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

Tony Bennett wrote:I think this is the fourth communication from Mr Anonymous, the 'Capital Letter' man.

This time it's come in via: "Nomen Nescio" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And here it is:


STELLA wrote:

You do not need to be a mathematician to know that the numbers do not add up. Interestingly there is a batch of 'hidden' profiles.

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.

Whose identities are being protected here ??

=======

IN PARTICULAR ----

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 profilefrom the reference samples

(7 hairs came from the bed under the window and DID NOT MATCH to any of the reference samples)

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. YOU CANNOT CLAIM COVER-UP (PROTECTION) AND STATE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTOR. THIS INFORMATION HAS EXISTED FOR 4 YEARS SO YOU CANNOT SAY THAT YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND WITH MORE ENLIGHTENING INFORMATION. THIS IS OLD NEWS RIGHT FROM THE START OF THE INVESTIGATION. THIS INFORMATION WILL STAY ON FILE UNTIL THOSE DNA PROFILES TURN UP IN A CRIME ELSEWHERE.

YOU KEEP INSISTING THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTOR BUT THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF DNA AND FORENSICS FROM SEVERAL UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS (ONE OF WHOM COULD EASILY BE T H E ABDUCTOR) MANY OF WHOM WILL BE PAST RESIDENTS,FRIENDS OF PAST RESIDENTS, CLEANERS, REPAIR MEN, THE OWNERS, RUTH MCCANN AND HER LATE HUSBAND.

The stain, being semen, came from the previous occupant who stayed in the apartment the week before.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Chances are the hairs are his as well. Or, perhaps they belong to the tall thin man who arranged the block booking with Madeleine on the Sunday, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] who has never been identified or named as yet? Perhaps they belong to one of the "10 or 12 people who used to enter the apartment", as Moita Flores said. We know about 9, so who are the other 3? It seems to me that the Tapas 9 may not have been very truthful about everyone they knew out there.

At the end of the day, the window shows no sign of a break in, the lichen was undisturbed and who in their right mind is going to roll around on the bed on the opposite side of the bedroom to where Madeleine was laying. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Stella wrote:

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.

I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that tigger. It has baffled me from the start as to how Mrs Fenn only ever heard the one crying episode, despite there being 3 children, between 2-4 years of age, in an apartment that would echo really badly. This tells me that they could not have been living there and the apartment was used as a means to facilitate the abduction. This could be why the PJ witheld the OC daily run reports from when they arrived on the 28th, until the 1st May.

Way to go! So, if the 'accident' happened very early - as early as the 28th. it would be possible for Maddie to have been in 5a - possibly mostly by herself, for a short time. Imo 5a wasn't used after she died. Just that the cleaner came in on Sunday - where was Maddie then? I'm not convinced she was the girl seen by the cleaner.

The twins, I'm pretty sure, slept in the children's apartment. As the phone records show unusual activity very early in the holiday, there is a possibility of Maddie being 'ill' and dying very early

Now there was nothing in the apartment to show children were having a holiday, no toys, no drawings, nothing they took along from the creche - something they would have made. No cuddly toys.

It would have been most useful to have another empty apartment in the same block. 5a being designated as the stage. But I'm still stuck with the Burgau angle which imo is crucial. The two photographs which were probably taken there could well be from the same time period. In one she looks drugged. It is possible that this 'photo shoot' was done on the Sunday and Maddie's death is related to what happened in Burgau. There is a connection to JT and RM at that location.

I'm just trying to say that Maddie's blood and the cadaver odour would then date to the first two days. There would otherwise be little evidence of her DNA, certainly if she was comatose most of the time.

Haven't got my laptop which died two weeks ago, so it's difficult to scroll through on antiquated equipment!

This topic is v.v.v. interesting. Although none of the DNA evidence is admissible, the whole of the background is and seems to me at least as incriminating as the original findings.

Is it possible to tell if these two samples came from the same genetic profile:

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.

- 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.

I am reading it as if they are different samples from different people.

Were either of these profiles ever matched?

Me wrote:Is it possible to tell if these two samples came from the same genetic profile:

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.

- 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.

I am reading it as if they are different samples from different people.

