If Madeleine McCann died on Sunday 29 April, what was really going on behind the scenes that week?

Madeleien McCann Research wrote:Or don't you see this? Are you saying: "Nothing to see here! Move On!"?

Get off my case!

Do you want debate or do your want blind compliance.

You asked for my contribution, this is my contribution. If you don't like what I have to say then don't ask.

Goodnight!

Verdi wrote:

Madeleien McCann Research wrote:Or don't you see this?  Are you saying: "Nothing to see here! Move On!"?

Get off my case!

Do you want debate or do your want blind compliance.

You asked for my contribution, this is my contribution.  If you don't like what I have to say then don't ask.

Goodnight!

So, do you want debate?

i do not think the uk delegation expected the dogs, i never have found out who was the advisor to get mark harrison in, he had to walk the streets as if a body was quickly hidden= he named it as follows;

This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.


https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm



and this resulted in the dogs;


McCann's Apartment.

The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim
Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's.
Murat's House and Garden.

The property has been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however the house and gardens may benefit from a fully invasive specialist search to preclude the presence of Madeleine McCann.
A method previously employed on similar cases has been to use the below assets.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
Deploy the CSI dog to search the house to locate any human blood.
This will act in support of the forensic examination already completed.
An inhibiting factor will be on areas where Luminol has been used.


and this part.


Open Area to East of Praia Da Luz.

This open area between the village urban limits and the Boavista golf club to the east and includes a plateau on which sits a trig point and mobile phone mast.
This area has been previously searched by officers and dogs walking through the area to check for Madeleine McCann's visible remains. However considering the new scenario of Homicide and concealed deposition this area affords many opportunities to dispose of a body. Within this area there are old empty properties, wells, thick vegetation, pockets of soft sand and natural fissures in the cliffs. Whilst there is no intelligence she is buried or concealed in this land it would be a natural place an offender may choose dose to the Village using the least effort principle. A proportionate response may therefore be considered to conduct a search of this area using a team of Victim Recovery Dogs (VRD) that are specifically trained to located concealed human remains.

----------------
the most likely help would indeed be with transport or concealing of a body. no one saw difficulties in this npia expert on the ground, but then he start talking about two very good dogs they have in the uk, and the portuguese wanted them. 
this is the point all started to go wrong. 


and the proof of government is in the way the career of both experts in their fields have taken a next step. 
mark harrison ended up as a professor in australia, martin grime started his own company and worked for the fbi in the usa. both kept one active, but no longer in the uk. a private company is not likely to be able to organize this.


in the eyes of amateur viewings in this case, the most critical sayings are on martin grime, but the strange thing is, both these people and also the both dogs, have not lost a feather from their wings in the scientific world. both are stil remarked, are still part of scientific research in still the same field. 
so their so called peers do not see a lac in standards of both.


the jersey coconut debacle was an act to degrade both dogs. but look in the files, all signals of keela are correct, all are proven by the british themselves as from human origine, that dog scored 100% right!
for eddy it was difficult, we miss out as control and in control. still the same human relics were found. 


the only thing the dogs did was giving signals, after that it became a human obligation to find human relics aka traces. that would make it into evidence usable in a court of law.


but if you are used to the work and meaning of these expert dogs, they also will have a value in an investigation, an investigation had no need to contest proof, that will happen far later in a court of law, the investigation can make use of all and nothing that could lead to evidence. 


almost 15 years later, humans are still not able to be better than those dogs. we get still not even near their abilities and this is time over time being tried and tested under complete controlled circumstances. 


those dogs did never fail, we as humans are, it is not to the dogs to declare something into evidence, but simply to us. if you have a problem to read this, and your glasses solve that, it means it are still your eyes who are the reason, never the glasses. 


all samples in the second forensic search, with a lot smaller view in this case, were done with uk material , under uk supervision, and under joint chain of custody rules delivered at a uk lab. 


john lowe his role is out of order, this figure is a expert in his work by his titles, and has from that an obligation to inform his clients. most of his testing was setting through, even when the samples were not simply meant to test for only any dna, from his professional standard he was the man that had after receiving the letters with questions about abilities from this lab, and his lab, on the material send in, to advise that a lot of those samples could not be worked by his lab, but had to go to another lab, with other testing abilities, he did not. 

you cannot be serving as an expert in matter, if you cannot guide that matter. 


his advise could have been, to get a full genome testing done on the blood card, this was not cheap, but could lead to different more personal mutations belonging to madeleine to look for in the samples. 
to only wanted to look at the usual set, and make no mistake, for only identification in crimes you do look at a very small portion of the dna. there is only looked at 20 alleles , out of thousand of possible ones. 
i would ask from an expert in a matter to be able to think with a investigation, if system a can not give an answer, is there another systeem that has such a possibility. 
same with material that was not usable for lowe's lcn technique, he was expected to not only recognize that, but also as an expert in his field to suggest another way of testing. 


i have only some correspondence between the pj and the fss, the full forensic results  report is not in the files. this could be just the result from expert to expert communication, meaning the information is not owned by the pj, so it is not part of their files. and it is not uncommon to work through other more expert people, so the information can be better translated into understandable common language. i never have found prove the portuguese forensic services was used as the middle man between pj and fss.  


