(2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long)

PeterMac wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:A couple of things are bothering me regarding this thread. Two things I cannot understand:
1) Why can a DNA profile not be extracted from a hair, as opposed to a swab from inside the mouth?
Snip

DNA is the chromosomal content of the nucleus of a cell. A mouth swab takes living cells from the inside of the mouth. Hair is keratin and is dead, (whatever the hair product adverts urge to the contrary) It does not contain cells and cannot therefore be used for DNA profiling - except if roots are attached. They are living and are the cells which excrete the keratin. So plucked hair can be used, though strictly it is the hair follicle which is analysed, and sometimes one may find sufficient roots on hairs on the brush to make it possible.

PeterMac wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:A couple of things are bothering me regarding this thread. Two things I cannot understand:
1) Why can a DNA profile not be extracted from a hair, as opposed to a swab from inside the mouth?
Snip

DNA is the chromosomal content of the nucleus of a cell. A mouth swab takes living cells from the inside of the mouth. Hair is keratin and is dead, (whatever the hair product adverts urge to the contrary) It does not contain cells and cannot therefore be used for DNA profiling - except if roots are attached. They are living and are the cells which excrete the keratin. So plucked hair can be used, though strictly it is the hair follicle which is analysed, and sometimes one may find sufficient roots on hairs on the brush to make it possible.

Tony Bennett wrote:Dave U. Random has changed his name and e-mail address but has sent me another e-mail in capital letters in response to a post further up the thread.

Here is the post, followed by Dave U. Randon's latest contribution to the debate:

+++++++++++++++

YES, FORENSICS, ESPECIALLY DNA IS VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT MAKING ITS FINDINGS

U N I Q U E. I agree, the 14 markers of Madeleine's bodily fluids found in their hire car just goes to prove this !!

A BURGLAR IS A UNIQUE PERSON WITH UNIQUE DNA IN A HOUSE WITH

5 RELATED OCCUPANTS. FORENSICS RELIES ON THE FLUKE THAT HE LEAVES DNA IN SKIN

CELLS/HAIR ON A UNIQUE ITEM. A BURGLAR DOES NOT BRING IN SEVERAL OF HIS FAMILY AND

FRIENDS, THE SAME GOES FOR MOST OTHER CRIMES, MURDER ESPECIALLY IT IS CARRIED OUT

BY A SINGLE UNIQUE PERSON. - Not where spousal murder has taken place !!

IN THE CASE OF MADELEINE AND HER FAMILY, CHILDREN BY NATURE DO NOT KEEP THEMSELVES UNIQUE. THEY LICK EACH OTHER, PAT EACH OTHER, KISS EACH OTHER - Yes, but their own individual DNA remains unique to them !!

FEED EACH OTHER CUDDLE EACH OTHER AND THEIR DNA MIXES MAKING

IT IMPOSSIBLE TO UNMIX FOR FORENSIC PURPOSES. - the same utter rubbish and ramblings of the Lowe report.

DONT YOU THINK THE PJ WOULD HAVE NOTICED

THAT THE STAFF WERE BOOKING IN ANOTHER CHILD INSTEAD OF MADDY? - Did the staff already know Madeleine before that holiday then Dave, or how else are they to know?

WHERE DID THE OTHER CHILD COME FROM? DID THEY ROB THE LOCAL

ORPHANAGE??? I would think that the person who originally organised the whole event and I'm not talking about Payne here, took care of those details.

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING. YOU NEVER USED TO SPREW [sic]
SUCH STUPID STUFF. YOU MUST BE A TROLL.

joyce1938 wrote:i have read from another site where,it was admitted that all hairs were not chosen to be tested as some looked darker/lighter and not correct length,where did rest go and why on earth were not all collected tested?mind boggles joyce1938

Tony Bennett wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:A couple of things are bothering me regarding this thread. Two things I cannot understand:
1) Why can a DNA profile not be extracted from a hair, as opposed to a swab from inside the mouth?
Snip

DNA is the chromosomal content of the nucleus of a cell. A mouth swab takes living cells from the inside of the mouth. Hair is keratin and is dead, (whatever the hair product adverts urge to the contrary) It does not contain cells and cannot therefore be used for DNA profiling - except if roots are attached. They are living and are the cells which excrete the keratin. So plucked hair can be used, though strictly it is the hair follicle which is analysed, and sometimes one may find sufficient roots on hairs on the brush to make it possible.

