Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

by Guest 19.09.11 12:55

Taken from Mr Amaral's book........................

IN SEARCH OF A BODY, WITH KRUGEL'S MACHINE

Kate heard of a man called Krugel, a former South African army colonel, who had allegedly perfected a machine enabling him to detect the presence of a body. A decomposing body emits particles: if hair from the deceased person is placed in the machine, it detects identical particles. On June 9th, Kate asks friends to go to her home in England to collect some of her daughter's hair and send it to Krugel.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **tigger** 19.09.11 15:10

Invinoveritas wrote:tigger, was the flat ever investigated for fingerprints (not the windows,shutters or patiodooors), surely it would have been nigh on impossible to whoosh all prints and DNA from surfaces, childrens´books, TV remote, glasses, cups etc.? sweaty fingers produce DNA do they not? and was anything found, or had the flat been clinicallly cleaned from professionals on that day, somebody could have seen the comings and goings, in daylight anyway). Now I am getting confused to.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Up to twenty people tramped in and out of the flat on the evening of the 3rd. I believe that previous to that it had been cleaned and Wednesday was also when the cleaning lady came in. Curtains were washed by Kate, I believe the walls washed as well.
But one would expect fingerprints of Maddie on a cup or glass, her last drink before bedtime?
I know the police did a thorough job on forensics but a lot had been obliterated by the Tapas et al.

by Ollie 19.09.11 15:11

Asking Krugel to bring his machine to look for a body has always mystified me...why bring him in? The Mccanns have always claimed that Madeleine is alive somewhere.

by **tigger** 19.09.11 15:15

quote So whilst the FSS couldn’t say with certainty it was from Maddie, they can say with certainty that none of the DNA found definitely did not come from Madeleine? unquote

Sorry, I can't get my head round the double negative. Did you mean that the DNA found could not with certainty be attributed to Maddie?
This was the Rothley sample?
Sorry, I'll go through the research on this site again. I've read the topic only once.

by Guest 19.09.11 15:22

tigger wrote:quote So whilst the FSS couldn’t say with certainty it was from Maddie, they can say with certainty that none of the DNA found definitely did not come from Madeleine? unquote

Sorry, I can't get my head round the double negative. Did you mean that the DNA found could not with certainty be attributed to Maddie?
This was the Rothley sample?
Sorry, I'll go through the research on this site again. I've read the topic only once.

Report on sample pillowcase here.........................

MrScience wrote:Thanks all, have started reading through the various emails and reports from John Lowe. With regards to the reference sample for Madeline, if the report is taken at face value, it appears to have been obtained from a saliva sample on the pillowcase. It also corresponds 50% with Gerry and 50% with Kate which is consistent with them both being her biological parents. If these conclusions are backed up somewhere with raw data, I'd be fairly convinced that Gerry is the biological father and that particular conspiracy theory could be put to bed.

However, as the report states, it could in theory be a DNA sample from any female child of the parents (eg Amelie), so I would expect to see some evidence somewhere that this has been scientifically ruled out - will keep on reading.

What I am slightly suspicious about is the fact that this is all John Lowe's written interpretation of results (very easy to mislead) rather than seeing the raw data and them specifying the different alleles found in each sample. They could for example provide numbers of each of the alleles found. More importantly I would be interested to see the genotyper traces to review independently what Mr Lowe is saying actually corresponds with the data produced by the lab. Will keep on looking to see if this information was ever made publicly available.

Outros Apensos pdf01 pages95-96 (94-95)
=====================================================================================================

The Forensic Science Service®
Wetherby Laboratory, Sandbeck Way, Audby Lane, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS22 7DN

FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
Police reference: 07/06085 Qperation TASK
Laboratory reference:
Order reference: 300 555190
Scientist:400 913 609
Scientist: LESLEY DENTON
Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Kate HEALY
(51162896) and Gerald McCANN (51162897).

A DNA profile has also been obtained from a pillowcase (SJM/1).

DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their
natural mother (maternal) and half of which ït ïnherits from their natural father
(paternal)

In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are
represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is
what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from
a natural child of theirs.

The results of the DNA profife obtaïned from the pïllowcase is approximately 29
million times more likely if the profïle originates form a natural child of theirs rather
than someone unrelated to them.

In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the
view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of
Kate HEALY and GERALD McCANN.