well the fss was not that outstanding in the end at all. and lcn a la carte de fss had a lot of problems. 


for death in 5a there are the signals from eddy, this resulted in finding human relics, not remains, relics is better wording, because the findings are only typed as human cellulair material behind the sofa, so it was not from a piece of seabass, or a dead mouse, or any other organismen known to mankind, it was a relic, or trace from a human. relic is better because it does not conclude between live donor or dead donor. from the moment you are sure enough it is from a dead human, it is called remains. 


it is quite simple if eddy was trained to find keys, he will simply looked for all keys, you can not state the dog fails because that key he found does not fit at your lock of choice.
so eddy find were a human body is, or has been, and eddy says wouf, it means he found that place, we test that and hurray we find human cellular material, so eddy did actually found a spot were a body had been in a unknown state of decomposition. we can not fail eddy, because we could not got from human to which human. it is really easy to see the differences between cells of organisms. 
(this part is for our guest readers of course, who still are lost in a dog!)


that both dogs did signal could be explained, if that section behind the sofa was the true crime scene. there could have been blood shedding, that actually had dried in situ, and keela would react to that. when a body of a human would stay for some time at that same place, there could be traces of early decomposition, the later ones you do not need a dog for, your own nose is problematic enough, but it is also not unknown, that a large puddle of blood also decompose quickly. 


from what they want me to know, i deduce it as follows, for blood to seep trough the cement used to lay the tiles on a floor, it takes time and mass. for decomposing in a way eddy would react it would have to be more than some specks, of be mixed with less dense fluids. normally a spatter would simply dry in situ and because of the drying (they need more then 20% moisture components>)bacteria could not live in the specks, so they kept their state as simply dried out blood. 
to decompose you need puddles of blood, what means it has to be much more, it has to be so much, that the conditions could not lead to reaching drying out enough. and it is not so much as we like to think. 


eddy was trained to signal to all things that could be part of human remains, including decomposed blood, blood in larger deposits can also decompose, very quickly even. this would not let keela to react, but eddy would. eddy's clear signalling would be enough for any investigation to look into. 
and for me the recognizing of human cellulair material means eddy was right. but because of the crew of donors the fss found in the samples we have still no clearance about who were the actual donors. 


even if the dna was by the fss recognized as that of madeleine, this would still not be enough to conclude she was dead. but that together with eddy signalling could be accepted in a court of law as circumstantial evidence with far more facts and circumstances. every case needs that full picture.


making dna unusable is easy, not by cleaning, but time and cleaning could have already influence of the quality of dna around. well in this case the walk over of all who wanted could have been an advised method. 
it is not all around as common knowledge. most will only think about cleaning up. 


the lcn method for getting to dna is not undisputed, and the fss does not exist any more, with reasons.
besides the testing itself, the way before the samples are taken and all handling of samples and testing materials could be easily changed the result, not to a good result, but a bad result is very easy. with and without intend. proving it is not existing.
so to change an outcome, this would far more likely by government than the private sector. the government was the biggest client of the fss. such ties could be useful. 


patricia moon is known as tricia moon in het career, she was not a ceo of bell pottinger, but at the time a ceo of resonate itself. resonate was indeed a company of bell pottinger. it still would not made tricia moon into a ceo of bell pottinger itself. 
and it works a bit simple, big clients get the big bosses. and such a trip in the sun, would be preferred by the bosses too. if it was an outing to a new contract for some years to go, it is very unlikely, they would send a junior out there, not with clients of this magnitude. 

and it does not look strange mark warner ordered them back in. they would have need a network with ties around this case. this case happened just before high season. they had to do all and everything to not become that place you get to, to get your child taken. mark warner just protected their assets and interest. i do think the mccanns had profit from that. 

it was not a best effort by resonate if these people were behind the give them what they want, keeping the mccanns around was stupid. getting some distance in, would have been better. the press pack would have gone with the mccanns. 
that small part has for me far more value to look at, than a pr and audit company. 
why this became the choice to make. if a government had something to hide, it was not in that part of the ocean club itself.

@onehand wrote
patricia moon is known as tricia moon in het career, she was not a ceo of bell pottinger, but at the time a ceo of resonate itself. resonate was indeed a company of bell pottinger. it still would not made tricia moon into a ceo of bell pottinger itself.






At the time P Moon was in Praia da Luz with M Frohlich, she was a Director at Bell Pottinger from September 1991 to September 2007.