Were either of these profiles ever matched?

Hi Me, I know how confusing these things are, but I'm reading this as, Profile "L" matches to the spot on the bedspread 'and' in 7 hairs. But did not match to any known Profile they had.

This is because it belonged to a boy 'allegedly' who was staying in that apartment the week before. I kept this from somewhere.

Amongst these witnesses, Saleigh and Paul Gordon, accompanied by their two children, occupied apartment 5A before the McCanns, between April 21st and 28th 2007. Questioned several times by the investigators, the couple maintain that, "the doors, windows and shutters of the apartment were all in good condition," even stressing that given the noise made by the bedroom shutters, it would be impossible to open or shut them without it being noticed by neighbours or passers-by.

Since January Paul Gordon has been contacted several times by Brian Kennedy, Kate and Gerry McCann: "There are times when I feel like a chess pawn." Paul Gordon said.

Stella wrote:

Me wrote:Is it possible to tell if these two samples came from the same genetic profile:

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.

- 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.

I am reading it as if they are different samples from different people.

Were either of these profiles ever matched?

Hi Me, I know how confusing these things are, but I'm reading this as, Profile "L" matches to the spot on the bedspread 'and' in 7 hairs. But did not match to any known Profile they had.

This is because it belonged to a boy 'allegedly' who was staying in that apartment the week before. I kept this from somewhere.

Amongst these witnesses, Saleigh and Paul Gordon, accompanied by their two children, occupied apartment 5A before the McCanns, between April 21st and 28th 2007. Questioned several times by the investigators, the couple maintain that, "the doors, windows and shutters of the apartment were all in good condition," even stressing that given the noise made by the bedroom shutters, it would be impossible to open or shut them without it being noticed by neighbours or passers-by.

Since January Paul Gordon has been contacted several times by Brian Kennedy, Kate and Gerry McCann: "There are times when I feel like a chess pawn." Paul Gordon said.

So is it safe to assume these hairs on the bed all came from the same person (i.e. the child staying the week before).

Was there any match to these:

Envelope No. 3 - "recovered from the top of the bed from which the child disappeared" 2 hairs with root; 2 hairs only stem.

Because what i'm thinking is if the "Pro's" are citing this as potential evidence of an abductor's DNA, why was it only on the bed and nowhere else in the apartment (i.e. the window or the doors, or bedroom floor)?

It strikes me that for there only to be hairs here would indicate that were they left by any potential abductor he could only have teleported in to that spot and out again the same way, becuase it doesn't make sense that no other DNA would be found fitting this profile elsewhere in the apartment, if the source had been an abductor who had entered and exited either by the door or the window.

Me, I've been trying to think about this logically.

Some of those hairs must have come from the cleaners/MW staff/GNR/PJ and anyone else who went into that apartment to look out of the window. What a massive job it must have been collecting reference samples from everyone who went near that bedspread at 'any' point in time. It's obviously not cleaned between letts, so it could also contain hairs from everyone who stayed in that apartment since the season started some 3 or 4 weeks before. Which could be an infinite number of people.

Very interesting work by "Q".
Some of it is too complicated for me! This, in particular, confuses me:
With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann.
And yet, it is still possible to claim that "no DNA of Maddie was ever found in 5A"???

Regarding the possibility (or probability, in my view) that a substitute played the part of Maddie McCann in the creche, could it be that the tops were worn by the substitute, and the hairs on them were hers?

I've been looking for the analysis on the DNA recovered from behind the sofa, to make sure I was right in thinking that only 4 markers in total were recovered from the blood found under the tiles and that every one of those 4 markers appears in Madeleine's profile. It must be said that these same 4 markers could also appear in someone elses profile, so you could look at this in two ways. It does not confirm for sure it was Madeleine. But in the same token, it cannot prove in any way it was not her either.

I have produced a little chart to help illustrate the number of markers countries use in order to try and convict someone.

19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
		A 100% match is the equivalent of 19 markers
		15 markers from bodily fluids found in the hire car, match Madeleine's profile
		All 4 markers found under the tiles, match to Madeleine's profile
		11 markers is all that is needed in some US states for a conviction
		13 markers in other US states, is all that is needed for a conviction
	Under Portuguese Law, all 19 markers are needed for a conviction

The black line is the lowest figure at which any country mentioned will convict someone and as you can see the blood found under the tiles is way below that level.

