Re: PLANNING THE ABDUCTION HOAX. Was it done over four days, or four hours?

by NickE 24.06.18 17:15

Jill Havern wrote:
polyenne wrote:Fabric bag + blood = seepage
Wasn't there some markers on the back of the sofa, on the wall, the hem of the curtain and under the floor tile? That's a lot of seepage if you don't mind my saying so. The bag would have dripping with blood as it was brought into the apartment and for it to seep up the walls the bag would have been placed on the floor with some force.

Wouldn't there have been some seepage in the wardrobe? I'm not aware that Keela alerted to the wardrobe.

Incomplete, inconclusive and unconfirmed.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Jill Havern** 25.06.18 12:47

Goncalo Amaral: 'In a first preliminary report coming from the laboratory says that they (DNA) was of the missing child but later in the final report everything disappears.'
'...the results were manipulated. Of this we have no doubt!'

by Verdi 25.06.18 13:32

A question so frequently asked but never satisfactorily answered - why was it necessary to send forensic samples to the UK for analysis.

The only explanation I've seen, confirmed by Gonçalo Amaral himself, was because the Portuguese didn't wish to appear biased, or falsifying important forensic analysis results undertaken on home ground. In short, a second opinion!

Now the interesting thing here is - why did the Portuguese think it necessary to cover their backsides by requesting a second opinion to be carried out in the UK. It was said at the time, there were a number of forensic laboratories throughout Europe, closer to Portugal, with equal expertise as the FSS.

In truth, who requested or demanded that Portugal send their forensic samples relating to the case of Madeleine McCann to the UK's FSS that commenced around the time the focus was pointing at the McCanns - August/September 2007!

I have been mocked mercilessly for even suggesting there was some jiggery-pokery going on, that my suspicions are baseless and therefore ridiculous - nonetheless I'm very very suspicious! It's that damn pillowcase from the Rothley household that niggles at the back of my mind - it had a life all of it's own. All the PJ (and subsequently the FSS) required was a clean reference sample of Madeleine's DNA, an uncontaminated item for analysis, from a sterile environment you could say. Unrealistic to say the least, the pillowcase and the blood spot in a cardboard frame (please don't start on the Guthrie card stuff it is an assumption, never confirmed) appear as if by magic - wouldn't an undergarment, or sock worn by Madeleine (an item worn against the skin), be a better source?

So again I ask - why was the UK's FSS used to second the PJ's own forensic laboratory analysis?

by willowthewisp 25.06.18 14:48

Hi Verdi,perhaps it was chosen"innocently" in regard to the pioneering Doctor who made the break through on DNA analysis?

Then when the results were analysis came back with a result,that a certain group of people couldn't comprehend,call me Stu Prior,Meredyd Hughes, wherebye the "Contamination" of the samples had to be instigated,in the known hope that Portugal didn't have a back up sample, that could be tested,as they were there when the sample was collected?

As has been stated,the UK MSM were set up to give the Portugal PJ a very arduous time in Madeleine's investigation,yet the UK Government sources were"lilly whites",which the UK are being seen for what they were "a shining bunch of egotists,protection racket",to protect the Tapas 7/9,a"Pact of silence" examples which still stand today,whose interests were at stake Madeleine's or Seven/Nine Snakes,speaking with "Forked tongues",Venomous vipers!

by Cammerigal 25.06.18 14:57

U

Verdi wrote:A question so frequently asked but never satisfactorily answered - why was it necessary to send forensic samples to the UK for analysis.

The only explanation I've seen, confirmed by Gonçalo Amaral himself, was because the Portuguese didn't wish to appear biased, or falsifying important forensic analysis results undertaken on home ground. In short, a second opinion!

Now the interesting thing here is - why did the Portuguese think it necessary to cover their backsides by requesting a second opinion to be carried out in the UK. It was said at the time, there were a number of forensic laboratories throughout Europe, closer to Portugal, with equal expertise as the FSS.