She became a Director of Resonate September 2007 to June 2012.





https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/p7qzEXF7b_yAf0G_pNaQ30-SoWQ/appointments

Patrica Moon's LinkedIn profile says this:

Director
Bell PottingerBell Pottinger 1994 - 2012 · 18 yrs

at verdi, i now of that. but who told the pj of the existence of this expert. mark harrison was already on the grounds  from 20/7/2007 and he advised the dogs in. harrison was on the ground much earlier than grime was. the first searches by grime were on 31/08/2007

mark harrison was a police officer specialist and scientist in geoforensics under npia, but npia would not send someone like him in on their own let's be nice to the pj, i want to know who it was that told the pj about the existence of this expertise, yes they always have officially to ask for such assists. but it is hardly to expect the pj had this from their own ideas. somebody told the pj about this. 

amaral just summarized it in his book to one event, but it was mark harrison who got in from 20/ 7, grime came later after harrisons advice, i think he traveled on the . 

it was the work of the dogs that broke this case. and it must still hurt, because from all sides against the pj, they still need to get marginalized to the bone. the uk would normally be very proud to have such quality working dogs. the police force was. 

why so much effort in destroy them and their handler, on something that was a marvel to have. even if no one had his dirty fingers in this part of this case, there could be a very neat way available to tell the public , it was a try and it did not work out. 
instead they choose a route to set back all the work invested in these type of dogs. who are needed in the work on your home grounds. 

it was so untypical to see the uk high and mighty going on a slapping tour of these dogs. it was a british lab that told these both dogs did exactly what the uk trained them for. that must have a reason.

certainly when two top specialists in their field of work, ended up abroad were never are arisen questions about their quality, same for these both dogs. 

some one told the pj about mark harrison, as a reference to how this was done in the uk. i expect with so much praise the portuguese wanted him in, and i do think it was mark harrison who talked with that same praise of a handler of two excellent dogs. the best of europe, and the portuguese liked that so much, the dogs got in. and after that moment all and everything escalated.

till today their are two topics that bring nasty voices out, one is amaral and his pj investigation, the second are the dogs, hardly ever about martin grime, but mostly the dogs itself.

it is all silly slapping of course, easy to believe high names, they know that people do not want to look for themselves, will not read police files. and i still hear the same after the same, and i do know because of the files that it is rubbish. and because who tells it, it is rehearsed as the holy grail. so called authors, reporters, all other media. and it is besides very nasty and dishonest, also very boring too. 

still 60 years to go, before the statute of limitations would be gone on publications about this case of national safety, so very unlikely we indeed see true answers in our live span. 

it is just a government ship sailing these troubled waters, while companies like mark warner, the ocean club, greentrust, bell pottinger and conglomerates hanging om the stern avidly painting with their grey paint, while the media is just keeping on brushing the desks with a toothbrush.

Moon worked for Bell Pottinger from 1991 as a secretary, 1st  September 1991 to 20th August 1996, at the same time she's listed as Director 
Bell Pottinger Public Relations 1st September 1991 to 19th September 2007
13th September 1994 to 9th November 2006 Director I c communications. (Bell Pottinger)
11th January 1999 to 12th May 1999, Director Good relations health (Bell Pottinger)
19th September 2007 to 30th June 2012 Director Resonate.

as bell pottinger owned resonate it is not that strange tricia moon has that at her linkdn. 

but resonate was taken over by bell pottinger in 2006, one of the founders of resonate was michael frohlich, he was earlier also working for bell pottinger. het stayed on as managing director

tricia moon was named as deputy director for resonate.  at crusador; if you got the time of september from something like company house, that only would means she became in a more official role, it is very common after a take over, that the mother company places some of his more senior people in the management of a firm, there is very little to find about tricia moon, but i think it means tricia moon had already the role to keep a check on all things resonate for bell pottinger, meaning she did actually worked at resonate. 

resonate had only 9 heads at the end of 2006, after it became a working company of bell pottinger it grown into 25 heads. 

if i had read this about a head of a company, i would also put a sound mind in as ceo;

https://www.prweek.com/article/652625/profile-michael-frohlich-managing-director-resonate

it gives the impression resonates was a hands on company, by their ceo's. 

michael frohlichs linkdn shows it better in how these positions would work out, het was not only managing director for resonate, but also board member of bell pottinger at the same time. 

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/michael-frohlich-4848585

tricia moon would have officially that same career listing. you can be board member of a firm and still have another day job. 

and there it is; i do not know if it will copy correctly and readable, but this is the link, second message;

https://chime-plc.typepad.com/news/2007/01/

Bell Pottinger Consumer and Resonate come together

The merger of Bell Pottinger Consumer and Resonate gives The Bell Pottinger Group a new concentrated consumer public relations offering and creates an agency that would immediately slot into PR Week's top 15 consumer agencies in the UK.

It will be led by Michael Frohlich with Tricia Moon and Graham Dr

crusader wrote:Moon worked for Bell Pottinger from 1991 as a secretary, 1st  September 1991 to 20th August 1996, at the same time she's listed as Director 
Bell Pottinger Public Relations 1st September 1991 to 19th September 2007
13th September 1994 to 9th November 2006 Director I c communications. (Bell Pottinger)
11th January 1999 to 12th May 1999, Director Good relations health (Bell Pottinger)
19th September 2007 to 30th June 2012 Director Resonate.

She just considered it "Director" from 1994 to 2012.

It's on LinkedIn... I checked today.

Whatever... she was a big-wig.

onehand wrote:At Verdi, I know of that. but who told the PJ of the existence of this expert? Mark Harrison was already on the grounds from 20/7/2007 and he advised the dogs in. Harrison was on the ground much earlier than Grime was. The first searches by grime were on 31/08/2007.