I can confirm this from a different perspective. In the summer of 2001 I was arrested by Essex Police over the issue of amending a road sign which had illegally been erected using a metric distance ('50 metres' in this case). When I say 'illegal', I mean that the relevant highways regulations - The Traffic Signs Regulations Directions and General Directions 1994 - prescribed only distances in Imperial units - miles, yards etc. On arrest and detention in the custody suite, I was taken for fingerprinting, mugshot and a DNA sample. I was offered a choice for a DNA sample: a mouth swab, or a minimum of 10 hairs extracted by the root. After carefully reading the regulations, I elected for the pulling of 10 hairs from the root. This the police officer spent ages trying to convince me was a mistake. However, I held my ground and then there was a comical performance of his trying to get 10 haris out. On examining the regulations, the police officer had to wear plastic gloves, and this made it almost impossible to pull the hairs out. He succeeeded eventually, taking 12 'just to be on the safe side'.

I was charged and the case went to court. However, the owner of the sign, British Airways Authority, eventually conceded before the case came to trial that their sign contravened the regulations, and as Section 131(b) of the Highways Act 1980 allows anyone to obliterate or destroy any sign 'unlawfully placed on the highway', they withdrew their evidence and the case was dropped. I had represented myself and was entitled to claim my costs from the prosecution - £360.

After a number of similar instances, the government in July 2002 read the Riot Act to all Chief Executives of authorites in the U.K., reminding them that all distance signs on the highway must be in miles and yards, not kilometres and miles.

In February 2006 the Labour government finally dropped its long-standing plans to metricate Britain's 2 million road signs at an estimated cost of £1,000,000,000.

TrollAng wrote:I find this very confusing. Are we saying:

There was no trace of Madeleine in the apartment because:

1. She was never in 5A That is a possibility that needs to be explored.
2. Her DNA traces were removed from the apartment (except for the trace evidence under the tiles) If the whole apartment had been scrubbed, then this is also a possibility.
3. They never looked for her DNA They searched for all DNA at the time.
4. The control DNA was wrong This is also something that needs to be considered.

It's unknown what control sample the eddie & keela samples were compared with? Exactly.

The Rothley pillow sample was compared with Madeleine's heel prick samples just after birth? Is it not illegal to keep these records without permission from the parents. Why would the parents allow them to be kept if there was a problem with Madeleine's DNA? Why did they agree to collect the control sample in Rothley and not in PDL, her DNA should have been all over everything including all of the artwork she did during her hours each day at the creche. Better samples would have come from been deep inside her tennis shoes and from her underwear.

Forensics retrieved 12 hairs from 3 of Madeleine's tops and excluded them all as Madeleine's potential DNA without testing them? This must have seemed more than unusual. Why didn't they then test the tops for skin samples to ascertain the DNA profile of the child who wore the tops? Skin cells recovered from the inside of her tops, especially from the armpit area would have been a good start.

pennylane wrote:What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis...

REPLY: To make life as difficult as possible for the police officer. It was a form of protest against the police arresting me when I was actually enforcing the law.

...and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

REPLY: A year earlier, the law had been changed, allowing the police to keep fingerprints, DNA and mugshots of anyone arrested, even if they were immediately released without charge. This was to help the police build up a massive DNA database. In a lab somewhere in the U.K., my 12 hairs remain, in case they're needed. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that forcing anyone arrested to give over their DNA, even if wrongfully arrested, was going a bit far, so procedures have now been changed, I'm not sure what the precise rules are these days

Tony Bennett wrote:

pennylane wrote:What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis...

REPLY: To make life as difficult as possible for the police officer. It was a form of protest against the police arresting me when I was actually enforcing the law.

...and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

REPLY: A year earlier, the law had been changed, allowing the police to keep fingerprints, DNA and mugshots of anyone arrested, even if they were immediately released without charge. This was to help the police build up a massive DNA database. In a lab somewhere in the U.K., my 12 hairs remain, in case they're needed. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that forcing anyone arrested to give over their DNA, even if wrongfully arrested, was going a bit far, so procedures have now been changed, I'm not sure what the precise rules are these days

pennylane wrote:
The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice

jd wrote:

pennylane wrote:
The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice

Perfectly said pennylane

Stella wrote:

uppatoffee wrote:Looking at those photos Stella I find it impossible to believe that three young children were living in that apartment. Where is the 'stuff? They cannot have eaten at the table as there are no high chairs. Sean and Amelie would definitely have needed high chairs or some kind of tot seat/booster seat. Where are the packs of baby wipes that parents of small children carry by the sack load? The toys and books to keep them amused? A potty for Madeleine? Children create mess and everywhere they go has a lived in feel, especially if there are three! A few strategically hung jumpers do not make a convincing picture IMO.

Precisely uppatoffee.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] That is exactly what we see in a nutshell.

If you combine this with no DNA of not just Madeleine, but any children having been there, you can see exactly where Q and the rest of us are coming from.

pennylane wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

pennylane wrote:What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis...