It is up to a good lawyer to argue how significant the final results are. This is why the McCann's continuously bleat on about there being no evidence. The 4 markers under the tiles, which all appear in Madeleine's profile, could also appear in someone from her maternal bloodline. BUT, no markers found did not appear in Madeleine's profile, which is also very significant. It would only take one non-matching marker to be found for some to claim that it was a contaminated sample. But as it stands, they cannot say this.

The 15 markers found in the hire car is another matter altogether. Originally it was reported as 15/19 markers, but then the infamous John Lowe report later mentions contaminated samples, with even more markers added to the mix. It is important here to remember that 15 markers found still match to Madeleine. But we are being forced to consider by the defence that other people have also contributed to this sample, which means it is no longer significant.

They have the DNA profile of the person who collected the sample. They have the DNA profile of the person at the FSS who tested the samples. So if they wanted to, they could have shown this in the final report for everyone to see how many markers are not in Madeleine's profile, but they did not. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Stella wrote:I've been looking for the analysis on the DNA recovered from behind the sofa, to make sure I was right in thinking that only 4 markers in total were recovered from the blood found under the tiles and that every one of those 4 markers appears in Madeleine's profile. It must be said that these same 4 markers could also appear in someone elses profile, so you could look at this in two ways. It does not confirm for sure it was Madeleine. But in the same token, it cannot prove in any way it was not her either.

I have produced a little chart to help illustrate the number of markers countries use in order to try and convict someone.

19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
		A 100% match is the equivalent of 19 markers
		15 markers from bodily fluids found in the hire car, match Madeleine's profile
		All 4 markers found under the tiles, match to Madeleine's profile
		11 markers is all that is needed in some US states for a conviction
		13 markers in other US states, is all that is needed for a conviction
	Under Portuguese Law, all 19 markers are needed for a conviction

The black line is the lowest figure at which any country mentioned will convict someone and as you can see the blood found under the tiles is way below that level.

It is up to a good lawyer to argue how significant the final results are. This is why the McCann's continuously bleat on about there being no evidence. The 4 markers under the tiles, which all appear in Madeleine's profile, could also appear in someone from her maternal bloodline. BUT, no markers found did not appear in Madeleine's profile, which is also very significant. It would only take one non-matching marker to be found for some to claim that it was a contaminated sample. But as it stands, they cannot say this.

The 15 markers found in the hire car is another matter altogether. Originally it was reported as 15/19 markers, but then the infamous John Lowe report later mentions contaminated samples, with even more markers added to the mix. It is important here to remember that 15 markers found still match to Madeleine. But we are being forced to consider by the defence that other people have also contributed to this sample, which means it is no longer significant.

They have the DNA profile of the person who collected the sample. They have the DNA profile of the person at the FSS who tested the samples. So if they wanted to, they could have shown this in the final report for everyone to see how many markers are not in Madeleine's profile, but they did not. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Stella, thankyou. With your post and diagram I now fully understand. Very clear [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A timely reminder for Q's first question in relation to apartment 5a.

The first forensic sweep in May 2007, did not report any findings of anything pertaining to Madeleine's DNA profile.

The second forensic sweep in August 2007, they found blood underneath the floor tiles, hidden between the back of the sofa and the wall.

jd wrote:British Rule Out Abduction

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom (Foreign & Commonwealth Office) does not held Madeleine McCann's disappearance recorded as an abduction, thus accepting that there is no evidence to suggest that a crime of that nature has taken place; exactly what was concluded by the Portuguese Judiciary Police investigation initially led by Gonçalo Amaral and that is mirrored in the book “Maddie - The Truth of the Lie”.

In a reply to an investigator, who requested [FOIA PDF here] information regarding British missing children abroad, the Consular Directorate of the Foreign Office - dated December 14, 2009 to which the CM had access - affirmed: “The FCO filed the case in May 2008 [Ben Needham]. You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.”.

I wouldn't know where and how to find it, but do you know which missing children are listed as "abducted"?