Replying to you onehand and to other recent posts on this thread:

Mark Harrison was either known to Goncalo Amaral already or Goncalo already had contact with another senior British police officer. We think that somewhere, in his book or an interview, he mentions previous contact with British police officers. Which is what you would expect, as many British tourists holiday on the Algarve, and he would need to contact British police.  

Yes, the FSS in Britain seems to have been less than honest. After all, even SKY TV News correspondent Martin Brunt claimed he had seen a 'perfect, 100% match' for Madeleine, against the sample of body fluid (low copy DNA). The later claim that the sample 'had been contaminated' always felt all-too-convenient. Then we add the strange facts that none of Madeleine's DNA could be found in Apartment G5A and that Gerry McCann had to go back and get it from a pillow in his Rothley home.

As for the Jersey 'coconut', the police officer conducting the investigation had it sent it to a laboratory, we think in Oxford. It came back testing for the presence of collagen, a substance definitely not found in coconuts! This reminds us of the awful child abuse that took place at the Haut la Garenne home, one of the places paedophile Jimmy Savile used to visit.

Finally, Tricia Moon was not 'a secretary' for Bell Pottinger, nor was she the CEO, but she was its Company Secretary.

A Company Secretary n the UK fulfils a legal role, making sure that e.g. that the company accounts are accurate and are filed on time etc.

does anyone know why did they bring dogs from UK?I am sure Spain or Portugal have cadaver dogs as well

crusader wrote:Finally, Tricia Moon was not 'a secretary' for Bell Pottinger, nor was she the CEO, but she was its Company Secretary.

A Company Secretary n the UK fulfils a legal role, making sure that e.g. that the company accounts are accurate and are filed on time etc.


It didn't say company secretary on the website, it just said secretary.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/p7qzEXF7b_yAf0G_pNaQ30-SoWQ/appointments

crusader,

True, but on a register of companies at Companies House. 'Secretary' means 'Company Secretary', an absolutely critical role for any company. 

Here are some of the duties of a Company Secretary:

 
The role of the company secretary
14 Dec 2017


All public companies are obliged to have a company secretary. In April 2008, as a result of the Companies Act 2006, the post became optional for private companies unless their articles of association explicitly require them to have one. The information below offers a brief overview of the role.

RELATED TRAINING
[size=20]Role of the Company Secretary
This practical course will equip you with the essential knowledge and skill-set to fulfil your role successfully.
View course details
[/size]

Appointment

[size]
When a company secretary is appointed, Companies House must be notified together with any change of details or the termination of the appointment.
[/size]

---

Qualifications

[size]
In a public company, the directors must make sure, as far as is reasonably possible, that the secretary has "the requisite knowledge and experience to discharge the functions of secretary of the company".  In addition, they must meet one or more of the following qualifications:
[/size][list="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-left: 1.25rem; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.4; list-style-position: outside;"][*]Be a member of any of the following bodies:

• the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
  
• the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
  
• Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
  
• the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland
  
• the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators
  
• the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
  
• or the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting
  

[*]Have held the office of company secretary of a public company for at least 3 out of the 5 years immediately before their appointment as secretary
[*]Be a barrister, advocate or solicitor called or admitted in any part of the UK
[*]Be a person who by virtue of their holding or having held any other position or their being a member of any other body, appears to the directors to be capable of discharging the functions of the secretary of the company.  (Companies Act 2006, s.273)
[/list]
[size]
Secretaries of private companies (where they continue) are not required to have any particular qualifications or experience.
[/size]

---

Formal duties

[size]
According to the July 2018 UK Corporate Governance Code, "All directors should have access to the advice of the company secretary, who is responsible for advising the board on all governance matters. Both the appointment and removal of the company secretary should be a matter for the whole board."
The secretary is an officer of the company and their duties can be wide ranging. While the Companies Act does not generally specify the role of the company secretary, they usually undertake the following duties:
[/size]

• Maintaining the company’s statutory books, including:
  
  • a register of present and past directors and secretaries
    
  • a register of all shareholders, past and present and their shareholdings
    
  • a register of any charges on the company’s assets
    
  • minutes of general meetings and board meetings
    
  • a register of the debenture holders (typically banks)
    
  
  
  

• Filing annual returns at Companies House. Other documents which must be filed include the directors’ report and auditors’ report (unless the company is exempt), and financial statements, including details of the company’s assets and liabilities. 
  
• Arranging meetings of the directors and the shareholders. This responsibility will involve the issue of proper notices of meetings, preparation of agenda, circulation of relevant papers and taking and producing minutes to record the business transacted at the meetings and the decisions taken.
  
• Informing Companies House of any significant changes in the company’s structure or management, for example the appointment or resignation of directors.
  
• Establishing and maintaining the company’s registered office as the address for any formal communications. Ensuring that all the company’s business stationery carries its name, registered number, country of registration and registered address. These details must also appear on the company website, emails, order forms and invoices.
  
• Ensuring the security of the company’s legal documents, including for example, the certificate of incorporation and memorandum and articles of association.
  
• Deciding on the company’s policy for the filing and retention of documents.
  