REPLY: To make life as difficult as possible for the police officer. It was a form of protest against the police arresting me when I was actually enforcing the law.

...and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

REPLY: A year earlier, the law had been changed, allowing the police to keep fingerprints, DNA and mugshots of anyone arrested, even if they were immediately released without charge. This was to help the police build up a massive DNA database. In a lab somewhere in the U.K., my 12 hairs remain, in case they're needed. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that forcing anyone arrested to give over their DNA, even if wrongfully arrested, was going a bit far, so procedures have now been changed, I'm not sure what the precise rules are these days

Thank you for your reply. I think it horrifying that the police were able to keep your fingerprints and DNA results, particularly since the case was dropped against you, and your objections were later proven to be legally spot on! As for the hair analysis, although a greater hassle for the police, I think I would have opted for a saliva swab test as there's no way I would want them to have 12 of my hairs in a lab somewhere. I have very little trust in our police and their ability to avoid undue influence from above.

The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice. I believe the writing was on the wall where the MM case is concerned the moment the Birmingham FSS did a jaw dropping U-turn following the release of their first DNA results. (imo)

tigger wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

pennylane wrote:What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis...

REPLY: To make life as difficult as possible for the police officer. It was a form of protest against the police arresting me when I was actually enforcing the law.

...and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

REPLY: A year earlier, the law had been changed, allowing the police to keep fingerprints, DNA and mugshots of anyone arrested, even if they were immediately released without charge. This was to help the police build up a massive DNA database. In a lab somewhere in the U.K., my 12 hairs remain, in case they're needed. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that forcing anyone arrested to give over their DNA, even if wrongfully arrested, was going a bit far, so procedures have now been changed, I'm not sure what the precise rules are these days

Thank you for your reply. I think it horrifying that the police were able to keep your fingerprints and DNA results, particularly since the case was dropped against you, and your objections were later proven to be legally spot on! As for the hair analysis, although a greater hassle for the police, I think I would have opted for a saliva swab test as there's no way I would want them to have 12 of my hairs in a lab somewhere. I have very little trust in our police and their ability to avoid undue influence from above.

The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice. I believe the writing was on the wall where the MM case is concerned the moment the Birmingham FSS did a jaw dropping U-turn following the release of their first DNA results. (imo)

When exactly did Gordon Brown visit the FSS? I believe it was about the same time that the great man paid a visit to Leicestershire police?

Was the FSS second report - the jaw dropping U turn - the result?

The DNA issue is now purely hypothetical, apart from the screamingly obvious gaps in normal procedure. The FSS is no more, somewhat surprising, who is doing the job now?

It will not stand up in court, I mean. I really don't think that there is a (national security) genetic 'secret' re the McCanns. For a start, if you're going to do experiments in cloning and genetics, you'd want to start with better basic material.

Nina wrote:What we do see is an apartment devoid of children other than childsize jumpers that is it. Where are the little toys that children seem to carry, one in each hand. The twins were in nappies so were is the mega size packet of nappies?

Spot on Nina. Where are the nappies? We cannot see them in the living room, or both bedrooms. They would not have been in the bathroom, as there was nowhere for the twins to sit in there whilst being changed. When they went out, did they take a nappy changing bag with contents for 2 children with them? and with no buggy of course..[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] PTOO

Do we have any photos of the bathroom?

These are the only shots of the bathroom we have.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I did read a statement from I am sure GA saying about there being a lack of child food and in particular milk. I have tried to find it but no success. Sorry, don't remember that.
Of course it could be that the children were not allowed clutter, or, Kate is house proud even on holiday [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Stella wrote:

Nina wrote:What we do see is an apartment devoid of children other than childsize jumpers that is it. Where are the little toys that children seem to carry, one in each hand. The twins were in nappies so were is the mega size packet of nappies?

Spot on Nina. Where are the nappies? We cannot see them in the living room, or both bedrooms. They would not have been in the bathroom, as there was nowhere for the twins to sit in there whilst being changed. When they went out, did they take a nappy changing bag with contents for 2 children with them? and with no buggy of course..[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] PTOO

Do we have any photos of the bathroom?

These are the only shots of the bathroom we have.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I did read a statement from I am sure GA saying about there being a lack of child food and in particular milk. I have tried to find it but no success. Sorry, don't remember that.
Of course it could be that the children were not allowed clutter, or, Kate is house proud even on holiday [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

tigger wrote:Hi pennylane,

That's exactly what I think. The McCanns in themselves are not important. The cover up and damage limitation was done badly, on the hoof so to speak. Now that Murdoch is slowly unravelling it's my ardent hope that the reasons for their protection are slowly fading away. Four years is a long time and will give plenty of people the opportunity to move out of harm's way re their earlier involvement with the McCanns.

