Perhaps... Confusing

In the apparently absolute insanity that the Maddie Affair has become, we stubbornly make the effort to keep our sanity intact and not allow ourselves to be distracted from our objectiveness.

Up to now, we've had little surprises. If we were to elect what has surprised us the most lately, we would choose how some thought that a 6,5 yr marathon would end with a short sprint.

Those people should be aware that besides their legs and lungs, long distance runners only have one tactic available to them to break the will of their opponents: alter the rhythm of the race by increasing the pace.

By doing that they force others to react unexpectedly and so waste precious energy both in compensating as in after trying to return to former effort.

Many have dropped out of long-distance competitions because of these “tactical short sprints”.

The harsh reality is that western civilization,  with particular acuteness in Britain, has gone back to medieval time.

The media, with their power to determine who is who and what is what, has taken over what then was nobility's role.

The legal system, with the fear generated by their arbitrary and selective disciplinary actions, has assumed the role of the medieval church.

The police has been resumed to their role of Sheriff of Nottingham: serve without questions or reservations the interests of those who keep them obedient.

George Orwell smiles sadly while Winston Churchill bows his head in shame.

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".

The early September post, DNA is DNA, was about the first area, "DNA Results".

The second area, "Apparently Originating From" was too complex for a single post so we deconstructed into two posts: Remarkable Marksmanship and DNA - The Bar Code

Today, is about the third: "FSS Opinion":

Stains from the FLOOR:

#1 – No opinion. 
#2 – “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” 
#3 – “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”

Stains from the EAST wall:

#4 – “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” 
#5 – “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” 
#6 – “…contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison” 
#13 – “…no profile was obtained”

Stains from the NORTH wall:

#7 – “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” 
#8 – “…contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison. 
#9 – “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” 
#10 – “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” 
#11 – “…no profile was obtained” 
#12 – “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”

Stains from the COUCH:

#14 – “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” 
#15 – “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”

This report apparently couldn’t have come to a more definitive conclusion: according to FSS there’s no relationship between the DNA found in the 15 stains in the corner of the living room of apartment 5A and any member of the McCann family.

The FSS opinion states that a very clear majority, 67%, of all stains (10 out of 15) found in that particular corner had nothing to do with the McCanns.

If we only take into account the 10 stains in which DNA was found, then that majority rises to a staggeringly and absolutely clear 90%. 

So, FSS conclusions couldn’t be more conclusive. NOT

For example, we have stain 14 that although its "results are not adequate for comparison purposes" the FSS is quite clear in concluding that it's completely unrelated to the McCanns:

"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." 

We arent't told if stain 14 is from a male or a female or told if stain 14 is single-DNA or multiple DNA but one thing we are told: stain 14, although not adequate for comparison purposes, is not from the McCanns.

Based on what?

It could be on the FFS Interim Report of Sept 06 2007: "Incomplete DNA results, which in certain circumstances showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person were obtained from biological material on the following swabs: 286A/2007 CRL 14a, 14b..."

So it seems that DNA from stain 14 has degraded with time.

What in Sept 2007 was "from more than one person" became in June 2008 "not adequate for comparison purposes".

After SY's brilliant justification as to why Bundleman is Crèche Dad (UK Crimewatch Discrepancy 11 - The Direction), we've learned not to pressure logic too much when it comes to all official conclusions pertaining to Maddie.

But albeit that, one has to ask why is there a conclusion about stain 14?

And why is there NO conclusion about stain 1?

"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."

As can be seen, in it, DNA has been found with enough “quality” to state categorically that it’s “from a male individual but not matching any other profile obtained in this case”

If it’s possible to determine that no other in the case matches its profile it can only be because it was “strong” enough for such a conclusive comparison.

Lowe confirms that by saying that DNA profile in stain 1 was among the 4 he considered “strongest” (the others being 4, 9 and 16) to be compared with the “286 voluntary database”:

“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”

So why no opinion?

Mind you, Lowe doesn’t say he doesn’t have an opinion he just doesn’t write up one.

Stain 1 is the only one of the 10 stains in which "comparable" DNA was found that doesn’t merit a “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”.

One more or one less wouldn’t make much of a difference, now would it?

This absence seems to indicate sloppiness more than intention.

This apparent sloppiness extends to abuse in the use of “perhaps” language.

This is used by all of us in two circumstances. When we aren’t certain, legitimately or not, and when we don’t want to commit ourselves to a statement or statements.

We defend ourselves by populating the paragraphs of what we write with subjective terminology and the most diverse synonyms of “perhaps”.

