In forensics you bet it does!
The size from where a sample originates will unquestionably facilitate the biological quest for desired results.
Up
to now we have told you that stains 1 to 15, found in the Souh-East corner of the
living-room of the apartment 5A, were tiny, miniscule and invisible to
the eye.
And because they were tiny, miniscule and invisible to
the eye you assumed that some samples returned no DNA and
others did of very little use.
One aspect we haven’t dealt
with yet is the numeric “size” involved.
What are the odds of having 15 stains all of them tiny, miniscule and invisible to
the eye in size?
What could possibly generate such a phenomenon?
No
fluid splatters evenly.
It would be expected, statistically, that some
would be bigger than others. That would mean that there could be some or
many tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains but there would
have to be some or many not so tiny, not so miniscule and not so invisible to the
eye.
So even
if we are before, as we believe we are and have substantiated the
statement, blood, it’s very strange that it would splatter evenly in only
tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains 15 times.
But, apparently, there aren’t any not so tiny, not so miniscule and not so invisible to the
eye.
Or are there?
Let’s first put the stains in descending order according to what amount of DNA information they were able to provide as explained in our DNA is…
DNA post. We have divided the stains into Classes I to V:
Stains clearly with DNA (11 out of 15):
Class I - Incomplete (3 out of 15): stains 1, 4 and 9
Class II - Mixed (5 out of 15): stains 2, 5, 7, 10 and 12
Class III - 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)
Class IV - Too meagre (2 out of 15): stains 6 and 8
Stains with no vestiges of DNA (2 out of 15)
Class V - Unfruitful (2 out of 15): stains 11 and 13
Only Class I stains (stains 1, 4 and 9) were compared with the “286 Voluntary Database”, as
per John Lowe:
“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”
We remind our readers that stain 16 is out of our analysis scope for now.
This
means that only 20% of the stains returned “decent quality” DNA. At
least, decent enough to be comparable even if in all 3 cases it was said
that it was “incomplete”.
Again, statistically, what are the odds for a collection of 15 stains to return such poor information?
Yet
you have taken this to be realistic.
And why? Because, for you, those 15 stains were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye.
Logic determines that if not tampered with the size of a stain is directly proportonal to the amount of matter to be analysed. The bigger the stain, the easier it will be to get useful DNA results.
What you haven't realised is that the idea those 15 stains were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye was
drilled into your brain time and time again until it became, for you, an unquestionable
reality.
Well, it isn’t reality.
Let’s look at, for example, stain 3.
Stain
3 took us a while to detect where it was. As you can see in earlier posts we said
that we didn’t know where it was.
But as we have been proving all along,
when information is there, it’s only a question of time until it will
be seen.
This is where stain 3 is:
And this is
Stain
3:
Stain 3 is made up of
2 stains about
1 cm diameter each.
Not exactly
tiny or
miniscule.
That, in
microscopic terms is not big but
“planet-big”. The amount of
organic
matter present should allow
everything to be
determined that is
able to
be determined forensically.
If one cannot
extract valid information from stains that size, then how can one
extract anything from tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains?
And apparently enough information was obtained to be comparable from at
least 3 of them.
John Lowe’s mail, on Sept 3 2007
(received by "Task Portugal" on Sept 4 2007), to Stuart Prior:
“An
incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab
3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level
indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the
confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding
components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is
highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a
particular body fluid.”
Sep 06 2007 Interim Report:
“An
incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab
(286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and
showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However,
all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the
corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA
profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA
profile to a particular body fluid.”
June 2008 Final Report:
“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.”
What
in Sept 2007 was “an incomplete DNA result”, which would make it a
Class I stain in our scale above, became, in June 2008, a “incomplete and weak DNA
result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components” and “the
low-level DNA result showed very meagre information” pushing it down the
scale into a mere Class III stain.
A “mere” Class III
stain in which, may we remind you, FSS has stated very clearly, twice,
that “all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the
corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann”.
So there were confirmed components in what was only comprised of “some unconfirmed DNA components”. Really weird.
We
don’t know whether to ask why was it possible to match components from a
Class III stain and not possible to do the same with the other 7 Class I
and II stains (stain 9 was positively to CG) or to ask why was it was possible to obtain ONLY “unconfirmed
DNA components” from 2 stains of 1 cm diameter each?
We’ll ask both as the answer to both is the same.
The
fundamental problem with stain 3 is not the fact that it's NOT tiny nor
minuscule. The problem is that although not tiny or not minuscule, it is
indeed invisible to the eye!
Only one reason for that: It was cleaned, it
was made to be almost “transparent”
Unfortunately, or not, for the Black Hats, it was still there for the dogs
to smell it, for the Portuguese forensic experts to collect from it and for FSS to
determine that its confirmed DNA components belonged to Maddie.
But
it’s not exactly the fact that it was cleaned in an inaccessible corner
of the living room that called our attention to it.
What called our attention was the lack of DNA it contained.
