the FSS. Insane doesn't seem to realise the role of Jonathan Smith from FSS and even if the Portuguese could carry out LCN at that time (2007) it was decided by the Deciders to use UK's FSS.

LPC collected the swabs and sent them off.

Besides, John Lowe signed and dated reports. He couldn't do that and make comments about giving evidence unless it was FSS work. One can't sign for the work of another country

It is a fact that it is Lowe who says he found enough DNA on stain 9 to compare with the bedcover and didn't find a mixed result.

So it seems the reason for the FSS not to mention the word "blood" in their Final Report  lies not with the fact that they didn't do the scientific analytical work on the swabs

Insane remains coherent with "no blood splatters" by now using the doubt implying "so-called" when referring to blood splatter swabs.

For us, it seems that the initial "there were no ''blood splatters'' recovered from apartment 5a" is a definitive statement of a non-existence of something that now seems to exist with the statement "so-called blood splatter swabs is because they didn't analyse them"

But although Insane is a BH, s/he is just an individual. S/he's certainly not the Black Hat spokesperson. Not even Clarence Mitchell is that.

Our quest for truth is not a quarrel against individuals.

Fact is fact and we like, as you know, to stick to fact, and the fact is that the FFR doesn't mention blood.

But it's also a fact, as we've shown in this post, that DNA was found in the vast majority of the stains.

This begs the question: what kind of DNA was then sampled in these stains?

If not blood, then what DNA are they made up of?

LCN DNA could be any body fluid, including blood, or skin cells.

Not seeing skin cells being literally glued to a wall without the help of some sort of body fluid, so logic dictates that the DNA found on the vertical surfaces, such as the East and North walls, came, definitely, from some sort of human body fluid.

There are only so many body fluids that a human being can leave sprinkled on a wall.

Wikipedia says that there we have 31 body fluids. Honestly, never imagined there were so many.

To those certainly questioning why Cadaverine doesn’t appear on the list, let us clarify that it is not a body fluid but “a foul-smelling diamine compound produced by protein hydrolysis during putrefaction of animal tissue”

Of the 31 mentioned body fluids, 13 have to be ruled out as it would be impossible for them to be found on those walls.

You be the judge:  Amniotic fluid, Aqueous humour and vitreous humour (eye), Bile (produced in liver, stored in gallbladder), Chyle (small intestine), Chyme (expelled by the stomach into the duodenum), Endolymph and perilymph (inner ear), Gastric acid, Gastric juice, Lymph (lymphatic system), Pericardial fluid (heart), Peritoneal fluid (covers most of the organs in the abdomen), Pleural fluid (lungs) and Synovial (synovial joint, most common and most movable type of joint in the body of a mammal)

Of the remainder 18, 13 can also be taken off the list as either by circumstance (very bizarre if they had been found), or by their consistency and means of diffusion (both not consistent with the amount, the patterns and the location of the various stains swabbed in Apartment 5A – please take into account that, in theory, the apartment wasn’t meticulously cleaned so the DNA found on those walls was all that was there to be found):

- Breast milk

- Female ejaculate

- Vaginal secretion

- Cerumen (earwax)

- Feces

- Sebum (skin oil)

- Pus (formed at the site of inflammation during infection)

- Rheum (eyes, nose or mouth during sleep)
- Semen

- Sputum (mucus that is coughed up from the lower airways)

- Vomit

- Tears

- Urine

We’re left with 5.

- Nasal drainage (sneezing)

- Saliva (spitting)

- Sweat

- Blood serum

- Cerebrospinal fluid

Of these, the last two would only be present if an injury had occurred and the last only if there was a severe and exposed injury to the back of head or neck.

So basically we have the following 2 scenarios:

One, if the samples can be explained to be coming from saliva, sweat or nasal drainage, then all is explainable;

The other, if such an explanation cannot be found, then, by exclusion of all remainder possibilities, the only explanation for DNA to be found on those walls is that it could only have come from blood or cerebrospinal fluid and that means there's a lot of explaning to be done.

And because BHs cannot explain the presence of blood or cerebrospinal fluid in those stains, they simply cannot be either.

Let’s look at the stains and ask ourselves if it’s possible, plausible, logical, reasonable, rational or realistic for them to be from saliva, sweat or nasal drainage.

Let’s start to look at the NORTH wall where stains from 7 to 12 were found.

This particular corner of the living room was seen as so insignificant that on the night of the events it went almost unnoticed.

On the photo portraying the panoramic view or the living room and it doesn’t even appear on the right.