• Advising directors on their duties, and ensuring that they comply with corporate legislation and the articles of association of the company.
  

---

Additional Duties

[size]
The company secretary will often be required to take on a variety of additional administrative duties. Typically, these may include:
[/size]

• Insurance
  
• Company pension scheme
  
• Administration of share schemes
  
• PAYE & payroll
  
• VAT registration
  
• Management of the company’s premises and facilities
  
• Office management
  
• Compliance with data protection and health and safety requirements
  
• Intellectual property
  

[size]
For public companies the company secretary will also be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Stock Exchange, management of the company’s registrars and compliance with the UK Corporate Governance Code.
[/size]

---

How important is the role?

[size]
The Cadbury Report (1993) stressed the importance of the role of the company secretary: 
‘‘The company secretary has a key role to play in ensuring that board procedures are both followed and regularly reviewed. The chairman and the board will look to the company secretary for guidance on what their responsibilities are under the rules and regulations to which they are subject and on how these responsibilities should be discharged. All directors should have access to the advice and services of the company secretary and should recognise that the chairman is entitled to strong support from the company secretary in ensuring the effective functioning of the board.’’ [/size]

Yes thank you, I did look into it after your last post.
I was not trying to score points or be clever, I posted exactly what the Government website  showed.

As we know, at the time of Madeleines disappearance she was Director at Bell Pottinger.

finding no dna is far more normal then people think, first you have very low dna shedders and very high shedders. even such a low shedder you can not even find that much in a house they live in for years.

most hairs found in this case only has been established to the mt-dna, that is a very small portion of dna, you always will get from the person that is the donor of an egg, usually the biological mother, but today not so standard as before. all children born to a female donor get that small piece of mt-dna, mt in this is standing for mitochondrial dna, it is part of the energy system of all  true human cells. it has very little mutations, so it is a way to trace people by their maternal line, it is not the same as family, the bond to that line could be thousands of years back. 

its use in crime scenes is mostly a quick scan to include or exclude people who do not have a legal reason to have been there, or to have a quick way to rule a body/bodypart/remains in or out.  

so in this case there are at least 4 people with identical mt-dna, kate mccann, madeleine and both twins. 
this result ended up in the forensic report as probably belonging to kate mccann and her offspring, or any others of the same maternal mt-dna lineage.

so all hairs are never used to tell which of those 4 they belonged to, all could be from at least 1 of these 4, and at most of all 4. the mt-dna is the same for all of these 4 people. 

mt-dna is not usual used to really identify a person, it is not that unique, cases where it is used it is always in combination with other facts and circumstances and when there is no better way to identify the person, but if you have more than one victim of the same maternal line it cannot work well. 
you see it used in very old remains, but it will be not with the same threshold, tsar nicolai and i think even that king they found back under that parking it was used to include the remains to maternal lines.
but both cases together with other history.

all people in the world share between a 40 and 50 mt-dna lineages, it depends a bit on who writes the science reports, it is still a work in progress. some died even out over time, some are very common in specific regions of the world. in populair science the mt-dna lineages are called the eve's. larger mutations do split of from the basic lineages, and not all scientists accept all split offs as split offs. 

so there could have been a lot of hairs of madeleine mccann found, but we do not know that because there is only tested for the mt-dna, and because there are 4 possible donors, it is not usable to in or exclude her.

to do a certain identification of dna, you have to look at the nuclear dna, usually still a very smal part of the dna is used, most of our dna is the same in all humans, so in forensics there is a part used that has a fair chance to be different in most people. it differs per country what is acceptable to do that identification. only when children are born from the same egg and sperm they would end up with almost the same nuclear dna. there are actually quite a lot of possibles in the meeting of eggs and sperms. and from identical twin studies is known not all have to be identical. 

in this case they have looked at 20 alleles, these are 10 from the biological father and 10 from the biological mother in madeleines dna, there are many more, it is about all 20 you want to see to do a perfect quality match, but different countries ask different numbers, to the identification of a person. but in this case not only the victim was part of this place, but also the father, the mother, and 2 full siblings. meaning 3 different people who got per pair of alleles 1 out of 2 from daddy, and 1 out of 2 from mummy. 
madeleine had already two identical alleles, so mummy and daddy had each at least one identical allele, so madeleine could only show in testing 19 alleles, because the identical pair would show as one allele in the results. 
this single result could be in the sample from at least 3 and up to 5 different people, but each other allele would also be in the dna from; or daddy, or mummy, so even if you found more it would not be easy to say this one is madeleine, that one is daddy, and that one is from mummy, but it means that each other of the 18 other alleles could be from at least 2 people. all 19 alleles that are in that piece of madeleine her dna was also around in het parents and partly in her full siblings. 

in a case like this you need at least all those 19 alleles showing up, but what happened at the fss is , that they did not got 19 alleles, but far more, you can look at each allele and see how many are more than once in a sample, so lets call one allele a, if you see 3 times that a, it means there have to be at least 2 to 3 different people be part of that sample, so the fss was able to call this out to between numbers like 3 tot 5 people. 