In truth, who requested or demanded that Portugal send their forensic samples relating to the case of Madeleine McCann to the UK's FSS that commenced around the time the focus was pointing at the McCanns - August/September 2007!

I have been mocked mercilessly for even suggesting there was some jiggery-pokery going on, that my suspicions are baseless and therefore ridiculous - nonetheless I'm very very suspicious! It's that damn pillowcase from the Rothley household that niggles at the back of my mind - it had a life all of it's own. All the PJ (and subsequently the FSS) required was a clean reference sample of Madeleine's DNA, an uncontaminated item for analysis, from a sterile environment you could say. Unrealistic to say the least, the pillowcase and the blood spot in a cardboard frame (please don't start on the Guthrie card stuff it is an assumption, never confirmed) appear as if by magic - wouldn't an undergarment, or sock worn by Madeleine (an item worn against the skin), be a better source?

So again I ask - why was the UK's FSS used to second the PJ's own forensic laboratory analysis?

The UK FSS were allegedly leading exponents in low copy number DNA analysis, which used very tiny samples but did risk amplifying contaminants. It could logically follow on from using the UK cadaver and blood dogs to detect said samples, to use the FSS LCN methodology rather than others which required larger sample sizes.
Of course the flaws were; the UK FSS could make erroneous deductions from contamination or even cynically lose the samples. More importantly, a fully verified source DNA sample would be needed, from Madeleine, her parents and siblings for analysis purposes.
So a pillowcase, as retrieved from their Leicester home by Gerry McCann was the sole, (non verified) source of Maddy’s DNA. The FSS LCN DNA report was of course inconclusive, either from incompetence or conspiracy to pervert. We have seen no other DNA analysis.
You really can’t make this stuff up can you?

by willowthewisp 25.06.18 16:26

Hi cammerigel, which then ask or interprets,that the UK Police knew full well the"Rothley Pillow Case" was not proof as to whose pillow it was that contained the DNA/LCI?
So,therefore you have the UK Police incorporating into evidence,samples that could never ever belong to Madeleine McCann,as there was No way they could verify,which child had used the pillow?

As,has been stated before,their were articles of clothing,that Madeleine was thought to have worn that would contain DNA/LCI,but John Buck stopped the Portugal PJ from retaining this clothing?
But guess who is made the scapegoat,John Buck,UK Police,no alas Portugal PJ on a by now biased joint investigation!

Makes you proud to be British doesn't it Not!

by Verdi 25.06.18 21:27

It was said by Gonçalo Amaral at some stage that there were forensic laboratories across Europe that had the same expertise as the FSS as regards LCN forensic analysis. It's important to note, I not only refer to the forensic samples harvested after Eddie and Keela's examination but also the forensic evidence harvested by the PJ's forensic team that was also sent to the UK's FSS for corroboration.

I can't locate the link for the moment but in the interim something to ponder, this is taken from Dr Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie..

The FSS has still not provided the result of the technical analysis of the hair found in the boot of the car. Once more, Stuart has to contact the laboratory. Nothing has been done. We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine's, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. But the FSS does not seem to want to part with the hair. They claim that using a colour comparison test they can establish if the hair belongs to Madeleine and in a second stage, identify the DNA profile. None of that will happen. We never find out if the hair was Madeleine's or her parents' or her brother's or her sister's, even though the laboratory has the DNA profiles of each member of the family.

Let's remember: it is totally logical to find Madeleine's DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance.
.....................

In essence I believe the UK establishment was poking it's beak in where it wasn't wanted nor needed. If you examine the detail, this was all coordinated by Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior of the Leicestershire Constabulary. That's enough in itself to arouse suspicion.

by Verdi 26.06.18 1:47

Just one example..

Exclusive interview with former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral - 23rd February 2009 [snipped]..

DL: In the Madeleine McCann case, who made the decision to send the analyses to Birmingham, to the FSS? In Portugal there is the National Institute [Forensic Medicine].