For the photographer what was, in our opinion, the most important area of the apartment, s/he thought not relevant enough to photograph.

Before you cast any stone, remember that at that moment s/he is photographing an abduction from that apartment and not a possible death in it

On the drawing up of the apartment layout it’s completely disregarded, as you can see above.

This is the only photo we have of the NORTH wall taken that night. One that is supposed to capture the sliding doors.

Now use your common sense and see under what circumstances (possible, plausible, logical, reasonable, rational or realistic) would there be a spray of such minuscule amounts of saliva, sweat or nasal discharge, or a combination of them, as shown.

Don’t forget that, as we showed on our last post, there’s a space of at least 70 cm between the couch and the North wall.

Now let’s look at the stains on the EAST wall: stains 4, 5, 6 and 13.

Do take into account that you’re not looking at stains found on the couch that is aligned with the wall.

The stains are behind the couch, and behind the blue curtains, and behind the white undercurtains.

They’re on the wall where they were found.

The only possibility for any of those stains to have resulted on that wall where they were found, would be for the couch and curtains that are seen in the pictures not to have been where they are.

Would that make it possible for the stains to be from saliva, sweat or nasal discharge?

No. Under what possible, plausible, logical, reasonable, rational or realistic circumstances would a human being deposit a minuscule amount of DNA from saliva, sweat or nasal drainage on stain 5’s location?

Did one get one get on one’s fours and spit or sneeze only a tiny amount a foot high from the ground?

And even so, why push away the couch and set aside the curtains and undercurtains?

We haven't mentioned sweat because we can't envision any scenario to justify sweat there. If you have one, we’ll be glad to hear it.

To reinforce this idea we have the couch to confirm the impossibility of the stains to be from saliva, sweat or nasal discharge.

Not even on all fours can one hit the location of stain 14.

One has to be literally lying down on the floor. See any possible scenario for that to be? We don’t.

So, out of the 31 body fluids possible, we’re left with 2: Blood serum and Cerebrospinal fluid.

Both involve physical injury and that will be a theme for a future post

But it’s not only by the exclusion of fluids, ruling out those impossible to be present, that we can conclude that those stains are from blood.

We can start with the BHs saying so themselves.

Danny Collins in his Vanished book, published in May 2008 (at the exact same time FSS was writing their final report) speaks about tiny amounts of blood being found in the apartment:

On pg 38: "An early result was the four minuscule drops of blood found on a mosaic tile in the apartment and located by the application of luminal and hydrogen peroxide and exposure to ultraviolet light. As explained elsewhere, the blood was eventually found to be that of a male and of such small quantity that it was hardly an indication of a crime having been committed."

On pg 89: "In early August 2007, the dramatically leaked news that traces of blood had been found in Madeleine's bedroom by British sniffer dogs flown in from the UK gave everyone pause for thought and coincided with a police plot fostered by Detective Chief Inspector Amaral to put pressure on the McCanns through the press.
What was not made clear to the press was that the minuscule specks of blood found in the apartment were too degraded for intelligent analysis; the only result published from the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham was that the blood was from a male. In truth, this important forensic report of degradation and its relationship to Madeleine, when questioned by the more ethical members of the UK press, was denied. But blood was found in the missing child's bedroom and that was good enough from Portimao."

We could say that Mr Collins got his info from the press at the time.

The Guardian, on 7th August 2007 in Sandra Laville's article "UK lab to test blood found in Madeleine room" says:

"The first task for scientists will be to try to get a DNA sample from the blood, reported to have been found on a wall of the villa in Praia de la Luz where the McCann family was staying.

If the scientists are successful, the profile will be checked against the DNA of the missing four-year-old and against the national DNA database, set up by the FSS.

(...)

Leicestershire police refused to comment yesterday on whether it was their officers who discovered the blood smears. But reports from Portugal suggested officers from the Leicestershire force used specialised equipment and their own sniffer dogs to re-examine the two-bedroom apartment on the Mark Warner holiday complex"

Also on The Telegraph, on 8th August 2007, by Richard Edwards article "Madeleine McCann: Blood found in bedroom" says:

"Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are carrying out tests on blood traces found inside her apartment bedroom, it has emerged. The dramatic discovery was made by British detectives brought in to launch a review of evidence, and led to renewed criticism of an "inept" Portuguese investigation.

The British team used specially-trained sniffer dogs and ultra-violet technology to scan for specks of blood inside the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz where Madeleine disappeared 96 days ago. Tests will now establish whether the traces are those of the four-year-old.