Please note: I understand that the McCANN's have a second female child. It
therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could
have originated fromher as the genetics would be in keeping with those
described above.

If I can be of further assitance or you require a CJA statement please do not
hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01937 548287.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Anne Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIS
Date: 28 June 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 19.09.11 15:58

candyfloss wrote:The Forensic Science Service®
Wetherby Laboratory, Sandbeck Way, Audby Lane, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS22 7DN

FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
Police reference: 07/06085 Qperation TASK
Laboratory reference:
Order reference: 300 555190
Scientist:400 913 609
Scientist: LESLEY DENTON
Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Kate HEALY
(51162896) and Gerald McCANN (51162897).

A DNA profile has also been obtained from a pillowcase (SJM/1).

DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their
natural mother (maternal) and half of which ït ïnherits from their natural father
(paternal)

In this case, all of the bands present in the profïle of abtained from the pillowcase are
represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is
what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from
a natural child of theirs.

The results of the DNA profife obtaïned from the pïllowcase is approximately 29
million times more likely if the profïle originates form a natural child of theirs rather
than someone unrelated to them.

In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the
view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of
Kate HEALY and GERALD McCANN.

Please note: I understand that the McCANN's have a second female child. It
therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could
have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those
described above.

If I can be of further assitance or you require a CJA statement please do not
hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01937 548287.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Anne Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 28 June 2007

That is the important bit !!!

by Xavier 19.09.11 16:19

I have been trying to read all I can here about this case, and this thread is very interesting, so please excuse me if I am off track. But does this mean that it is possible that the DNA sample from the pillowcase was actually from the McCanns other daughter? The question is waht it deliberate or accidental?

Surely the police would be able to spot this kind of deception? Or maybe they trusted the McCanns because they are doctors?

Anyway, fascinating forum.

by Me 19.09.11 16:21

tigger wrote:quote So whilst the FSS couldn’t say with certainty it was from Maddie, they can say with certainty that none of the DNA found definitely did not come from Madeleine? unquote

Sorry, I can't get my head round the double negative. Did you mean that the DNA found could not with certainty be attributed to Maddie?
This was the Rothley sample?
Sorry, I'll go through the research on this site again. I've read the topic only once.

Apologies for the bad wording, that was what i was saying. That is that the DNA was not a match to Maddie's, meaning the DNA found in the apartment and car could not have come from her.

We know the FSS said they couldn't say with certainty it definitley came from her, but could they say with certainity that it was impossible for the DNA recovered to have come from Maddie.

by Guest 19.09.11 16:36

If the FSS had a DNA sample taken from Amelie in Portugal after Madeleine Disappeared, what was preventing them from cross checking it with the pillow sample? The report above from Leslie Ann Denton,suggests that they did not have Amelie's DNA sample and if not, why not.

by Guest 19.09.11 19:16

The pillowcase came from Rothley?

by Guest 20.09.11 9:40

Molly wrote:The pillowcase came from Rothley?

Yes I know Molly, but swabs were being taken from everyone in Portugal, including Kate and Gerry, so they must have taken samples from Sean and Amelie too. So why was the FSS unable to cross reference what they had from Portugal on Amelie, to that of the pillow case from Rothley, to exclude Amelie from the pillow sample, to ensure that what they did have was 100% Madeleine ? Are you with me?. The report above unfortunately leaves us with 'reasonable doubt' and all this at a time when the McCann's surely would have been looking for conclusive proof that it was indeed Madeleine's pillow case.

by Xavier 20.09.11 14:03

It does seem to be very odd. I do not know if this helps at all, but I googled McCann forensic report pillowcase and it led me to McCannpjfiles website, which does seem to suggest that the laboratory did some cross checking:

THE FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE
WETHERBY LABORATORY, SANDBECK WAY, AUDBY LANE, WETHERBY, WEST YORKSHIRE, LS22 7DN

FORENSIC REPORT

Officer in case: Det Supt Prior

Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks

Police reference: 07/06085 Operation TASK

Laboratory reference: 300 655 190

Order reference: 400 922 755

Scientist: Lesley Denton

Number of pages: 2

Re: Abduction of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).

In this case, all of the bands present in the profiles of both Amelie McCANN and Sean McCANN are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.

Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile.

If I can be of further assistance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01937 548287.