The amount of biologial matter that can be seen that was still there should have been more than enough to return “healthy” DNA information. Apparently, it wasn't.
That particular area may have, and probably wasn't, been cleaned with a mop in between clients after the McCanns left.
Their inaccessible location suggests that these 2 stains would probably go unnoticed by the Ocean Club cleaning staff.
Even when one is not careless, when one mops one's floor at home there are always stains we miss. Especially in inaccessible corners.
The kind of cleaning done by OC Staff wouldn't have "erased" these stains and made them invisible and certainly not make them almost “DNAless”.
The fact that they didn't return any "proper" DNA means that it not only were they cleaned but it was a cleaning job done by experts. And experts who knew how to clean blood without leaving trace.
The DNA was removed from the stains and that’s why they returned so little information for such big amounts of biological matter.
And if one looks at 2 of the 3 Class I stains, stains 4 and 9, where the strongest DNA information was found of the 15 stains, when compared with the one obtained from stain 3, it is quite baffling the quality:
- Stain 4 is a smudge and yet it was possible to determine it was from a single source, a woman:
- Stain
9 is made up of 2 tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye dots and yet it was
possible to determine it came from a single source, a male:
A male different from the one of stain 1 and identified clearly as CG, a 2 yr old boy:
Amazing
to say the least. Amazing how so much information was obtained from
such scarce sources and amazing how from the two “enormous” blobs of stain 3, so
little was.
But our amazement doesn’t end here.
Why only a “Mixed” result from stain 7 and a “Too meagre” from stain 8? Both are bigger than 1 cm:
And one has to ask how was it possible for
Class I stain
1 and
Class II stains
2,
5,
10 and
12 have
returned a better DNA result than the
2 big blobs from
Class III stain
3?
We
take this opportunity to answer a question that has been put to us: if
Maddie died around
18:30 and the
GNR arrived at 22:47, how was it
possible for the
McCanns to arrange a
specialised cleaning team on such a
short notice?
The answer is simple: they didn’t.
They
didn’t call anyone that night who wasn’t already in PdL and among
the few people called no one was part of a specialised cleaning team.
On
the night of 3rd there was no forensics.
Any forensics done in the days
that followed was, on purpose, strictly concentrated on the bogus theory of
abduction. The window and little else.
The
only time the Portuguese authorities acted alone was on the night of
the 3rd.
From then on, with the surprising appearance (not) of the
British Ambassador, the PJ was, unwittingly, only allowed to play “cops” as long as they
didn’t decide venture down some “serious” path.
Whenever happened they got their “ears clipped” and were “told” to get
their attention back to the “game” and only the “abduction” game was
allowed to be played. Remember how Mr Amaral was told he couldn't use Maddie's clothes?
This to say that the domestic
cleaning that was done by the T9 was sufficient to avoid any attention
to the compromising corner of the living room.
Most likely only common
detergent was used that evening.
It would be interesting to see what
Baptista Supermarket sold at around 19:30 of May 3rd. We bet that
together with some Australian wine, some cleaning products were also
sold.
The body was removed from where it lay near the
window into the closet, the basic cleaning done and the clothes were
changed. Then they placed the soiled clothes together with all rags used in the
tennis bag.
From then on all was focused on pushing the abduction theory forward.
Sedate
the children, get Tanner’s daughter dressed in Maddie’s pyjamas, get the T7 (T9
minus Gerry and Jane) going to dinner (or just sit and be seen) at
Tapas, have Gerry take Maddie’s body nearby (including the interruption by
Jez and being Bundleman as seen by Tanner while inside 5A), have Gerry go
back to 5A to pick up Tanner’s girl to go on the stroll with the objective of having a man
seen carrying a blonde girl and have Tanner go back to the apartment where all
sedated kids were.
Up to here, all went to plan.
Then Kate
botched it all up with her premature alarm that caught all by surprise and
precipitated a series of mistakes that would give the whole game away.
So what was planned originally and left undone? Basically 3 things.
The first would have been to have made things look like the apartment was broken into through the window. To really jemmy the window.
The
second would have been for Gerry to make a spectacle of himself at Tapas
to ensure he was noticed. The fact that during this the window in apartment 5A would
be left wide open would be irrelevant as no one was
inside.
The third would have been the timely triggering of the alarm. Probably after 23:00.
By doing it before that time Kate interrupted the plan on its “stroll phase”.
The
cleaning done in the corner by the T9 was what could have been achieved that
night: to avoid anything suspicious being seen by the naked eye.
It was a successful cleaning.
Even
if the Portuguese forensics marched in on the 4th, which was very
unlikely as the crime scene had been purposefully NOT isolated by using
the “abduction hysteria” as an excuse to go in and out of the apartment,
it would give time for the “controlling forces” to curtail their
actions.
The
“6-cleaners” came after. Just like
Harvey Keitel's character in
Pulp Fiction, only days later.
Once the
British
authorities set foot on
PdL this was
their affair. It was never
PJ’s.