GA: This is the question. At that point in time, we were already feeling the pressure of the British media, we felt incompetent, that was what they said, and anything that we might do, would be questioned. It was a political decision by the PJ, but which was understandable at that point in time and it is still understandable now because it was a way of compromising, an attempt to compromise a British institution with the results that were to be found. If you ask me now if I would do the same today, I don't think I would. Maybe there would be another laboratory, or at least, I wouldn't have sent all the samples to that laboratory. But I can also tell you that at the IML, the Institute for Forensics Medicine, there was not the full capacity to carry out all of these tests, namely the low copy number analyses. Only in England, at this laboratory or at other laboratories outside of the country. We could have chosen another laboratory, but we opted for this one. It was a disaster. The decision was not disastrous; it was the tests that were disastrous to say the least.

DL: But do those samples still exist?

GA: No. They have all been destroyed. From the hair samples, it's all been destroyed. There is a situation that is reported that is the following: there are several hairs, lots of hair is found in the car boot, in the car that was rented 23 days later, a comparison is made in terms of colour and colouration where they say yes indeed, these could be from the little girl, but then the laboratory says that they don't manage, it doesn't have any roots, they cannot define the DNA, they cannot define whether it's from a living or a dead person, and when a team of Portuguese investigators go to the lab, accompanied by a Portuguese scientist, Dr. Francisco Corte Real, they ask for that hair, they went as far as holding that hair in their hands. And they had that hair, duly stored, that package with the hair, but then a report from the FSS appears in which they realise that they'd better keep them, and that later on they destroyed them in an attempt to define the DNA, or to discover whether it was from a living person or not, and they destroyed all of that hair. It's a bit hard to understand how in order to define the DNA, or to carry out another test, such a quantity of hair has to be used, like there existed in Portugal as well, and then it wasn't possible to perform analyses of other types, namely the possibility of sedatives that the little girl might have ingested or was forced to ingest.

DL: Among the English officers that participated in this case, there's Stuart Prior, to what extent can we today, after you left the case, with everything that the press has already published from part of the Public Ministry's process, to what extent can we say today that Stuart Prior cooperated in this case, or not?

GA: Stuart Prior initially appears, he appears as number 2 or number 3 of the British police. The senior officer..., who had a meeting with us, and the first person to come to Portugal on a personal level is him, he always had lots of contacts and interest in the investigation. Stuart Prior appears during a phase, later in Portugal, first it was in England. I particularly wouldn't have liked to be in his shoes, with the choices that he had to make in terms of the investigation, and not only that, in his political knowledge. He is a good policeman, he cooperated vastly with us, but it was he who said that he had arrested people in England with much less. So he probably knew the value of these indicia that already existed, but as to whether he made good choices, only he can answer those questions.

[Thanks to Joana Morais]

by NickE 26.06.18 8:50

Jill Havern wrote:

Goncalo Amaral: 'In a first preliminary report coming from the laboratory says that they (DNA) was of the missing child but later in the final report everything disappears.'
'...the results were manipulated. Of this we have no doubt!'

Could've been manipulated but we don't have any evidence.
We should also take into the account that the Birmingham lab had maybe the most a sophisticated technology in the world in DNA testing.
The Swedish forensic center has always had good competence in this but FSS helped the Swedish Police to solve a childmurder that was commited in 1989.
FSS managed IN 2003 to get a DNA from a microscopic stain of semen that could be connected to the perpetrator.
Manipulated or not, FSS had great competence in what they were doing.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And I wonder how it would help the McCs to manipulate the forensics so she could not be connected to 5A?
That would results in people get even more doubts about what happened down there?

by Verdi 26.06.18 11:56

NickE wrote:We should also take into the account that the Birmingham lab had maybe the most a sophisticated technology in the world in DNA testing.

Yes and the Metropolitan Police are reputed to be the best force in the world - I'll say no more!