Yours sincerely,

Lesley Ann Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 28 June 2007

Is this any use?

by Guest 20.09.11 14:09

Good find Xavier and thank you, that clears that one up perfectly.
Will have to check the dates on both of them now, to see if this one supersedes the other one?

by Guest 20.09.11 14:13

So now we have two letters dated on the same day, from the exact same woman, but one says Amelie could have been attributed to the saliva on the Rothley pillow and the other one says she did not. !!!! good grief..
Is it time for a G&T yet . confused

by **tigger** 20.09.11 14:36

Stella wrote: So now we have two letters dated on the same day, from the exact same woman, but one says Amelie could have been attributed to the saliva on the Rothley pillow and the other one says she did not. !!!! good grief..
Is it time for a G&T yet .

It's nice to be right! The last letter is the one I read and I can't work out how there can be no possibility of Maddie's DNA being confused with that of Amelie, or at least it should be said that there are similarities since they are siblings.
But that is exactly what it does not say! It implies there are no similarities, which should be impossible with siblings?

Hope you've had your G and T after all our recent 'visitors' and now this.

by Guest 20.09.11 14:55

I wish. I have little treat at Christmas time, but for the rest of the year I have to give it a miss unfortunately.
At the moment that point is as clear as mud and I was hoping that someone else could fathom it out. pray2

If only they were on different days, we could put it down to a change of direction.
The thing is, I've had a funny feeling for quite some time that the FSS were forced to make a U-turn on their original findings and in doing so, they had to produce quite a few new reports, replacing the old ones and maybe this is a case of the old one not being adequately removed from the files !!! I have no proof of this, but a cock-up like that had to happen, if my suspicions are correct. I think it is called an administrative error. sarcastic

by Guest 20.09.11 15:29

DNA profiles are individual specific. I think that is what the FSS letters mean. It does not mean that Madeleine, Sean and Amelie are not related but confirms that the pillowcase sample is from a child of KMc and GMc that is female and not Amelie.
Over the last four years I`ve not read anything that suggests any odd practices at this stage. It`s the results that seem to have been fudged later on.

It`s also been suggested that the purpose of obtaining a sample from Rothley was to ensure that it was Madeleine specific and could act as a control sample.

by **tigger** 20.09.11 16:25

I copied this from the topic 'What's so special about Burgau?'

Stewie wrote quote: The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. unquote

Tigger wrote:
But Maddie's DNA according to the FSS could not possibly be confused with that of the twins. Which I thought strange because of the same maternal bloodline. Because the twins are not identical twins. There should be three different profiles with varying donations of K and G.

Am I getting this wrong? But nowhere does the FSS report use the above phrase.
I think they were so annoyed at having their results forcibly changed that any expert on DNA reading the reports will draw their own conclusions.

Added: I do appreciate that Sean is a boy, but in the case of the DNA in the Renault, his DNA would have been relevant?

by Upsy Daisy 24.09.11 15:52

gender should not matter. Males and Females carry the MtDNA (mitrochondrial) DNA from the maternal bloodline that is totally unchanging. The Y DNA should be Gerry's and the MtDNA should be Kate's. There should be no margin for error or inconsistency here. You would think.......

by Upsy Daisy 24.09.11 15:57

another thing about the MtDNA findings in the Burgau apartment is also too vague to pin on anyone. A general Haplotype can be split again into further sub-clades or sub groups if further genetic mutations are found. The general groups are found in millions upon millions of people on the planet so too vague to tell whose it is. It could be utter coincindence that two people from Haplogroup S are in the same place, randomly. Very easily done. However if they tested further and narrowed it down a bit to sub-clades then they may be at least on to something but the general Haplogroup is too vague to pin on anyone. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Upsy Daisy 24.09.11 16:09

sorry another thing I should have mentioned to anyone not familiar with genetic tests is that you can tell with absolute certainty who the mother is through the MtDNA testing...ie Female line MtDNA / Male line Y DNA - Father only passes Y DNA to the son. The son also receives MtDNA from the mother (but the MtDNA is only passed on to the next generation by the mother to the daughter). So, if you want to test the girl's DNA she will definitely get the MtDNA from her mother but you can't test her Y DNA. Often the Father has to be swabbed to get his Haplogroup. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Joss 06.10.11 22:14

All this DNA testing results is very confusing. As to the title of this thread, as to "Why would you cover up the death of a child"?, i would see the only reason would be because someone has something to hide as to what had actually occured, I don't know why else anyone would do that otherwise.