DNA - The Bar Code

In our last post, Remarkable Marksmanship, we saw that the DNA found in 7 out of a possible 15 stains in the corner of the living room of apartment 5A came from more than 1 person.

This is according to FSS Final Report, signed by John Lowe, that is in the PJ Files.

John Lowe doesn't give any differentiation or connection as to who these people may be, with the exception of one, CG.

FSS tells us that we have 3 single-DNA stains: stain 1 from unknown male, stain 4 from an unknown female and stain 9 from CG, a 2 yr old boy.

As we showed in our Superkid post, it's near impossible for CG to have contributed to stain 9. The only way he would have contributed would have been for someone to have planted his DNA there and that would have absurd implications.

So let's forget about CG for the moment and consider only that the male from stain #1 is not the same male from stain #9.

We know that stain #4 is from a female.

We also know that stain #15 is from, at least, 3 people, 2 male and the other unknown.

That means that, at least, 3 people, 2 male and 1 female, contributed with their DNA to 10 out of the 15 stains. 

10 stains because 7 are multiple-DNA and 3 are single-DNA.

So this would be a possible scenario for 3 people:

Putting some fictional names (taken from here) to the stains, it would mean this:

One can, obviously juggle the Pickles, Plaskitt and Birtwhistle names around, as long as one respects the singularity and differentiation of stains 1, 4 and 9 (stain 4 being from a female and stains 1 and 9 from different males).

But as we said, FSS hasn't made any connection between these stains, so each stain could come from a different person:

Again, by putting fictional names to the stains, we would get this:

And by putting the 2 hypothesis side by side:

As the saying goes, 2 is company 3 is a crowd, so we can say that, according to FSS, a crowd from 3 to 18 people left their DNA in an inaccessible corner of the living room in apartment 5A.

Remember that we're not taking into account all 15 stains but only those 10 that FSS said had DNA.

Having come to the conclusion, on our DNA is... DNA post, that the DNA found in those stains could only have come from blood (or cerebrospinal fluid but that we'll leave that one out for now until opportune to bring it in again) then we have to say that in that particular, inaccessible corner of the living room of apartment 5A, Vampire Parties surely must have taken place!!

We see no other explanation to justify the enormous variety of samples albeit all being tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye!

A new myth is born: it was vampires who abducted Maddie!!

Unbeknownst to Maddie’s parents, Thursday nights were Vampire Night in Apartment 5A and they went and left their children alone while going to dine at Tapas.

Please don't mock this ridiculous theory as Thursday's Vampire Nights in 5A are as REAL as the McCanns having left their children alone in the apartment or as the T9 having had dinner that week at Tapas.

Look at it this way, the BHs invented the Quiz Nights at Tapas and we've invented Thursday's Vampire Nights in 5A.

Both are equally real. NOT.

The difference being that the Quiz Nights have come out of the blue while we've based our invention on an OFFICIAL document that's an integral part of the PJ Files: UK's FSS Final Report.

Otherwise, is there any other explanation for so many to have given, in so many places in such a small area (all tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye), so little of their blood?

Officially, we've been told that only one person has bled in that apartment: Mr Paul Gordon.

He recognizes that fact: "While we were in Portugal there were no incidents worthy of record, beyond this man that I have described, however there was one occasion when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding, during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood. Aside from this, to the best of my knowledge no one else cut themselves nor did anyone die in the apartment." 

His wife, Saleigh Gordon, confirms this: "During our stay Paul cut his face whilst shaving and the cut bled for some time. Neither the children nor I injured ourselves and as far as I know nobody died in the apartment.” 

We'll disregard that we find it very strange for Saleigh to remember Paul cutting himself shaving on a holiday. I say this because if I was asked to recall how many times Fred cut himself shaving just last week I wouldn't be able to answer the literally bloody question!.

But either Mr Gordon very, very rarely cuts himself shaving or in that occasion he memorably bled profusely, for 45 minutes it seems, the fact is that Mrs Gordon proves to have an excellent memory.

So when Saleigh Gordon says that no one else in her family has hurt themselves, we must take that as fact.

What we simply cannot understand (of course we can...) is how her 2yr old son, CG, is linked to a stain (swabs 9 A & B) on the North wall (where he can't possibly reach) as the FSS Final Report so clearly and adamantly states.

Either Mrs Gordon is lying or the FSS is.

As you know, we believe that Saleigh Gordon is being truthful when she says that little CG didn't hurt himself on that holiday.

Officially then, we have many bleeders but only one identified, Paul Gordon, who happens to not be linked to any of the stains as there’s no forensic evidence found in the apartment of his 45 minute bleeding odyssey.

Strange... but then again, Vampires are a strange lot.

Is this as absurd as it seems?

Absurd is the fact that this information has gone uncontested for so long, the discussion about forensics being maintained well centred exclusively around the evidence found in the Scenic and, apparently, taking it for granted that these stains belonged to Paul Gordon.