There is something of arrogance in the British attitude towards the rest of the world, probably stems from the old colonial days when Britain was thought to be Great.

The FSS was not all it was cracked up to be. It was short lived and during it's lifespan ran-up an exorbitant debt in addition to making one or two monumental errors as regards forensic analysis - and honesty!

I make no excuses for them, or for the UK's case coordinator Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior and the Leicester force.

by Ruffian 26.06.18 16:04

Why didnt Eddie alert to the boot of the car?

by polyenne 26.06.18 16:17

Because no cadaverine was evident there, only blood. Perhaps a cloth used to clean up behind the sofa in 5A ? So, from that, we could assume that a dead body was never in the boot.

by Yorkshirgel 27.06.18 14:21

It has always struck me as odd that the McCanns showed no signs of grief immediately after Maddie's disappearance. These photographs above prove that and really make me think that this has always been a hoax. Yes, we see M playing with the twins on day one, but how do we know that the happy little girl is Madeleine? She is zoomed in to on the bus, and she is photographed climbing the stairs to the aeroplane with another little girl. Why? How do we know whether or not this happy little child was whisked away on the next flight out of Portugal?

What did G McCann refer to when he said 'I am not here to enjoy myself', on the airport bus? Why mention buying 5 ice-creams at the beach when M was supposed to be having a special treat of ice-creams with the creche the same afternoon? Was it to underline that there were 5 people at the beach?

How could a father believe that an intruder was hiding in his children's bedroom and then go to the toilet and walk out of the apartment without checking he was right or wrong? It didn't happen. How could he tear off a part of his daughter's sticker book to write his timeline, if that had been used by his daughter just before she disappeared? Any loving father would not even think of writing a timeline to cover his back if he was innocent.

How could they describe the restaurant as 'being at the bottom of the garden' when it was much further than that and the room the children slept in was at the back of the building, not the side facing the restaurant. He said they were able to see what was going on, yet there was a plastic curtain hanging at the window and they had their backs to the window anyway. Why would an intruder enter through a shuttered window when the front door was left unlocked?

How could a loving mother make sure she had perfect make-up, matching clothes, ear rings and ribbons in her hair before appearing on the steps 'to speak to the press' about her missing daughter. Why would she wash the favourite toy because it smelt? Why did she say when she saw it on the shelf above M's bed she knew immediately that M had been taken? There was NO shelf!

Why did everyone give conflicting statements? 'Confusion is good' said Gerry McCann. Nothing could be proven to be wrong could it? Why were the statements garbled rubbish from what were educated doctors. Who would employ doctors who could not even speak English or put a sentence together without making a garbled mess of it? Why did all the friends decide to back the McCann's story?

Why were there millionaires, business men, scientists etc at a 3rd rate holiday resort out of season? There must have been a reason for them to be there, was it a meeting of minds?

Why were so many Government people, MI5, British policemen, and an ambassador there at the click of the fingers? Why has successive Government PMs thrown £millions of tax payers money at this case? Why was there an all out attempt to discredit the Portuguese team immediately by the British press?

How come the 'Fund' was set up so quickly, and how could these parents plot to make loads of money out of their daughter's disappearance? Not just them, other family members as well.

Why didn't the parents go out to look for their daughter? They said it was too cold, wet and dark. What did they think it felt like to a frightened little child who could have frozen to death? Why wait until morning? Well as sure as eggs are eggs, a little girl could never be found if she was never there in the first place.

This was a set up from Day 1 imo!

by Phoebe 27.06.18 20:04

@ Yorkshirgel. The questions you pose above could have quite simple answers, IMO.

Why did the McCanns show little sign of grief after the "abduction" of their child.
Answer - because in the aftermath of her death they were completely preoccupied with protecting their careers and reputations through spinning the hard to swallow tale of her being snatched from her bedroom. They were also fearful of the consequences of being blamed for her disappearance by the Portuguese police over whom they had no influence.