(...)

A Portuguese police source said: "If the results are positive, this will open up a completely new line of inquiry". The tiny traces of blood - invisible to the naked eye - were found at a low height on the wall in the bedroom of the McCann holiday apartment at the Ocean Club.

Specially trained cocker spaniel sniffer dogs, which are able to detect blood up to seven years old, located an area of the bedroom in which to search. The windows were blacked out using a tarpaulin and a specialist ultraviolet torch pinpointed the specks of blood."

The main difference between the media and Mr Collins' is that by his own written words, yet to be denied or targeted in any legal action, Clarence Mitchell was duly informed of the contents of the book before its publication: "As a courtesy during the book's preparation, I informed Clarence Mitchell of its content and conclusions and he promised me to pass them on to the McCanns for comment".

So Mr Collins didn't just send the manuscript to Mr Mitchell. He got from him the PROMISE that it would be passed on to the McCanns. A rather intimate interaction between them, one would say.

Mr. Collins, as shown, speaks clearly, very clearly of blood. No other body fluid.

And he does also speak of an "only result published from the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham".

One has to wonder where "this important forensic report" that Mr Collins mentions was published and where did he obtain his copy, as the FSS' Final Report was written in June 2008, AFTER his book's publication.

Another clear indication that the stains are blood is, as we all know, the dog trained to signal blood. And the blood detecting dog did signal that particular corner of the living room.

Then we have the “butcher-and-the-meat” principle.

Don't google it, we've just made it up. Before you think we’re going into anything complex, let us just say that this principle simply states that a butcher knows his meat, as the fishmonger knows his fish and the carpenter his wood.

At the Butcher I can, as I imagine you can too, differentiate, just by looking at the various pieces in front of me, the different types of meat. You know, to tell chicken from beef, beef from pork and pork from lamb.

But when it comes to differentiating between different types of beef, say rump from sirloin, I trust the butcher. He’s the professional. I just ask, he provides and I trust him as he’s the subject matter expert.

I don’t need him to show me the whole cow to appease my mind that when I’ve asked for sirloin, I do get sirloin and not rump.

As we’ve shown, the LPC personnel were explicitly ordered "e que não deveriam ser utilizados quaisquer dos testes indicadores que permitem identificar que tipo de vestígios as referidas manchas poderiam conter" (which translates into: and that it should not be used any of the indication tests that permit the identification of what type of vestiges that the referred stains could contain) but, even so, they were able to slip in, even if not intentionally, that they were looking for traces of blood when LPC says: “procederam à recolha dos mosaicos onde os cães utilizados na diligência assinalaram a eventual existência de vestígios hemáticos" (which translates into: proceeded in the collection of the tiles where the dogs used in the diligence marked the eventual existence of haematic vestiges). 

Haematic or  hematic - "of pertaining to, resembling , containing or acting on blood".

The question remains: if not blood, what type of DNA was swabbed?

As always, we keep an open mind to any other possible, plausible, logical, reasonable, rational or realistic suggestions of what these stains can be other than blood.

No, saying "it's not blood because it's not blood and that's it!" is simply not good enough.

If it was blood, as we're sure it was, to whom did it belong to and what was it doing on the wall, floor and couch?

Apparently, we had back in September 2007 an explanation for the blood from the media:

"FLOOR

Police told Gerry McCann they found a trace of Madeleine’s blood on the floor under the sofa in the apartment.

Sinister explanation:

Her body was hidden under the sofa and later moved.

Innocent explanation:

After accidentally cutting herself, Madeleine crawled under the sofa while playing.

Alternatively, perhaps she took off a piece of clothing with blood on it and stuffed it out of the way under the furniture."

We simply couldn't make this up.


Post Scriptum: Insane, our "lot" has no nationality. Your xenophobic remarks are like a flies hitting a window glass pane while we're sipping our tea out in the porch. Where else did we use the fly/window analogy?


Footnotes:

(1)  This is what FSS has to say about stains 1 to 15:

286A/2007-CRL 1A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

An incomplete DNA result, apparently originating from a male individual but not matching any other profile obtained in this case, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs.

286A/2007-CRL 2A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

A mixed DNA result, apparently originating from at least two people, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.

286A/2007-CRL 3A& B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

An incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from the cellular material present in the dry swab (3A). The attempt to obtain a result from any cellular material that may have been in the same area and present in the wet swab (3B) was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN tests.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.

A low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3B). In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.