I still think the whole thing was pre meditated, I go with Dr. Ludke on their profile. What a lot of people don't realise is that it went wrong from the start. They never meant to end up in Rothley, giving endless rigged interviews to sell their 'story'.

By now, they should have been really rich, living in a lovely villa, with all mod cons, swimming pool, sailing, golf courses nearby. Absolute role models for child protection, ambassadorial jobs for charities etc. Rubbing shoulders with celebrities and royalty. It's my opinion that they're not at all happy as they are. Kate didn't dare to do book signings, Gerry didn't dare to do a charity bike ride.

It's Amaral, people like TB and us who still worry them, having to employ people to check every word we write to each other. It's time at least one newspaper decided on a truthful and full account. The upcoming trial in Lisbon would be a perfect opportunity.

tigger wrote:Hi Stella, I just highlighted part of a statement by Mrs. Fenn in the topic on the interview with her niece.

In it she says she wasn't even aware that that family was living in 5a.

Stella wrote:

Nina wrote:What we do see is an apartment devoid of children other than childsize jumpers that is it. Where are the little toys that children seem to carry, one in each hand. The twins were in nappies so were is the mega size packet of nappies?

Spot on Nina. Where are the nappies? We cannot see them in the living room, or both bedrooms. They would not have been in the bathroom, as there was nowhere for the twins to sit in there whilst being changed. When they went out, did they take a nappy changing bag with contents for 2 children with them? and with no buggy of course..[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] PTOO

Do we have any photos of the bathroom?

These are the only shots of the bathroom we have.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I did read a statement from I am sure GA saying about there being a lack of child food and in particular milk. I have tried to find it but no success. Sorry, don't remember that.
Of course it could be that the children were not allowed clutter, or, Kate is house proud even on holiday [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Tony Bennett wrote:Anonymous contributions to this debate keep coming in to my inbox. Here's the latest:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The criminal investigation centres on the places where there is visible blood and invisible remnant of blood (per the sniffer dogs).

DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT THE FORENSICS will say, oh yes, here is all the DNA evidence

1st- The macro- and microscopic analysis of 257 hairs revealed 245 human and 12 non-human.

2nd- With respect to autosomic STRs the genetic profiles of the following analysed samples matched with the reference sample indicated:

- hair root CEnv 7-51 recovered in the apartment (entrance hall-Env.7) matched with Gerald McCann, father of the victim.

- hair root PVT07 recovered in the vehicle (floor in front of rear seat Env.4) match with Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat.

3rd- With respect to autosomic STRs the female genetic profile identified from hair root C742-05 recovered in the vehicle (floor in front of the front seat- Env 3) did not match any profile from the reference samples.

4th- With respect to autosomic STRs the male genetic profile identified from the spot on the cloth fragment (bedspread of the bed next to window in the children's bedroom- Env 5) did not match any profile from the reference samples.

5th- In the samples from apartment 5-A, several mitochondrial DNA profiles were found:

- Profile identified by letter "C", present in 53 samples, was identical to that of Kate Healy, mother of the victim, meaning those samples were from her or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

- Profile identified by letter "N", present in 24 samples, was identical to that of Gerald McCann, father of the victim, meaning those samples were from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

- Profile identified by letter "G", present in 1 samples, was identical to that of Matthew David Oldfield, meaning that sample was from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

- Profile identified by letter "I", present in 1 samples, was identical to that of David Anthony Payne, meaning that sample was from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

- Profile identified by letter "O", present in 2 samples, was identical to that of Russell James O'Brien, meaning those samples were from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

- Profile identified by letter "L", present in the spot on the bedspread of the bed next to the window and in seven hairs, meaning that all these samples came from the same person or from someone having the same maternal bloodline, did not match any of the reference samples.

- Profiles identified by letters "B", "D", "F", "J" and "Q" are different from the above, and from each other, and are distinct from reference samples. (Who do these ones belong to?)

6th- In the samples analysed from Residencia Liliana and the vehicle, several mitochondrial DNA profiles were found:

- Profile identified by letter "M", present in 48 samples (35 from Residencia Liliana and 13 from the vehicle), was identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat meaning those samples were from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

- Profile identified by letter "K", present in 14 samples (1 from Residencia Liliana and 13 from the vehicle), meaning that all these samples came from the same person or from someone having the same maternal bloodline, did not match any of the reference samples.

- One of the 13 samples from the vehicle in letter "K" - hair root C742-05 (floor in front of the front seat - Env 3) showed a female DNA genetic profile.

7th- The remaining 28 samples analysed, of which 17 were recovered from the apartment, showed mitochondrial DNA from different from each other, and distinct from those above.

8th- Of the 245 hairs analysed, no results were obtained from 52.

National Institute of Legal Medicine, 9 July 2007.