Why did Gerry make the remark that he wasn't here to enjoy himself.
Answer- because he knew that over the next week he would be expected to shoulder his share of childcare for 3 very young children rather than escaping to work as he usually did.

Why stress the five ice-creams.
Answer - to give Kate the opportunity to labour the point about what responsible, non-neglectful parent she was as she recounts her "worry" at leaving the children within eye-range while assisting in carrying the ices. Four ices would have presented no credible challenge to Gerry's mitts, giving no reason for her to invent her tale of cautious vigilance. Five was too much for one person to carry - allowing Kate to wax lyrical about reluctantly leaving her children for a few seconds.

How could Gerry imagine an intruder in the bedroom while he checked.
Answer - he didn't. It was a retrospective invention to facilitate the timing of the "abduction".
How could he tear his daughter's sticker book to write on.
Answer - needs must, and they needed to get their stories straight. In the pecking order Madeleine (especially a deceased Madeleine) ranked way below Kate and Gerry in importance.

How could a loving mother worry about her appearance or wash cuddlecat.
Answer - the person she loves most is herself.

How could they describe the restaurant as being at the bottom of the garden.
Answer - to combat accusations of reckless parenting.

Why are all their statements a garbled mess of contradictions. Answer - they are lying and not doing a very good job of it.

Why was a rather ordinary resort popular with so many reasonably well-heeled professionals.
Answer - precisely because it's reputation was that it attracted that type of clientele, largely due to the focus of the sports on offer. One could be fairly sure of avoiding the tattooed, beer-swilling brigade. Its dull entertainment and focus on tennis and water-sports was likely to attract (in the main) those who enjoyed these traditionally middle-class pursuits and had grown up with them. (Gerry McCann, was middle class by achievement rather than birth, and eager to improve his tennis-cred)

Why didn't they look for their missing daughter.
Answer - they knew she was n't missing!

Why did government agencies help - IMO they initially swallowed the abduction story and McCann narrative of the Portuguese deliberately trying to downplay the "abduction" to protect Algarve tourism. Blair and Brown also used it as a welcome diversion of attention away from other current political scandals they were trying to bury. Gerry also had well-connected friends who used their influence to get support for him. Once that support was so publicly given it could never be withdrawn.

by NickE 27.06.18 21:14

Verdi wrote:
NickE wrote:We should also take into the account that the Birmingham lab had maybe the most a sophisticated technology in the world in DNA testing.
Yes and the Metropolitan Police are reputed to be the best force in the world - I'll say no more!

There is something of arrogance in the British attitude towards the rest of the world, probably stems from the old colonial days when Britain was thought to be Great.

The FSS was not all it was cracked up to be. It was short lived and during it's lifespan ran-up an exorbitant debt in addition to making one or two monumental errors as regards forensic analysis - and honesty!

I make no excuses for them, or for the UK's case coordinator Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior and the Leicester force.

I know about the history of cover up's in the UK but that's not question here.
My point is I don't find it odd that FSS could not find any conclusive DNA from the samples in 5A.
Many on this forum and other platforms believe that something could have happened on Sunday, they arrived on Saturday afternoon, so if something happened on Sunday she could only have stayed there for about 36-40 hours approx. and how many of these hours was spent in 5A?
Probably when she slept+few hours more and the apartment was cleaned on Wednesday, sheets,pillowcases,towels.....and we know that their clothes went to laundry on May 5th.

by Verdi 28.06.18 0:32

NickE wrote:
Verdi wrote:
NickE wrote:We should also take into the account that the Birmingham lab had maybe the most a sophisticated technology in the world in DNA testing.
Yes and the Metropolitan Police are reputed to be the best force in the world - I'll say no more!

There is something of arrogance in the British attitude towards the rest of the world, probably stems from the old colonial days when Britain was thought to be Great.

The FSS was not all it was cracked up to be. It was short lived and during it's lifespan ran-up an exorbitant debt in addition to making one or two monumental errors as regards forensic analysis - and honesty!