there could be 4 reasons for this result;
1. it is a true result of a mixed dna of more people on the sample itself. 
2. the result from the lcn technique was faulty, and this happens easily because of the pcr cycles needed to make enough copies to do a read out. pcr does replicate all that is in that sample, so every contamination will be copied also, and the copying itself could be gone faulty. this was why is never was/is very populair in the forensic world.
3. there was something wrong before the sample was taken.
4. or something was wrong after it was taken.

no. 3 is what brought the fss down, they got a identification out on a sample, that was made without taken in to care the chain of custody of the evidence, so the defense could walk because it could have been a chance match because of how the material was handled before the sample was taken.
this case;https://www.judiciaryni.uk/judicial-decisions/2007-nicc-49

but most people do not know how easy you can influence a place that later on will be sampled for dna. so anyone with this knowledge, and certainly in this specific setting of people, could willfully decide to change the relics. every thing needed was there and that was not cleaning! but this will not end in a course for crime scene ruination for dummies. i would not put that out in detail.
and it is not prominent used in tv series and movies. if this has happened for me it means pro assistance.

4. is more difficult it could be just lazy working habits, that means dna from anyone whose dna could end up in the lab became part of the sample,  many possible options into that. a not very good cleaning of the materials in use, and forgetting to use control samples. lcn is already very difficult because of the pcr cycles needed and non conform handling could make it into ending up half of birmingham in it.

also this is the moment in time willful intend to disguise dna could be easily done. but in this case it would be necessary to have the samples of the parents at hand. there are not full minutes when what arrived so not to prove at all.  

point 1, need some extra declaration, it is known that people do shed dna without intention, most of us do it very often even, a very good shedder will walk easily into a lot of your samples, a marginal shedder could escape. the to sample material is often been in the open, meaning normally shedded dna, like from saliva and skin cells, could end up together with other dna. the surface you swap is pretty large if you look at the size of the dna itself. even if you only swap a surface of a square mm. you have the risk of contamination, as in picking up a row of peoples dna. 

there is also point 1a. the victim could also be a shedder and end accidentally up in your sample.

how much welcome dna is in forensics, it is on its very own no hard evidence, again the investigation mantra, it is all about all facts and circumstances, and forget you favorite tv series or movie detective, in reality it can never be the dna alone that solves a case. 

the role of dna of madeleine in this case has its best use, to use it to rule it out of findings, it was already known who she was, that she was there legally, but her parents were also there legally and two full siblings. 
even in the blood relics behind the sofa and in the hired car, it would never be able to say this was 100% sure a relic of madeleine mccann, it would effectively be usable together with a lot of other information, and that included the signals of the dogs, to make amendable it was most likely a relic, or even remains of madeleine. a whole lot of facts and circumstances that would made it into evidence of what could  had happened.

all the dna that the fss got out of the samples was human, from human cells! so not from a seabass, a pork chop, a dead mouse, HUMAN! but the fss was not able to do any research from what type of human cells it was. 
so forget forever it was maybe a mouse, brought in by the cat of the grandma of tamsin, who did not live in 5a ever, or a sea bass who accidentally ended up behind the sofa,  while a young boy acted that he liked it, no pound of pork sausages, who got rancid and were put behind the sofa because the garbage bin was full, or that eddy smelled a rat, all samples are recognized bij the fss as human cellulair material! 
it is pretty easy to see if the cells are human, and i think that was at least the fss was able to do.
(again just meant for the guests, or gohsts who are reading with us)

dna is a very welcome and often usable tool in an investigation, but it is not the holy grail of it. 

and it gets most times the best uses, when people tell porkies about never been at that place, or i never did met that person, or touched that. and in this case the question about accidentally bleeding around in 5a. 
that is often a very nice one, because most people start answering those before a lawyer can keep them quiet, they sound so innocent. but if you tell you was never in 5a, or even around, nor someone you know of have contact with, you have to declare how we found your dna in that place. 

so the germans are not buoyed about the talking head in the sat 1 docu, that tells cb worked at the place. 
he at least would not have to serve the cat twice, or was it a dog?

the most mysterious series of murder cases and the most 'criminal' german woman had dna as the star of the show. 
https://www.iso.org/news/2016/07/Ref2094.html

Patricia Zoe Anne Moon appointments

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/p7qzEXF7b_yAf0G_pNaQ30-SoWQ/appointments

The MMRG are adamant Frohlich and Moon were in Praia da Luz because they knew Madeleine was to go missing and they were there to help cover it up.

Before this can move on, you need to prove that was the case, just for the record I disagree with this theory.

There is zero proof R Murat was summoned to Portugal, yes it fits in nicely with a certain scenario, but that is not proof he was.

I don't think anyone is ADAMANT.  That's not how investigations work.
The facts are there.
There must be an explanation.
We are looking for it.
Several have been proposed.
Where does the evidence take us ?
Balance of Probabilities, or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt ?
Or just an interesting theory which needs more work ?

crusader wrote:The MMRG are adamant Frohlich and Moon were in Praia da Luz because they knew Madeleine was to go missing and they were there to help cover it up.

Before this can move on, you need to prove that was the case, just for the record I disagree with this theory.