Now back to the DNA. I could be wrong but didn't one of the samples link to an old crime scene?

HFS wrote:I could be wrong but didn't one of the samples link to an old crime scene?

That doesn't ring any bells with me HFS.

I'll see if I can find it Stella, but like I've said I could be wrong. It's so long ago that I was following every little bit of information about the case.

I came across this in my travels today, very interesting. How to create fake DNA

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

I'm still confused.

Hairs from crime scene were sent to a Portuguese lab along with DNA samples of T9 & subsequently Ocean Club employees. Some matched T9, some didn't but there's no reference to whether any matched Madeleine, Sean & Amelie who would also need to be excluded forensically?

The control sample was picked up in Rothley from Madeleine's pillow and now another control sample seems to have come from a heel prick sample which matched the saliva sample?

12 hairs were taken from 3 of Madeleine's tops, one was discounted as not being hers. None of the other 11 appear to have been matched against the control sample yet these were considered the hair control sample for the hire car?

The control sample from UK was never cross matched for a positive match for anything related to Madeleine in PDL?

"There is no evidence.." "Ask the dogs Sandra"

Interesting contrast in family living between 5A and the Villa. Toys & possessions everywhere.

Its all a con. And the confusion is put out there on purpose to twist and confuse

does anyone know if all the McCann's luggage was taken away by the Portugues police ? I'd be very interested to see exactly what was packed for all three of their children that week.

aquila wrote:does anyone know if all the McCann's luggage was taken away by the Portugues police ? I'd be very interested to see exactly what was packed for all three of their children that week.

That's a really good point Aquila. It would be interesting to see how many toothbrushes were actually packed for the trip, even if the kids did all end up sharing.

Just as an aside, I have always found toothbrushes to be very good for scrubbing at grout in between tiles and removing stains. Perhaps other people have also found this to be the case...

Stella wrote:

HFS wrote:I could be wrong but didn't one of the samples link to an old crime scene?

That doesn't ring any bells with me HFS.

On 9 April 2008, the DNA profiles obtained from the probatory components [objects] 286A/2007/CRL1A&B, 4A&B, 9A&B e 16A&B were submitted with a request to the National DNA Database(R).

Various matches were obtained with the results of 286A/2007/CRL4A&B; the majority of them were eliminated based on additional information obtained from the result; however, two remain (namely, bar codes 90264515 & 90374723). Those profiles were obtained using the old SGM system which examined only six areas of DNA. For this reason the samples should be upgraded [re-tested] using the new standard system SGMplus. It is likely that those samples would be eliminated after the upgrade.

Various matches were obtained with the results of 286A/2007/CRL9A&B; the majority of them were eliminated based on additional information obtained from the result; however, one remains (namely, bar code 80004801). It has matched with a sample of a spot recovered from a crime and cannot, at this time, be associated with a specific individual. Nevertheless, as that sample was processed with the old SGM system I consider the match to be of negligible significance.
All matches obtained from other samples were eliminated.

Found it, but it looks like it's irrelevant (as we could have guessed).

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

Thanks HFS. Very interesting...

niknak247 wrote:I've just been mulling over what has been written with regards to the "odd" DNA. I wonder if Madeleine was meant to be taken, that infact she is alive and well and the McCann's know this and regualrly see her - thus are not as distraught as any normal parent would be. Perhaps the whole event was set up for the purpose of explaining why she no longer lives with the McCanns, ie to UK friends and family....maybe this was the agreement all along hence Gerry's odd comment on the transfer bus....along the lines of I'm not here to enjoy myslef.... Therefore the whole thing has been a sham and the reason why the McCanns were more than happy to leave the twins in PDL..

That's what I used to think until they brought the UK dogs in (Eddie the cadavar dog and Keela the blood dog). How on earth can it be explained that death scent and blood was found in the McCanns apartment and hire car and on Kate's clothes and cuddlecat etc? Whichever way you look at this case to find an abductor or any other reason to hope Madeleine is still alive there is always the stumbling block of the indications from these two FBI-contracted dogs that only the McCanns have discredited. Why would the McCanns not demand to know whose blood and death scent it belonged to rather than excusing the findings as dirty nappies and rotting meat?