The most commonly used are all expressions related to “opinion”. One thing is to say “It’s our opinion that…” and another, completely different in terms of assertion and certainty, is to say “We conclude that…”.

If you haven’t noticed, our posts are filled with the expression “in our opinion”. This is an intentional introduction on our part, for obvious reasons, of a subjectivity in our statements.

It’s not an innocent use of the expression. It’s intentional and we would like you to note that. In the exact same way and manner in which we want you to note how Lowe has also used it.

The job expected from Lowe was, through his scientific expertise, analysis and experience, to take out all possible subjectivity out of said circumstances that forensic science would allow him to do and certainly not to add subjectivity by selective word usage.

In a nutshell, it was expected of him to be as scientifically objective as possible.

An “opinion” is subjective and can always be corrected later, “indications” aren’t certainties, to “justify” is not to substantiate and a “theory” can be accepted or not and/or be controversial or not.

So to use “my opinion”, “indications”, “justify” and “theory” in the same sentence, meant to be precise and conclusive, isn’t exactly, in our opinion, appropriate use of words in a scientific report by someone bearing the titles of BSc, CBiol, MBiol and RFP.

Especially taking into account that said scientific report refers to the “Crime of the XXI Century”.

About those titles, we believe that Member Biologist (MBio) is the lower membership grade of Institute of Biologists, Chartered Biologist (CBio) is higher membership grade and Fellow of the Society of Biology (FSB) is the highest.

We will not question Lowe’s use of two titles referring to the same type of qualification but we will, and do, question: wouldn't someone at fellowship level membership be required to do this job on such a high profile, controversial case?

We do think a better qualified person should have been used. A professor. But maybe not, for obvious reasons.

We also noted the use of “theory” in the supposedly conclusive sentence. We honestly don’t understand what it refers to.

Was PJ investigating a theory? Please don’t confuse theory with hypothesis.

All hypothesis should have been investigated. A conclusion, or theory, occurs when one or more hypothesis are confirmed or validated and all others are discarded.

This is what we would expect from the FSS Final Report:

For each hypothesis, an explanation. Nothing of the sort in FSS Final Report.

So when Lowe says “In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify the theory" it's like one being diagnosed with the possibility of having cancer and after undergoing all possible tests one is told by the doctor: “Well, maybe, it may be that you might perhaps not have cancer.”

Really reassuring.

No, we’re not downplaying cancer or minimally being humorous about it. We are comparing the seriousness and severity of both situations.

This is a scientific report, signed by a scientist, in reference to a possible death under suspicious circumstances of a little girl. It just can't get more serious than that. 

A high profile case at its peak of notoriety.

The minimum expected from a Final Forensic Report to such a case would be to constitute a volume by itself. Filled with annexes, appendices and addendums, each filled with pictures, lab results, comparisons and other scientific gibberish, unintelligible to the common mortal but easily understood by the scientific community.

Instead we got pages filled with a lot of  “perhaps”.

It begs the question… why “perhaps”? Why not go full out and simply state “the DNA tests confirmed that all DNA samples don’t match with that of any of those from Madeleine Beth McCann or with those from any of the other member of the McCann family.”

If “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” wasn’t substantiated beyond these words, a statement adamantly denying any contribution from the McCanns to the swabbed DNA wouldn’t need any different type of substantiation.

It would be sufficient just to say it, so why wasn’t it said?

Why the “perhaps” style? Why this “either-way” report?

The explanation is simple once you understand the timings.

This report was signed in June 2008. But it was preceded by an interim one of Sept 06 2007.

The Interim Report is a document written, in our opinion, to intentionally confuse.

If one was to number its paragraphs we would see it has 30 paragraphs. This is how the various biological samples are referred to in the Interim Report:

01 - Introduction and objective

02 - McCanns’ samples: DNA profiles CB/1, CB/2, SBM/2, SBM/3 and SJM/1

03 - Stain 3

04 - Stain 14

05 - Stain 15

06 - Stain 15

07 - Living room tiles: CRL (2) and CRL (3)

08 - Living room curtains: CRL (16(2))

09 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(2))

10 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(2))

11 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(1))

12 - Renault Scenic: CRL (12))

13 - Various: Stain 14 and Stain 15, CRL 16 - living room curtains and CRL 2 and CRL 3 – Renault Scenic

14 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10)