I make no excuses for them, or for the UK's case coordinator Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior and the Leicester force.
I know about the history of cover up's in the UK but that's not question here.
My point is I don't find it odd that FSS could not find any conclusive DNA from the samples in 5A.
Many on this forum and other platforms believe that something could have happened on Sunday, they arrived on Saturday afternoon, so if something happened on Sunday she could only have stayed there for about 36-40 hours approx. and how many of these hours was spent in 5A?
Probably when she slept+few hours more and the apartment was cleaned on Wednesday, sheets,pillowcases,towels.....and we know that their clothes went to laundry on May 5th.

During the forensic examination of the crime scene immediately following the alleged disapearance of Madeleine McCann, the PJ were not looking for Madeleine's DNA. Why would they, they knew she had stayed at apartment 5a - they needed a profile of Madeleine's DNA firstly to eliminate persons who could have been present in apartment 5a legitimately against evidence of stranger presence i.e. an intruder. Secondly and later in the investigation, to confirm Gerry and Kate McCann were the biological parents of Madeleine. Routine policing.

Time and time again the subject of forensics is mistakingly merged into one global issue but it's not so, they are two entirely different entities .

1. The PJ forensic examination and analysis.
2. The forensic examination and analysis following a visit to the crime scene by specialist dogs. Eddie and Keela.

As already stated, the PJ were not looking for the presence of Madeleine's DNA at the crime scene during their initial forensic examination. Nor were Eddie and Keela looking for the presence of Madeleine's DNA - they were sniffing for blood and cadavar residue, what they are trained to do.

Madeleine's DNA profile was latterly required to compare against the forensic samples harvested following the dogs visit. From the many many samples submitted to the UK's reputable FSS, not one single examination by the laboratory produced a meaningful result. This I find extraordinary and where the Rothley pillowcase again comes into play. The FSS used this pillowcase, allegedly from the McCann domicile, as a source for Madeleine's DNA profile. My point of course being, as previously stressed, why not an item of clothing belonging to Madeleine that was worn close to the skin. Considering it's importance relative to a missing three year old child, the FSS report, John Lowe to be precise, is evasive.

As an aside, the Ocean Club laundry report is inconclusive, it doesn't itemize the items laundered so can't be presumed as any item belonging to Madeleine.

It's a documented fact that forensic analysis can be and is manipulated to sway a police investigation. Not to be dismissed lightly!

by Imari 28.06.18 7:38

Hair was confirmed by the laboratory as having the same hair coloration as MBM, but how? What did they have to compare it with? Photos?

by Verity 28.06.18 9:20

Hair from the pillowcase compared with hair from the boot of the hire car perhaps?

by willowthewisp 28.06.18 9:32

Verity wrote:Hair from the pillowcase compared with hair from the boot of the hire car perhaps?

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

Hi verity,the"Hair samples" must contain the roots of the"Hair sample",apparently,"Cut Hair" samples are not acceptable,a s they do not contain enough DNA/LCI,ask or call,call me Stu Prior,he was the McCann's official analysis of DNA/LCI,alongside Meredydd Hughes of the Wales Police division,alongside special phone conversations to Gerry,see the McCann files,as to how well the Uk Police assisted the McCann family!

by **Jill Havern** 28.06.18 9:45

But they could still compare the colour though...? Which is what imari was asking.

by NickE 28.06.18 10:24

Verdi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Verdi wrote:
NickE wrote:We should also take into the account that the Birmingham lab had maybe the most a sophisticated technology in the world in DNA testing.
Yes and the Metropolitan Police are reputed to be the best force in the world - I'll say no more!

There is something of arrogance in the British attitude towards the rest of the world, probably stems from the old colonial days when Britain was thought to be Great.

The FSS was not all it was cracked up to be. It was short lived and during it's lifespan ran-up an exorbitant debt in addition to making one or two monumental errors as regards forensic analysis - and honesty!