The whole thing has definitely been a sham and I pray that the Portuguese will reopen the case and get to the bottom of it.

ufercoffy wrote:

niknak247 wrote:I've just been mulling over what has been written with regards to the "odd" DNA. I wonder if Madeleine was meant to be taken, that infact she is alive and well and the McCann's know this and regualrly see her - thus are not as distraught as any normal parent would be. Perhaps the whole event was set up for the purpose of explaining why she no longer lives with the McCanns, ie to UK friends and family....maybe this was the agreement all along hence Gerry's odd comment on the transfer bus....along the lines of I'm not here to enjoy myslef.... Therefore the whole thing has been a sham and the reason why the McCanns were more than happy to leave the twins in PDL..

That's what I used to think until they brought the UK dogs in (Eddie the cadavar dog and Keela the blood dog). How on earth can it be explained that death scent and blood was found in the McCanns apartment and hire car and on Kate's clothes and cuddlecat etc? Whichever way you look at this case to find an abductor or any other reason to hope Madeleine is still alive there is always the stumbling block of the indications from these two FBI-contracted dogs that only the McCanns have discredited. Why would the McCanns not demand to know whose blood and death scent it belonged to rather than excusing the findings as dirty nappies and rotting meat?

The whole thing has definitely been a sham and I pray that the Portuguese will reopen the case and get to the bottom of it.

This is also a scenario I am considering. A sham to make money. Maddie was 'taken', sure. But she was never in danger and her parents knew it. The blood/cadaver dogs is indicative, yes, but not conclusive. It was never shown to be Maddie's blood in the apartment IIRC, or conclusively proven to be her DNA in the hire car. Would the McCann's have access to material which can 'plant' cadaver odour? I think so. Why would they do this? To create confusion ("confusion is good", G.McCann circa 2007).

Why would they insist that we continue to look for her if they had concealed her somewhere. She could be spotted surely and the plan shot to pieces. Not if we were looking for a girl who's image changed constantly (the 'poster' Maddie where she's around 2.5yrs, the tennis picture etc etc). And the unique selling point - the coloboma. If you spot a Maddie without the eye defect then it can't be her. We were told to look for a Maddie that didn't exist.

Hence the police's statement that she 'could still be alive' IMHO, and why we should continue to look for her.

Agreed Lady-Heather....the Panorama programme, definately hints that she will be found quite confidently...perhaps Maddie will be "found" and won't have the eye mark. Hence the reason the McCann's are down playing her eye now and have even stated it was never a colombona and in the first place. So much being covered up and lied about...will we ever no the truth?

niknak247 wrote:Agreed Lady-Heather....the Panorama programme, definately hints that she will be found quite confidently...perhaps Maddie will be "found" and won't have the eye mark. Hence the reason the McCann's are down playing her eye now and have even stated it was never a colombona and in the first place. So much being covered up and lied about...will we ever no the truth?

I think that is completely out of the question. For the simple reason that it is way too risky. Not only was it the biggest publicity campaign ever, but not only those who would have 'looked after' Maddie but neighbours, friends - you name it. The people who would have taken her would make a fortune by telling their story. Write a book about it and so on.

Maddie will never be found - the circus around it can go on forever.

I found this article very fascinating.

I want to draw attention to this part:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

The Vatican on - Human cloning

Human cloning refers to “the asexual or agametic reproduction of the entire human organism in order to produce one or more ‘copies’ which, from a genetic perspective, are substantially identical to the single original” (n. 28). The techniques which have been proposed for accomplishing human cloning are artificial embryo twinning, which “consists in the artificial separation of individual cells or groups of cells from the embryo in the earliest stage of development… which are then transferred into the uterus in order to obtain identical embryos in an artificial manner” (footnote 47) and cell nuclear transfer, which “consists in introducing a nucleus taken from an embryonic or somatic cell into an denucleated oocyte. This is followed by stimulation of the oocyte so that it begins to develop as an embryo” (footnote 47). Cloning is proposed for two basic purposes: reproduction, that is, in order to obtain the birth of a baby, and medical therapy or research.