286A/2007-CRL 4A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

An incomplete DNA result, apparently originating from a female individual, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.

286A/2007-CRL 5A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

A mixed DNA result, apparently originating from at least two persons, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result. In my opinion, Fernando Viegas could have contributed DNA to this result.

286A/2007-CRL 6A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

The DNA results obtained through LCN from cellular material present in these combined swabs contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison.

286A/2007-CRL 7A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment
A mixed DNA result, apparently originating from at least two persons, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.

286A/2007-CRL 8A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

The DNA results obtained through LCN from cellular material present in these combined swabs contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison.

286A/2007-CRL 9A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

An incomplete DNA result, apparently originating from a male individual, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result. Also, this result did not match in any way the profile obtained from swabs 286A/2007 CRL 1A & B.

286A/2007-CRL 10A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

A mixed DNA result, apparently originating from at least two persons, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.

286A/2007-CRL 11A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

The attempt to obtain a DNA result through LCN from all and any cellular material recovered from these combined swabs was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

286A/2007-CRL 12A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

A mixed DNA result, apparently originating from at least two persons, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.

286A/2007-CRL 13A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

The attempt to obtain a DNA result through LCN from all and any cellular material recovered from these combined swabs was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

286A/2007-CRL 14A & B Swabs collected from the rear of the sofa

Weak and incomplete DNA results consisting only of some unconfirmed DNA components were obtained from the cellular material present in these wet and dry swabs. In my opinion the results are not adequate for comparison purposes. These samples were submitted for LCN analysis. / A mixed, low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in each of the swabs. In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results.

286A/2007-CRL 15A & B Swabs collected from the rear of the sofa

A weak and incomplete DNA result showing indications as having come from more than one person was obtained from the cellular material present in dry swab (15A) effected on the rear of the sofa. In my opinion the result is not adequate for comparison purposes. These samples were submitted for LCN analysis. 


(2)  In Portuguese, LPC's SLC's report from vestige collection diligence: 


No dia 04 de Agosto de 2007, pelas 15h00m, uma equipa do Sector de Local de Crime do Laboratório de Polícia Científica, composta pelos signatários, deslocou-se, a pedido do Departamento de Investigação Criminal de Portimão da Polícia Judiciária, a uma habitação, sita no Apartamento 5ª, do bloco A, do empreendimento turístico “Ocean Club” – Praia da Luz, em Lagos, a fim de efectuar recolha de vestígios no local.-

De acordo com o solicitado pelos elementos da investigação criminal do Departamento de Investigação Criminal de Portimão presentes no local os signatários deveriam proceder à visualização, a olho nu e através de utilização de uma fonte de luz alternada com comprimentos de onda apropriados para o efeito, e à recolha de todas as manchas existentes no chão e na parede da sala de estar junto ao local de onde foram levantados e recolhidos anteriormente quatro mosaicos e nas costas de um sofá em tecido de cor azul, que se encontrava junto a essa parede.-
Pelos mesmos foi-nos informado que as referidas recolhas deveriam ser efectuadas através de zaragatoas normalmente utilizadas pela Polícia Inglesa (a quais nos foram entregues pelos referidos elementos) e que não deveriam ser utilizados quaisquer dos testes indicadores que permitem identificar que tipo de vestígios as referidas manchas poderiam conter.-

Face ao exposto foi também solicitado aos signatários que entrassem em contacto com um conselheiro científico de nacionalidade inglesa, de nome Jonathan Smith, para que o mesmo indica-se a forma para se proceder à recolha das referidas manchas.-
Nesse contacto os signatários foram informados que deveriam utilizar na reclha de cada mancha duas (2) zaragatoas, sendo um aplicada em cima da mancha de forma directa e a outra previamente humedecida com água destilada aplicada em cima da referida mancha.- 



(3)  The word "elementos" has been, in our opinion, wrongly translates into "officers" (elementos do DIC into DIC officers).

The Portuguese equivalent for "officer" is "oficial". When linked to people, it has but two meanings, very specific. The first, is a reference to highest ranking of the military or military-like organizations, The second is linked to to the Judicial System, the Oficial de Justica, a low-ranking person usually responsible to notify people about Court decisions.

In Portugal, when one is referring to a policeman, one says "agente da polícia" which translates to Police Agent.

The reference to "elementos" in this report means that the signatory met some PJ Agents at 5A who he doen't identify any further than being from PJ's DIC of Portimao.  



(4)  The word "mancha" is translated into stains and not spots or specks.