There is zero proof R Murat was summoned to Portugal, yes it fits in nicely with a certain scenario, but that is not proof he was.

PeterMac has kindly answered your first point. No, we are not 'adamant' that Frohlich and Moon were there because Madeleine was already dead. It doesn't help fair debate if we are accused of something about our position which is manifestly not true.

Likewise, the claim, by Verdi - and now yourself - that we must 'prove' that they were there for that purpose, is equally unhelpful. We can only 'move on', you say, if we provide 'proof'.

At the risk of more repetition, we are here to discuss theories, and, yes, to speculate, about what certain people were doing in Praia da Luz from Sunday 29 April to 3 May. We are not necessarily, by any means, seeking 'proofs'. However, what we can prove is this: Two top PR people, during the period 30 April to 3 May 2007, namely Tricia Moon, the Company Secretary of the UK's top PR agency, the now-disgraced Bell Pottinger, and Michael Frohlich, a key employee of Bell Pottinger at the time, were in Praia da Luz then. We do not go further than that, except to say that we believe it is more likely they were there for Madeleine-related reasons than, as Verdi suggests, for a routine spring check on some sort of unspecified risk, like a possible pandemic. Verdi is of course free to remain silent and refrain from explaining why he prefers that alternative.

Is there 'zero' proof that Robert Murat was summoned to Portugal? Well, what does 'zero' proof mean? Either we have a set of facts that amount to 'proof', or we don't. And we don't, as yet.

But what we do have is a great deal of very good circumstantial evidence. Two key aspects of this are the series of SEVENTEEN deliberate lies he told to the PJ when questioned. He was forced to admit they were lies when he was requestioned by the PJ, after they had examined his mobile 'phone pings. Thus we know he is a liar. Then we have his outrageous conduct as a PJ interpreter, so bad that Inspector Varanda advised that he should be removed. And there is more, strong, circumstantial evidence that he was summoned over to 'do a job'. We have never said we have 'proof'. But we do have several lines of evidence

Madeleine McCann Research wrote:Likewise, the claim, by Verdi - and now yourself - that we must 'prove' that they were there for that purpose, is equally unhelpful. We can only 'move on', you say, if we provide 'proof'.

At the risk of more repetition, we are here to discuss theories, and, yes, to speculate, about what certain people were doing in Praia da Luz from Sunday 29 April to 3 May. We are not necessarily, by any means, seeking 'proofs'. However, what we can prove is this: Two top PR people, during the period 30 April to 3 May 2007, namely Tricia Moon, the Company Secretary of the UK's top PR agency, the now-disgraced Bell Pottinger, and Michael Frohlich, a key employee of Bell Pottinger at the time, were in Praia da Luz then. We do not go further than that, except to say that we believe it is more likely they were there for Madeleine-related reasons than, as Verdi suggests, for a routine spring check on some sort of unspecified risk, like a possible pandemic. Verdi is of course free to remain silent and refrain from explaining why he prefers that alternative.

It is comments such as this ^^^ that prevent me from continuing discussion, not because I'm some kind of lightweight unable to stand-up for my opinions or to explain my rationale.  Read my original post again..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17250p125-if-madeleine-mccann-died-on-sunday-29-april-what-was-really-going-on-behind-the-scenes-that-week#449956

Nothing like as you portray is it?

I tire of the constant need to justify my opinions because, only because, my words are twisted and taken out of context.  What I write is reinvented to suit and I don't like that - thus my withdrawal from discussion, so much more dignified.  The notion that I'm reluctant and/or unable to debate and/or trying to stifle debate, a seed sown watered and now starting to flourish as your previous comment confirms, a prime example of my point.

Tony Bennett wrote:So, do you want debate?

In conclusion, yes, my experience in the tourist industry tells me that any large company involved in the tourist industry needs a coordinating body, like a PR/risk management consultant, to assess risk factors. Without knowing the structure and working methodology of the parent company and it's subsidiaries I can't opine on how they respond to individual client requirements.

Holiday destinations attract crime, that's aside from natural disasters and the most feared of all .... terrorism!  A missing 3 year old child, suspected of being abducted by paedophile/s or child traffickers could be devastating to a company like Mark Warner, from the perspective of a PR consultant who must justify their existence and exorbitant client fees.  The knee jerk reaction does not surprise me, if I were there as part of a PR consultancy I would react in the exact same way.

Robert Murat?  No I don't think he was summoned to Luz (Lautrec   ?) on Tuesday 1st May 2007 without plausible evidence.  The fact that he flew to Portugal on a specific day is not evidence of being summoned - in my opinion!

i wont ask for proof, but i like to see a direct connection before and during the case mccann. 

i have never found such a connection, not in the mccanns, nor in others who belong to the tapas 7, or direct family. 

i find it far more thinkable there were already talkings about a contract for some work between mark warner and bell pottinger, the case mccann happened just in between all talks, and because mark warner already had set some steps with resonate, the contract was signed on the 9th of may 2007. and by then it included the mccann affaire as they would have named it. 