The scenario of artificial embryo twinning has been considered here on this thread; but what if Madeleine had been an experiment in the other method of cloning mentioned, that is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]? 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is how [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]was cloned, and if Madeleine was a clone of this sort then she would have exactly the same DNA as Kate but none of Gerry’s. In other words, Gerry would not have been her biological father; no one was. 

Maybe the McCanns were taking part in a reproductive clone programme that was not approved by the government ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) but involved some high-up government figures.

That would explain things like Kate calling her a “mini-me” and Gerry writing on his blog, “Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!”

Also, on Crimewatch Gerry said that she came out “almost perfect” as if she was some sort of commodity that came off a production line. 
If he wasn’t her real father but was looking after her in the interests of science (and no doubt getting well paid for it to boot), he might have had a professional interest in her only; he didn’t see her as his daughter or love her as a father would have done.

All this got me thinking about another explanation of what happened.

Initially the cloning experiment had gone well, but by 2007 Madeleine’s health was rapidly deteriorating (this has been discussed before, but in different context). Gerry had examined her and found she would not last long. He realized that that would mean an end to his regular paycheck from the ‘clone programme’ and so decided to take action.

He decided to sell Madeleine to someone in Portugal who would have her adopted to a rich family. He and Payne, (who must have known about this as he was the one Gerry told that he hadn’t come to enjoy himself on the airport bus), organized the trip and planned a fake abduction …hence the posters of Madeleine that appeared from nowhere.

He knew however that the interest in Madeleine would be short-lived...that he would get away with the fake abduction as his paymasters in the UK would obviously want the whole thing hushing up as quickly as possible; it wouldn’t have done for the Portuguese police to start asking awkward questions, especially if they decided to analize Madeleine’s DNA.

Sometime during the week however, “disaster” struck-Madeleine died.

For Gerry, the 'disaster' was that he wouldn’t get his money. 
So he decided on a new plan; the abduction would go ahead as planned, but he would make sure that it was not swept under the carpet, that the whole world would know about it. 

That meant he had to make sure that the world knew about it even before his 'bosses' knew, and he used his family and friends plus those of the T7 to do that job for him. 
Aftter that he made sure that they were never out of the news.

Obviously the main aim of all the publicity was to garner sympathy and get enough people on his side to justify starting a fund for Madeleine which, if he played his cards right, could last for quite some time.

He knew he would still get support from London as they would be terrified of him or Kate spilling the beans somewhere along the line. 
Clarence Mitchell may have been  brought in to make sure that didn’t happen.

All very Brave New World. But there do seem to be more than a few whiffs of scientific exploration/experimentation/commercialization attached to the whole case. 

Presumably, when you embark on IVF treatment, especially if you are using donor sperm or egg, you might be inclined to 'get fussy' about the implanted DNA - especially if you are vain, competitive, perfectionist and control freaks   . 

Even if you were not using donors, it might still get you fascinated by the whole IVF process which is fraught with hazards, excessively stressful/emotiona/personal and LUCRATIVE!!


Is it known for certain that both the McCanns are the biological parents? I know they say they are, as does Clarence Mitchell, which obviously provides us with some clues....

Then when you start thinking about IVF and DNA in association with this case, your mind wanders over to other scientific/medical/pharmaceutical/defence (?) links with this case.

For instance Enigma Diagnostics, which Gerry is/was involved with. And nuclear power - Gerry is/was a Government advisor with regards to safety of nuclear power plants. Are there not fears about cancer clusters around nuclear power plants and fears about increases of birth defects in babies born to women living near nuclear power plants? (Don't have the studies but I know there are some people highlighting these possible risks). 

Then you think about the profile of the guest list at the Ocean Club the week that the McCann's were there - some interesting players in these fields. Invitro-diagnositcs/prenatal diagnostics/infectious +biological control - all these are huge these days, in terms of commercial potential plus also highly controversial. 

(A scientist/expert somewhere who is in the field of prenatal diagnostics?). 

I've lifted some of what follows from Wilki (not saying it's particularly reliable or even necessarily right - but just to give a general idea)

For instance Enigma Diagnostics, which Gerry McCann was involved in, based at Porton Down, Salisbury - Porton Down is a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. It is home to the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], known as Dstl. Dstl is an Executive Agency of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.](MoD), and the site is believed to be one of the United Kingdom's most sensitive and secretive government facilities for military research, including [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] defence. 