I make no excuses for them, or for the UK's case coordinator Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior and the Leicester force.
I know about the history of cover up's in the UK but that's not question here.
My point is I don't find it odd that FSS could not find any conclusive DNA from the samples in 5A.
Many on this forum and other platforms believe that something could have happened on Sunday, they arrived on Saturday afternoon, so if something happened on Sunday she could only have stayed there for about 36-40 hours approx. and how many of these hours was spent in 5A?
Probably when she slept+few hours more and the apartment was cleaned on Wednesday, sheets,pillowcases,towels.....and we know that their clothes went to laundry on May 5th.

During the forensic examination of the crime scene immediately following the alleged disapearance of Madeleine McCann, the PJ were not looking for Madeleine's DNA. Why would they, they knew she had stayed at apartment 5a - they needed a profile of Madeleine's DNA firstly to eliminate persons who could have been present in apartment 5a legitimately against evidence of stranger presence i.e. an intruder. Secondly and later in the investigation, to confirm Gerry and Kate McCann were the biological parents of Madeleine. Routine policing.

Time and time again the subject of forensics is mistakingly merged into one global issue but it's not so, they are two entirely different entities .

1. The PJ forensic examination and analysis.
2. The forensic examination and analysis following a visit to the crime scene by specialist dogs. Eddie and Keela.

As already stated, the PJ were not looking for the presence of Madeleine's DNA at the crime scene during their initial forensic examination. Nor were Eddie and Keela looking for the presence of Madeleine's DNA - they were sniffing for blood and cadavar residue, what they are trained to do.

Madeleine's DNA profile was latterly required to compare against the forensic samples harvested following the dogs visit. From the many many samples submitted to the UK's reputable FSS, not one single examination by the laboratory produced a meaningful result. This I find extraordinary and where the Rothley pillowcase again comes into play. The FSS used this pillowcase, allegedly from the McCann domicile, as a source for Madeleine's DNA profile. My point of course being, as previously stressed, why not an item of clothing belonging to Madeleine that was worn close to the skin. Considering it's importance relative to a missing three year old child, the FSS report, John Lowe to be precise, is evasive.

As an aside, the Ocean Club laundry report is inconclusive, it doesn't itemize the items laundered so can't be presumed as any item belonging to Madeleine.

It's a documented fact that forensic analysis can be and is manipulated to sway a police investigation. Not to be dismissed lightly!

At the start they did not performed a active search for her DNA in 5A but in the end they tried to recover her DNA from the samples which was found in 5A and belongings, and did not succeed, not even from a hairbrush claimed to belonged to her.

by willowthewisp 28.06.18 10:41

Jill Havern wrote:But they could still compare the colour though...? Which is what imari was asking.

HI Jill,the FSS did not accept the"Hair samples",as they were or did not contain"Roots" from the Hair folicles,according to the PJ files,call me Stu Prior,they did not state"Hair colour" as far as I know?

by Imari 28.06.18 10:49

If the only source of Madeleine's hair, with a root, was the pillowcase collected from Rothley by GM, could there be any doubt as to whose hair that was? If so how could the colour be established as MBM's?

by Verdi 28.06.18 12:01

Imari wrote:If the only source of Madeleine's hair, with a root, was the pillowcase collected from Rothley by GM, could there be any doubt as to whose hair that was? If so how could the colour be established as MBM's?

There were no hairs found on the pillowcase allegedly collected by Gerry McCann from their Rothley home.

The forensic analysis was for trace elements of saliva - it was required to harvest a clean reference sample of Madeleine's DNA for the purpose of defining a DNA profile.

by Verdi 28.06.18 12:06

UK Forensic Science Service report - 28th July 2007

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

A total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting, at the least, that this was a hair from someone else.

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her......

There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.

Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests......
.....................

I wonder what photograph/s they used for comparison.

by **Jill Havern** 28.06.18 12:14

According to the Daily Mail, Clarence Mitchell states that Madeleine’s hairbrush was given to dubious Daniel Krugel for DNA matches. Daniel Krugel was in the Algarve in July 2007. The FSS samples were received in August 2007.