15 - Stain 1

16 - Stain 4

17 - Stain 1 and Stain 9

18 - Stain 2, Stain 5, Stain 7, Stain 10 and Stain 12

19 - Various: Stain 11 and Stain 13 and CRL 3 - living room tiles

20 - Stain 6 and Stain 8

21 - Living room tiles: CRL 1, CRL 6, CRL 7, CRL 8, CRL 10 and CRL 11

22 - Living room tiles: CR/L 5

23 - Living room tiles: CR/L 9

24 - Living room tiles: CR/L 4 and CR/L 12

25 - Stain 3

26 - Stain 3

27 - Renault Scenic: CRL10 (2)

28 - Various: CR/L 16 – living room curtains, CR/L 1 – living room white curtains and CR/L 21 – bushes

29 - Living room tiles: CR/L 13, CR/L 14, CR/L 15, CR/L 16, CR/L 17, CR/L 18, CR/L 19 and CR/L 20

30 - Closing remark

Really confusing isn't it?

Information scattered all over the document with absolute no logic or sequence. Or should we say intentionally non-sequential?

So confusing that even Lowe got it wrong when it came to transposing the information to the final report as shown by the lack of coeherence on what is said in both about stains 1 and 14.

Introduce the “perhaps” factor and you have 6 pages of an intentionally really confusing document.

As was intended to be.

Remember how we showed, in our DNA - The Bar Code post, how specious Lowe was when using the expressions “apparently originating from at least two people”, “two persons” and “more than person”.

Confusion piled on top of confusion.

Add to all of the above that fundamental ingredient that most civilised nations have abandoned but which Britain, going against the grain, insists on using on any misinformation/disinformation campaign: xenophobia.

Look at what Lowe has to say about stains 5 and 17 (stain 17 is outside the scope of our current analysis at the moment but we're bringing it in to prove a point):

“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.”

“286/2007-CRL (17) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 2
A DNA profile that appeared to be from at least two sources was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered in that area. In my opinion, the major part of the profile matched that of Lino Henriques. Departing from the principle, for it to have had a DNA contribution from Lino Henriques then the remaining information in the smaller part of the result is too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.”  

So 2 forensic experts, collecting evidence from the scene of the worldwide most spoken of crime at the moment of collection, go and taint with their DNA said evidence and try to hush the fact by not reporting anything about it.

As everyone knows, one's DNA just jumps uncontrollably out of one's body, so maybe they weren't paying much attention and didn't see their little bits of DNA crawling out and creeping stealthily into those stains.

As they were Portuguese this not only is absolutely natural as is expected.

We bet they were doing the collection dressed in jeans or shorts and smelly and sweaty undershirts, dangling toothpicks in the corner of the mouth, belching and sneezing all over after each one having had, at least, a bottle of whisky for breakfast.

They should be blamed for contamination! One must be grateful that they only contaminated a stain each!! Those bungling Portuguese sardine-munching coppers!

But not all is lost.

John Lowe's conclusions solves the mystery for us all: it must have been Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, 2 forensic experts, who must of had a fight behind the sofa over a woman who happened to be hit when she stepped between them.

The woman, as her DNA appears in stain 4, must have been an unnamed Portuguese forensic expert also! Please don't ask us to describe her attire...

So there you have, two males and one female to explain all.

Add CG, a 2 yr old boy, into the brawl and you have all you need to explain those 15 blood stains in the corner of the living room of apartment 5A.

3 people positively identified: 2 Portuguese forensic experts, Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, and 1 little boy, months younger than the McCann twins at the time, CG.

But wait a minute... what was the Brit, Jonathan Smith who was supposed to technically oversee the collection, doing during this fight or "stain-contamination-process-without-reporting"?

You know, “...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.”

Oh,  that's easily explainable. Jonathan Smith wasn't present because, it seems, Tapas had this peculiar policy and that was to offer free wine to any Brit (you had to be Brit to get this offer) who walked within a "good parenting distance" of Tapas.

As soon as he set foot in that apartment he just had to drink up as he had no choice but to take up the offer. So he wasn't there when the 2 Portuguese forensic experts were fighting.

But, say you, do wait another minute... if they were there to collect forensic evidence, wasn't that evidence already there before they started to fight over the woman?

Is there any other reason for them to be fighting it out behind the couch in apartment 5A?

Oh shoot... you are a real spoilsport aren't you?

You're right, that can't be explained, so please ignore our completely realistic hypothesis.

On a more serious note, we really think that someone should ask these 2 forensic professionals, Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, about how did their DNA get into those stains.

We would be very, very interested in hearing their opinion

Both documents, the Interim and Final Report, are, as shown, objectively confusing. Scientifically written to be unscientific.

As we said, they were written that way because of their timings.

What was happening on Sept 2007? And what was the implication for Jun 2008?

The answer in the next post.