It is also home to the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] as well as a small science park which includes companies such as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}


Porton Down has also been involved in human testing. Most of the work carried out at Porton Down has to date remained secret. 


DSTL Porton Down is also involved in animal testing, where the "three Rs" of 'reduce' (the number of animals used), 'refine' (animal procedures) and 'replace' (animal tests with non-animal tests) are used as the basic code of practice.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} There has also been a decrease in animal experimentation in recent years.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}


Well, just a few ideas to mull around with. I can't spend any longer thinking about the animal testing that goes on there (in secret) as I am opposed to it on all sorts of grounds...testing out all those vaccines and drugs and so on

Animal testing....human testing (it would appear if you look into Porton Down there has been controversy over testing out drugs). All very top drawer.

There are laboratory reports [English], that the DNA from the Rothley pillow case belonged to a female child of Gerry & Kate and that it was not Amelie's ...

Mulling over the Health Protection Agency stuff (principally because I believe that this organisation should be closed down as being a danger to public health)  - was Gerry on an HPA Govt sub-committe relating to nuclear risks, or something similar? And Smethurst was/is legal advisor for a large nuclear organisation? And has defended the nuclear industry against claims from leukemia patients?  

Interestingly, on page 10 of her book, Kate writes how: "In my early teens I wanted to become a hematologist and find a cure for leukemia." Odd coincidence, perhaps.

And also considering the HPA's role in being a 'center for emergency preparedness and response'.  Emergency preparedness and response for what, exactly? 

Oh, right - let's think now, the terrible, awful, deadly pandemic which was going to cause millions of deaths - the scary  'swine flu'  which came and went causing scarcely a ripple - but was a massive earner for the drug companies and also spread fear among the public and stockpiling of drugs. Plus flogged a probably useless (and possibly dangerous) vaccine.  Hmmm........ (Google 'The pandemic that never was. Drug firms 'encouraged worl health body to exaggerate swine flu threat'.)

Perhaps Kate McCann was hoping to get herself a role in the Health Protection Agency as an expert in 'emergency and preparedness response' to child abduction? (Oh the bitter ironies in this case - fact is so much more interesting than fiction!)

Certainly, both she and Gerry were positioning themselves as experts in this field. The association with missing children organisations and charities. Their roles as guest speakers. And so on.

It would appear that creating havoc, confusion and fear can be highly profitable in all sorts of ways. 

And indeed so can child abduction!

As Kate opines on page 3 of Madeleine: "We realize that Madeleine's abduction has been hard for every parent to bear. It has brought home to everyone how vulnerable our children are and how fragile our lives. I have come to understand that some of critics have been acting out of self-preservation. Holding us culpable in some way makes them feel their own children are safer."

  

(I'll feel my children are a lot safer when there are at least two people are living at Her Majesty's Pleasure!)

And, as Kate writes on page 360: "I feel much more vulnerable than I did four years ago, particularly as a parent. ....Since that night my anxieties for Sean and Amelie have escalated. I'm worried more about accident, illness and, not surprisingly, about whom they are in contact with."  


Wonder what the Health Protection Agency are going to do about the McCanns?

Hi niknak247

I too have considered the hoax scenario: Madeleine, perhaps not an easy child to bring up, was maybe to be farmed out to relatives in Canada or somewhere, with perhaps the help and advice of 'father' wossname, the Canadian Anglican priest and his wife. I do believe the McCanns have relatives out there. That would explain their bizarre behaviour in smirking when others discussed 'sightings', or the aged progressed picture; their lack of interest in searching for Madeleine themselves when she first disappeared; the ignoring of horrified PJ officers who said mentioning her distinctive coloboma ('a good marketing ploy' according to Gerry; though she almost certainly did not have one. 'Confusion is good'.) would sign her death warrant if she really had been abducted. It would also explain Gerry's remark that he was not on the trip to enjoy himself; their overall general lack of distress (ongoing) about the loss of their elder daughter. Also it could explain 'the wider agenda' sic which led to a huge circus and a financial scam with vast amounts of money raised, and celebrity status, and semi-sainthood and all.

