Remarkable Marksmanship

As we have said, and we have said many things up to now and hopefully will continue to do so, we are an investigative blog.

This means we like to act and not react.

In the beginning of September we were analysing what, in our opinion, surrounded Maddie's death when our attention was diverted to more pressing issues: first, the ongoing McCann v Amaral Libel Trial and then the UK Crimewatch pantomine.

We felt we had to drop what we were doing and focus our efforts in helping man the wheel of our vessel, HMS Truth, as it was hit by one storm after the other. 

HMS Truth is now set on course. 

Yesterday's Sunday Times article was the first significant sign confirming that.

The compromising silence from Rothley and from star-puppet Clarence Mitchell, has underlined all.

Incomparably much less credible than any article from the Times but incomparably much more relevant in meaning is this Daily Star article today:
 

Let us remind you that this rag was the only one that gave a hand to the couple during the "McCann's Desert Crossing" back in the Summer of 2011.  From then on it became McCann's "last line of defense". That's why this article is particularly important.

But please be warned, those thinking that all is over and all is won, couldn't be further from the truth. The walk has just begun and it is a long winding road ahead as the beast will not concede easily.

If it does, it will be a surprise.

As nothing that is happening now isn’t anything we didn’t anticipate and as nothing that is being said isn't what we haven’t said before, we feel it’s our duty to return to our rightful posts and do our part in assuring that when truth is outed, it’s outed as a whole and not just convenient parts of it, leaving its largest chunks out of the spotlight. 

We can’t and won’t accept that. We would like to remind all those involved that no solution apart from truth fits the facts.

stains found on walls

In our DNA is... DNA post we said we were going to deconstruct all the information in the FSS Final Report about the stains found in the corner of apartment 5A that UK Crimewatch "forgot" to highlight  (Discrepancy 05 - The Living-Room Corner). 

We said were going to deconstruct it in 3 major areas "DNA Results", "Apparently Originating From" and "FSS' Opinion".

That early September post, DNA is... DNA, was about the first area, "DNA Results", today, is about the second: "Apparently Originating From".

The issue is just too complex for a single post, this being the first one about it.

Let's start with what FSS has to say about from where it APPARENTLY thinks the DNA in the stains originated:

Stains from the FLOOR:

#1 - “a male individual“ 
#2 - “at least two people“

#3 - “more than one person“

Stains from the EAST wall:

#4 - “a female individual“

#5 - “at least two persons“

#6 - “information was too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison“

#13 - “ no profile was obtained“

Stains from the NORTH wall:

#7 - “at least two persons“

#8 - “information was too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison“

#9 - “a male individual“

#10 - “at least two persons“

#11 - “no profile was obtained“

#12 - “at least two persons“

Stains from the COUCH:

#14 - “ not adequate for comparison purposes“

#15 - “at least three persons of whom at least two were male“

We can group them by the number of people that FSS thinks the DNA in the stains have originated from:

- THREE people (1 out of 15): stain 15

- TWO or MORE people (“at least two people”, “at least two persons” or “more than one person”) (6 of 15): stains: 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12

- ONE person (“male individual” or “female individual”) (3 out 15): stains 1, 4 and 9

- UNQUANTIFIABLE (“information too meagre” or “not adequate for comparison”) (3 of 15): stains 6, 8 and 14

- NO PROFILE (2 of 15): stains 11 and 13

A staggering 47%, almost half of the tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye stains had DNA from more than one person in them!

One cannot but wonder how many people provided DNA to those other 5 tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye stains (6, 8, 11, 13 and 14) that were either deemed UNQUANTIFIABLE or had NO PROFILE found.

Statistically, half of them would also be from more than 1 person…

Fact is that only 3 stains, out of a possible 15, had a single person DNA in them.

We don't think John Lowe realized that when he uses the expression "at least two persons", or similar ones to that, about the DNA in the stains, he's raising an hypothesis very damning to the BHs as we hope to show with this post.

We call it the “soup-effect”

As you know, a soup has many ingredients, and what happened is that in each one of those 7 tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye stains a mixture of more than one "ingredient" was found.