So, as soon as was possible, even
under everyone’s eyes, a
forensic team waltzed in
the apartment to
“collect” samples.
When we say in front of
everyone’s eyes, we’re
not talking about the
press.
The
press that came to
PdL were
never meant to report anything
but only to be
fictional writers in the best
Harry Potter style.
They didn’t see anything.
They saw what they
were told to see and
obediently saw it.
A memorable moment of collective cowardice.
The
“6-cleaners” not only
“collected” the samples
as they
almost “took” them all with them when they
left.
And
“almost” is the
key word, as
“almost” was left behind for the dogs to sniff out.
Post Scriptum:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Does Size Matter?":
Outstanding work my friend. Keep turning the screw. Are the 'cleaners' you refer to the Control Risks Group ?
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 7 Dec 2013 10:26:00”
Processos Vol 11 2945 - 2956
Letter from
DCCB to
Mr Amaral on
Sept 27 2007:
“O
signatário, na companhia dos Inspectores Srs Mário Ramos, José Ricardo,
António Brigantim e Carlos Dordonnat, em cumprimento de determinação
superior, e na sequência de informação relacionada com a eventual vinda a
TN de indivÃduos de nacionalidade Inglesa pertencentes a uma empresa
privada ligada a domÃnios diversos, nomeadamente, a recolha de
informação, empresa essa denominada “CONTROL RISKS GROUPS”, os quais,
supostamente, tinham, como objectivo a limpeza de espaços/objectos
relacionados com a famÃlia McCann,…”
Which translates into:
"The
undersigned, in the company of Inspectors Mário Ramos, José Ricardo,
Antonio Brigantim and Carlos Dordonnat in compliance with higher
determination, and in the sequence of information related to the
eventual coming to National Territory [TN – Território Nacional]
of
individuals of English nationality belonging to a private company linked
to diverse areas, namely, in information gathering, company that’s
called "CONTROL RISKS GROUPS", which supposedly had as objective the
cleaning of spaces/objects related to the McCann family, ... "
From
Kate McCann’s book
“Madeleine”:
“So on the
afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister,
flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our
apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the
media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and
braces – the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh.
They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads
reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that
were important.
At the last two meetings the barrister and legal assistant were
joined by a consultant called Hugh, whose profession was not at first
explained (‘Just call me Hugh,’ he said enigmatically). It transpired
that he was a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and
counsellor. We were told that an anonymous (but evidently very generous)
donor had set aside a considerable sum of money for us to put towards
the cost of hiring a private-investigation company if we wished. Hugh
had been brought in by a firm called Control Risks, which was primed to
help. This company is an independent specialist risk consultancy with
offices and investigators on five continents and their main line of work
is corporate security. It was a big gesture, we were immensely grateful
and it was good to know this option was available to us.
The first session Hugh attended, which took place at night, had
something of a James Bond atmosphere to it, and not in a good way. I
felt as if I’d entered a whole new world, and it was an extremely
mysterious and frightening one. Perhaps the worst bit was a remark Hugh
made about the reward that was on offer. He told us dispassionately that
such an inducement would have ‘put a price on Madeleine’s head’. I was
very upset. The thought of anything we had done jeopardizing Madeleine’s
life was too much to bear.
By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements
again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks. We were
concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese
police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in
translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently
thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered
properly. Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to
the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be
correct and discovered only many months later that these, too, contained
inaccuracies. And they had been given and recorded in English! A word
of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved
in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you
read your statement, in your own language, after you’ve provided it.
It was after one of the IFLG [International Family Law Group]
meetings that Hugh asked me whether I
was keeping a diary. Quite apart from the fact that I was an emotional
wreck and hadn’t had time to blink for the past week, the idea had never
crossed my mind. I hadn’t kept a diary since my early teens, and the
accounts of my life then were mind-numbingly boring: what time I got up,
what I ate for each meal and which lesson I’d enjoyed most that day.
‘You should,’ he said. He didn’t elaborate on why. The barrister handed me a spare A4 notebook he happened to have with him.
When
I thought about it, I realized it would be a good way of remembering
these dark and confusing days; of filling in the gaps for Madeleine on
her return. It would also be a record of our story that might help all
three children to understand what had happened when they were older.
Setting aside some blank pages in the notebook I’d been given for the
days that had already passed, I wrote a few paragraphs on a couple of
occasions the following week, though I didn’t begin in earnest until 23
May, twenty days after Madeleine was taken. From then on, I kept my
journal consistently, and when I had a spare moment I went back and
filled in the blank pages with notes of our activities and my
recollections of every day since 3 May 2007.
Though my main purpose was to keep a proper account for the children
of everything that had happened, I found writing it down very
therapeutic. It gave me an outlet for my thoughts and emotions, and a
means of communicating with Madeleine. I could talk to her! I could also
talk to God, and even to the abductor, if I wanted to. Whatever Hugh’s
intention was, I am very grateful to him for his suggestion. It might
just have saved my life.”