A modification of this view is that all of the above was intended, but that something went badly wrong (perhaps over-sedation) and Madeleine died. Everything else still had to swing into place, or the parents risked losing their jobs, their diligently acquired middle class status, and their two remaining children. However, the plan needed to be hideously modified, because it was Madeleine's body that had to disappear. Here local contacts had to be used, at least for advice, and a mad merry-go-round was set in motion and the McCanns can no longer get off it.

BUT! When I get to thinking that way, the significant indicative evidence of Martin Grime's EVRD blood and cadaver scent detection dogs brings me up short every time. I think the McCanns would have to be very odd people indeed (and they are certainly odd) to ignore the evidence of those dogs. Most people would be horrified when confronted with the finding that their child had likely died in their apartment. They would not refuse to answer questions no matter what their lawyer advised. They would not run away back to England. They would do everything to co-operate with the investigation! The only reasons for them not to be bothered much, IMHO, are either that they are sure she is alive and well elsewhere, or that she is sadly dead. Whatever... I am sure they know what really happened, they are trapped by it, and they are coping with that knowledge in a very strange way.

Quote from r.rob:-

"Presumably, when you embark on IVF treatment, especially if you are using donor sperm or egg, you might be inclined to 'get fussy' about the implanted DNA - especially if you are vain, competitive, perfectionist and control freaks  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] . 

Even if you were not using donors, it might still get you fascinated by the whole IVF process which is fraught with hazards, excessively stressful/emotiona/personal and LUCRATIVE!!


Is it known for certain that both the McCanns are the biological parents? I know they say they are, as does Clarence Mitchell, which obviously provides us with some clues...."




Yes, the ivf angle interests me intensely too j.rob.

Not sure what you mean by your first sentence but as far as I am aware most european countries the egg donor's characteristics are pretty much annoymous, you would only know basic facts such as blood type, height, colouring etc to achieve a physical match (if so desired) to the intended birth mother, but that is all.  For most people, the overiding goal would be to acheive a healthy live birth and baby, by the time you have got to this stage the dna used would become a secondary, almost irrelevant consideration.  If you were the type to 'get fussy' then you would have to travel to somewhere like the USA where you can choose more physical attributes, education, profession, physical 'attractiveness' etc.

Yes, I would say that there is a huge amount of money to be made from IVF both from the fees from the clinical process, the selling on of prescribed meds, and in particular the source of donor eggs - so yes I have thought that maybe the P de Luz contingent were there to set up an IVF clinic (in Portgual?) or somewhere similar. I would say that over the last ten years + an awful lot of British couples (and singles) have gone abroad for donor egg treatment as donated gametes were not readily available without a long wait (and a large price) in the UK - the most popular places to go were initially Spain then later the Czech Republic (v popular with GB/USA patients).   Same with donor sperm - just hop on a plane to europe and you can be treated without a long wait in the UK.  There are many such clinics operating with great success in w and e europe, not so many that I am aware of in Portugal (or at least not attracting the big bucks from the UK/USA).  The Mccans would probably know about all this if they were contemplating IVF, they would soon have realised how rubbish the UK is in this respect and how much money could be made from a european satellite clinic. 

I would also say that it really strikes me how darn easy it would be to rock up at a clinic say in eastern europe, receive donor eggs which could then be fertilized with the partners (either real or supposed) sperm - or donor sperm if it were deemed necessary. Or alternatively how incredibly easy it would have been to receive already frozen donated embryos (ie a previously fertilised and frozen embryo made from donated eggs and donated sperm).  I am aware that there are often a good supply of these in some clinics without many questions asked (if any).

I often thought that if you wanted to produce children for nefarious reasons then it would be very easy to produce them this way, you just need a surrogate for ten months. It has gone through my mind reading various comments (the alleged missing twin, the alleged ambiguity of the DNA, withholding of MBM's medical records, the different looking MBM's etc) that there could be something along these lines behind this case. Or some sort of embryo experimentation, embryo splitting or some sort of experimental diagnostic technique.