How ever could they belong only to Paul Gordon and to "more than one person" escapes us completely.

But the information about these stains on FSS Final Report (besides the one related to CG) isn't absurd.

It's specious but not absurd.

And it's John Lowe who unveils this mistery and shows us why all of the above, although a possible and realistic reading of what is written, isn't exactly what he wrote.

He does this when he speaks of swabs 3 A & B, one that FSS thinks the DNA in it has originated from “more than one person“: “Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source” and “if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person”

So there you have it.

The expression “more than one person” can mean that it's different components of DNA from the same person (single source) or different components of DNA from different people.

What is the common ground? That more than one component of DNA was found in those stains.

To extrapolate that into saying that the DNA from those different components is only from "more than one person" is absolutely abusive. And what is applicable to stain 3 is applicable to all other stains.

Let’s imagine that our DNA is a bar code, like this one:

We all have a unique one, just like our fingerprints.

In theory, what was found were partial components of a particular bar code (someone’s partial bits of DNA). We'll call one of them, sample X:

Imagine that you have 4 bar codes from which we can compare sample X with: bar codes A, B, C and D:

In this case, the partial bar code, or sample X, is compatible with a part of bar codes A and B.

With bar code A:

With bar code B:

The problem is that it can be from both but without confirming from which it is:

Sample X may originate from more than one bar code, more specifically from either bar code A or bar code B.

Now compare our “may originate from more than one bar code” with Lowe’s “apparently originating from more than one person”.

Aren't they exactly the same? Yes they are.

So, in this case, we have shown how a single sample can be connected to more than one person.

This usually happens when comparing samples with DNA from same family members.

So “a single source” is perfectly compatible with more than one person being linked to a particular stain.

Yes, say you, but John Lowe speaks of components, in the plural, so not just a single sample. 

Imagine then that there are 2 different samples, sample A and sample B:

These 2 different samples can come from the same bar code, in this case, bar code X:

As you can see, samples A and B originated from a single source, bar code X.

Compare our "samples A and B originated from a single source" with Lowe's "components within the scope of this result originated from a single source". 

Aren't they exactly the same? Yes they are.

So the plural, components, is perfectly compatible with them being linked to a single person.

The different components may just be pieces of the same puzzle as is said in the case of "all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source"

When Lowe says “apparently originating from at least two people”, “two persons” and “more than person”, as he says so often, he’s being specious,  playing with words so that your brain assumes that the “two people” referred are ALWAYS from sample found and NOT about the DNA with which the sample, or samples, was, or were, compared with. 

Neat and crafty little trick, isn’t it?

It makes you think, like we know you did, that the samples obtained from the swabs are from a soup-effect phenomenon rather than being just from a single person.

Deconstructing this "illusion" means that the scenario of a single person contributing to the DNA found in all stains is as possible as having those with crowds from 3 to 18 people:

But the single source scenario is much more realistic than those of crowds 3 -18.

Taking into account:

- the inaccessibleness of the living room area where the tiny, minuscule and invisible stains were found;

- the fact that blood is the only body fluid possible to have originated such specks, as we showed you here;

- the statiscal mpossibility, due to size, location and number of those particular spots, for the DNA found in each  to have originated from more than one source, as we showed you here;

we have to conclude that the only realitic scenario is for the DNA on all those stains to have come from a single source.

So realistic that up to now it was taken for granted that they belonged to a single person, Paul Gordon, who, we repeat, is not referred in the UK's FSS Final Report that's in the PJ Files.

The whole idea behind "Lowe's Specious Style" is to deceive using the truth with the objective of  having what the deceiver says appear to be what the deceiver wants the deceived to hear what the deceiver has said. For example, have a section of 1 person's DNA appear to be from 2 or 3 different people.

He certainly doesn’t want to be clarifying. On the contrary, his intent is to mystify.

He intends to push truth even deeper into the dark bowels of mythology, where, once there, it cannot be salvaged.

As we said before the wrapping in which a message is presented is much more important than the message itself.

We realize that this post takes some digesting as it’s exposing the complication Lowe’s words deliberately cause. Unlike Lowe, we seek to clarify.

The Maddie Affair revolves exclusively around a resource known to all but understood by very few: Information.

That information resource has been masterfully well handled and very rarely has it been mishandled in the Maddie case.

This post is not about the mishandling of the truth, but about deconstructing the way it has been handled. In particular, how it was handled just to fool you.

The same exact words, or set of words, DO always have two distinct meanings: the one is I intend to tell you and the other what you actually hear I've said.

Knowing that, I can reword my message in a way that you'll hear not what I've said but what I want you to hear.

And if I only use the truth I can tell you a blatant lie without uttering a false word.

Sounds complex? It is. That's the reason why it's said that a half-truth is 10 times more deceptive than a lie.