Whose HAIRBRUSH was the police given as being Madeleine’s?

The Forensic Science Service Birmingham received Madeleine’s hairbrush as forensics.

From the Lowe Report:

“Examination and results
Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36.”

The FSS received what they thought to be Madeleine’s hairbrush in August 2007. Madeleine’s hairbrush is allegedly given to Mr Krugel in July 2007 and returned to the McCanns ten years later.

It's an important point to make, that needs clarification, more than the issue of the conflicting versions, if Madeleine's hairbrush wasn't sent to the FSS then one could argue the validity of the tests.

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

by Verdi 28.06.18 12:20

Witness statement Sylvia Cranvinho, laundry worker - 8th May 2007 [snipped]

After the girl's disappearance, she is not sure but believes it was last Saturday, 5th May she received a bag of clothes from MW employees and was told expressly that these were clothes from Madeleine's family. It included adult clothes (men's and women's clothing as well as children's clothing of different sizes, making it logical to presume that it included the girl's clothes given that her younger siblings are twins.

When asked whether she remembers which items of clothing she received that could belong to Madeleine, she says a pink coloured skirt with two layers, one of them having a checked pattern. She remembers that there was nothing abnormal about this piece of clothing or the others, such as blood stains, tears or any other kind of damage.
....................

Witness statement Vera Arez, laundry worker - 8th May 2007 [snipped]

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl's family and she checked that it was children's and adult's clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl's apartment.

That before that no clothing from the missing girl's family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.
...................

The McCanns had a washing machine in apartment 5a, maintenance had a call out earlier in the week to teach Ms Healy how to use it. They had an army of friends and relatives around to comfort them and help out with the daily chores - why did they send personal items to a holiday complex communal laundry ???

If your three year old precious daughter had gone missing, would you immediately send her clothes somewhere for a wash ??? Was cuddllecat in the laundry basket or did they wait until it had been dog-handled ???

by polyenne 28.06.18 12:20

….and the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her.

Right there is the get-out clause......

by sandancer 28.06.18 12:34

The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of ( in place of ) reference samples of her hair ( which were ) not considered to be authentic samples of her hair .

So they , the hairs weren't the right colour or length according to photographs of her ( which photos I wonder ?)
Sounds very scientific to me , we all have different colour hairs on our heads , even if you dye it ! Likewise unless the hair is shaved close to the scalp we have differing lengths .

The dogs are incredibly unreliable if tested scientifically , apparently but if hair doesn't look the right colour or length as a photo it doesn't get tested scientifically ?

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

by dartinghero 28.06.18 13:09

Verdi wrote:Witness statement Sylvia Cranvinho, laundry worker - 8th May 2007 [snipped]

Witness statement Vera Arez, laundry worker - 8th May 2007 [snipped]

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl's family and she checked that it was children's and adult's clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl's apartment.

That before that no clothing from the missing girl's family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.
...................

The McCanns had a washing machine in apartment 5a, maintenance had a call out earlier in the week to teach Ms Healy how to use it. They had an army of friends and relatives around to comfort them and help out with the daily chores - why did they send personal items to a holiday complex communal laundry ???

If your three year old precious daughter had gone missing, would you immediately send her clothes somewhere for a wash ??? Was cuddllecat in the laundry basket or did they wait until it had been dog-handled ???

Having read the last few updates a couple of thing occurred. I previously didn't know what Verdi highlighted above but my immediate thought was that mingling a load of "significant" clothes together with other washes at the hotel laundry makes it impossible for that clothing to have any credibility forensically even if it was seized from the laundry before it was washed.

Second point, I seem to remember reading that it wasn't possible to get a DNA sample from a toothbrush at the apartment because all 3 children were sharing one toothbrush, hence the pillowcase palarvar. Struggling with the plausibility of that.....