dates at company house do not have to be factual, most companies would look into changes periodically and send them through. even as tricia moon was also part of bell pottinger as a type of holding, at least a mother company, she had to act as director for resonate, usually to keep the old directors on a leash. this the usual and common approach in business. resonate was taken over officially at the start of 2007 by bell pottinger, that could have taken months of talking, and their is nothing strange in sending some eyes in from the mother company. the interest of tricia moon would have been with bell pottinger, but that makes no difference she was working a director post at resonate. 

and company house only keep register of board members. but it will get the information from the companies itself, so when a company is lax with taking the step to register, and this is very common, it just get a later date. 

i looked back for bell pottinger to 2002, they were mostly working for companies, not private people. and it is not known if the services direct to the mccanns were at first mostly sponsored by others, like mark warner/ocean club/greentrust in a agreement they would serve extra help in change for no bad publicity to one of them. so no court cases for mal practice, no nasty outings about then in the press. 

a double function would have been very welcome for mark warner/ocean club/greentrust because usually a spokesperson talks with the paying customer. 

the only strange thing is if bell pottinger themselves or by way of resonate also had given the advice to keep an eye on the mccann parties by letting then stay on for free, til high season came kicking in and they had to exit the ocean club. 

the arrangement to the mccanns existed of rent free stay and use of all facilities of the ocean club, some spokepersons, and transport. 

extra help could have existed in being creative with all paperwork, so not all people could be easily reached, or use a double book keeping for a lot of sheets. but you do not need the 3 companies, one or two people of management or just access could be enough. the higher echelon of a company does not always have knowledge about what is done on the grounds itself.

i do not think there is logic to find in mark warner/ocean club/greentrust assisting to let a child go missing, that would very much against their interests. and the story out there was taken from her bed. that was not something one of those tree would be happy with. 

look what the public expected to be part of the facilities, security people, cctv, a ressort, as if it was a stand alone holiday complex. 

help with the paperwork like the sheets would mean they did know earlier that something had happened, not perse they know what happened and how exactly. the pj was preety quick with getting a lot of paperwork out, that is something that would not be easy to arrange if all happend that thursday evening. but they had a large part of the nightly hours. 

still i find a description as highly suspicious a bridge to far. 

every scenario needs attention, but this one into a planned dead or missing child, asks even for a higher burden of proof, because of it make a case like this a whole lot worse. 

if you are already landed in death by sunday evening, there would not be very much room for pre planned actions. for that option all have to become post actions. i never have found something directing into all was planned action. 

same with murat, i do see him far more as the local man to go with something you want, a typical middle man with a lot of smart talking. he would lie out of habit. and he could very well be fitted in the background of the scenes already existing way before the mccanns did set foot in portugal. 

all those police officers, including one with the reputation of chop chop in the drugs selling business would arouse all criminal activity players to the core. it was a guess who those officers were, where they would look into. so it is normal people try to walk into an investigation. murat would have been an excellent person to do exactly that. bilingual, so his role as translator would give access to a lot of intel. also he was trying to make news deals with the media. and he could have had enough reasons to protect his business, and choose to lie. 

he does not look as a person you would hire as a pro in security. these types are able to bite a bit out of all cookies out there, not only yours. 

and if you look in the files, the portuguese had more their eyes on him already as the nosey middleman, who tried to much and to fast mingling into this investigation. it was the british bunch that made murat into the patsy in the case itself. ask jim clarcke, it was the profiler he brought in from ceop. 

 i don't think murat had very much disadvantages from the case, no one will usually trust people like him, but they do not need a trustworthy person for the work that also must be done. and he was well payed for it. 
his cv mentioned a car sales business he was working for, and he was active in real estates and web aplications for that. 

and i do think it ois very possible he also had his financial interests assured with keeping parties from resonate, mark warner, the ocean club and greentrust briefed. 

also tricia moon is linked as the one who got the ambassador in, and i do not see a reason, good or bad that was because to help the mccanns, but more that the pj was planning to keep all people on holiday available for questioning on portuguese grounds, and then you see an interest risen for mark warner/ocean club/greentrust, to do not let that happen. 
but two hard core pr people must have been able to let it look like a setting the full embassy traveled in to help the mccanns.   

and this is mostly the type of help the mccanns would likely have gotten, only when other interests of parties were laying under it, the would profit, but they never were the goal itself. 

also if this was the end result of a pre planned excursion assisted by bell pottinger it was done better. if they did written the script before, it had looked very different. it would never happend at that place.

It was MMRG that speculated F&M were in Ocean Club before the McCann's and were there on Madeleine related reasons.

I never said MMRG were adamant that F&M were there because Madeleine was already dead.

I said MMRG are adamant F&M were in Praia da Luz because they knew Madeleine was to go missing and they were there to cover it up.

That is a totally different statement to what you claimed I said.

I stand by my post on Murat.

In your last post you said 
Two top PR people, during the period 30 April to 3 May 2007, namely Tricia Moon, the Company Secretary of the UK's top PR agency, the now-disgraced Bell Pottinger, and Michael Frohlich, a key employee of Bell Pottinger at the time, were in Praia da Luz then.




No mention now of them arriving the week before

Tourism Risk Management

https://sustain.pata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Introduction-Presentation-English.pdf