This begs the question, where was each stain's "soup" made?

In loco, as in the floor, walls and couch, or somewhere else?

As far as we know, except in scientific experimentation and in proper labs, mixtures of anything, even soup, in tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye quantities aren’t possible to be done, much less on a wall or on a couch.

So, for the DNA originating from different people to be in such tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye spots, then the mixture had to be done somewhere else and then sprayed respectively on the floor, wall and couch.

What can possibly originate such a mixture of DNA? 

2 people bleeding together? Then carefully sprinkling their blood in tiny, minuscule and invisible to the naked eyes specks on walls, namely on one behind a couch, curtains and undercurtains?

And also the floor beneath that couch?

Various former guests had bled in the apartment and all were accident prone?

Was there a big fight? But who and why?

Nothing but mosquitos swats could have produced 2 samples in one spot.

But who goes and squashes mosquitos on a wall behind a couch, a curtain and a undercurtain? No one.

Who squashes mosquitos on the floor below a couch? Also no one.

Besides, a squashed mosquito makes a visible splat, having splattered a few myself. It produces a stain perfectly visible and not one that’s tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye.

Mosquito splats, you could say, could be cleaned by a cleaner and eradicated to naked eye.

Well, true if the cleaners were "specialized cleaners", like we believe the "6-Cleaners" to have been, but then that would simply confirm their presence and the need for their expertise.

By the way, we believe that is exactly what happened: "specialized cleaners" eradicated all the vestiges of blood they could. They just let some tiny, minuscule and invisible to the naked eye remain where they were  found.

Not on purpose, obviously. They just slipped through the cracks.

If we're talking about cleaners from Ocean Club, one must remember that one is not exactly speaking about the Waldorf Astoria.

Hotel cleaning staff don't wash walls unless there are big smears on them. These extraordinary occurrences are normally reported by guests and taken care of as soon as possible, so not part of the routine room cleaning proceedings between change of occupants.

A squashed mosquito does make a visible stain to the naked eye but it isn't one that call one's attention.

With the exception of "specialized cleaners", as just referred, hotel cleaners do not account for the number and location of stains found.

Could the DNA be contaminated by a person collecting it (LPC) or subsequently handling it (FSS)?

This topic will be dealt with in our next post but we can anticipate that Lowe specifically implies that one of LPC's forensic experts, Mr. Fernando Viegas, of doing just that.

We're talking about the most talked about case in world at the time. This blood finding was an enormous media bomb!

Its explosive sensitivity was public and evident.

LPC, and we're sure they didn't require any sort of guidance in this matter, certainly took EXTRA care on how these samples were collected.

Had there been any mishap in collections, we're certain that it would have been mentioned on the diligence report.

For the exact same reasons we don't believe that any of the samples were contaminated at FSS.

So the biggest problem for the BHs about the stains is the absolutely impossible marksmanship required.

Remember Robin Hood’s famous arrow shot? The one in which he splits an arrow, that has hit the dead centre bullseye, with another?

For two people to hit with their DNA the exact same tiny, minuscule, invisible to the eye spot it’s nothing short of repeating Robin Hood’s impossible arrow shot.

To do that 6 times over is more than mesmerizing. An adequate adjective has yet to be found to qualify such absolutely unbelievable wonder!

And one has to be rendered absolutely speechless in awe if on top of those 6 times we have one arrow that splits one that had split another:

And that has happened with stain 15: “at least three persons of whom at least two were male“!!

If we were to transpose what was said to be found in that inaccessible corner of the 5A’s living-room, to an archery shooting range, this is what we would have:

Lanes 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 would each get a GOLD STAR and lane 15 would have to get two of them!

Taking into account that lanes 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 weren't shot, that is one outstanding show of “archery”!!

Enough to send Robin Hood back to Sherwood Forest, shoulders slumped, after having been so completely humiliated in front of Lady Marion…

But we don't have to feel sympathy for Mr Hood as we know him to be a fictional character. Or at most a legend.

However, 5A marksmanship is very real. According to FSS that is.