Madeleine’s Blood type is missing on the International Interpol website?

Frances Gallagher - ‎Madeleine McCann: Abduction or Scam?

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


An interesting little snippet here for those that might not be aware of it …. Madeleine’s Blood type is missing on the International Interpol website. Read more

Courtesy of Bohden Chalawaka

The Mysterious Missing DNA

One of the strangest things about this case was the apparent inability to find a DNA / control reference sample from PDL belonging to Madeleine. Leaving the evidence samples found as a result of the dogs alerts aside, I think almost all of us are bewildered by this considering she was supposed to have stayed in that apartment for almost a week. Biological / genetic material should have been present on many things belonging to her and used by her. -

It seemed easy enough for them to identify a sample from their home in Rothley, find what looks like biological sample, in this instance a stain on a pillow case, create a genetic profile from the sample and then compare it to her parents and siblings DNA samples to eliminate them and confirm it had the familial markers to show it was from another child of the Mc’s …. and hey presto they had one reference / control sample belonging to Madeleine.

So why wasn't this done from samples collected from the apartment or from items of clothing etc. in PDL?

This was supposed to be a joint police investigation with British specialists on the ground corroborating with the Portuguese authorities virtually from day one. Standard Police guidelines in missing person’s cases, particularly in relation to vulnerable people and the collection of DNA for the purpose of providing the authorities with a DNA reference sample were crystal clear, even the time scale for doing this is laid out in black and white, within 24hours!

I don't know anyone who can give an answer to this question. We can make guesses but I find it unbelievable that in such a high profile case, and there’s no doubt this was high profile right from the word go, that the authorities overlooked such an important aspect of this investigation. Was it done deliberately for some reason, to counter any accusations, or to confuse or stall the investigation ?

Before we go on lets clarify one thing though, it is seen as normal practice to try and find a genetic sample from the home of a victim. This sample could then be compared to any found at the crime scene(s). What is strange though is why this didn't happen right away and took months before a sample was finally collected.

It’s simply not possible that someone went into that apartment and removed only her DNA, just as its not possible for someone to collect others peoples DNA and overlook or miss hers. It just can’t happen, though we've heard all kinds of excuses, like the police weren't looking for one, the crime scene was trashed, it was contaminated, mixed with cig ash, you name it, even her DNA was mixed up with other peoples and it’s impossible to tell which is hers because it could be her parents or siblings DNA.

The fact is though No genetic material, no biological material, blood, urine, saliva, skin cells, hair samples etc. etc.. Zilch was identified as belonging to Madeleine McCann, not even one single strand of hair.

I believe they couldn't identify hair samples and that’s because they didn’t have reference samples from the twins to compare to any samples that were found.

What we do know is this, whether it has any bearing I don’t know.

We know from early media reports that family members claim the twins wore Madeleine’s shoes and clothes etc. directly following her disappearance.

As far as we know the authorities were denied access to Madeleine’s medical records.

It’s questionable whether authorities were denied hair samples from the twins, vital for comparison testing and identification.

We’re pretty certain CC was washed, though I suspect not to get rid of DNA. But it probably would have washed any away had it contained any.

Children’s clothing was washed and none collected, possibly a huge mistake on the part of the PJ but one GA explains as necessary due a request not to pressurise the parents.

Quite simply there is no genetic evidence to prove the profile compiled from both the heel prick (if thats what it was) & pillowcase sample retrieved from the UK is compatible to any DNA from the child who was in PDL
F/ing Amazing!

Finally, an interesting little snippet here for those that might not be aware of it …. Madeleine’s Blood type is missing on the International Interpol website.

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

Why aren't these very basic issues being addressed and queried by the investigating team?

Maddie can be assumed to have touched many things outside of the apartment: the steps to the plane, where she even bled, cutlery when having high tea (?), playthings in the creche (plastic snake, boat, probably a whole lot of other things e.g.) the inside of the airport bus (on camera)

It is therefore unlikely no DNA of her was retrievable in PdL

And one other word of caution: Whose DNA was that on the pillow cover? Maddies? Who says so?
I seem to remember the house was cleaned up before GM picked up the cover; is that so?
And if so, again: whose pillow did he bring to Ptl anyway?

Have looked on Interpol Missing people website at MBM`s profile and there isn`t a heading for blood group - nor for anyone as far as I can make out.

From what I remember about her bed in 5A, didn`t the cleaners come in on the Wednesday morning?  Even if they changed the sheets on her bed, she still supposedly slept in that bed on Wednesday night so her DNA would have been available in vasts amounts in that bedding.

I don't think anyone can understand why a pillow case had to be given from their home in Rothley.

Even if her sister had worn Maddie's shoes and frocks, cardigans, and even if they were all washed, I cannot see why she would have needed  to wear Maddie's outdoor coat/jacket and I cannot understand why an outdoor coat/jacket would need to be washed?

As Worriedmum asked, are these basic questions being asked and if not why not?

Her DNA would of course (?) have been present at the poolside (poolside pic) 
On those tennis balls (tennis pic)
On the cap she wore in the tennis pic
On the playhouse (playhouse pic) and the cap she wore there

On every plate she ate from, each cup she drank (milk?) from, every fork or spoon she used during the holidays

On all of her clothes, shoes, in the hairs in the bead KH so lovingly took from her hair at bedtime (later found underneath a bed in the parents bedroom IIRC)

Sometimes our Maddie inhabits the same Universe Shergar disappeared to, and Lord Lucan, and now those hapless passengers of flight XX Malaysian Airlines. It must be getting crowded up there!

plebgate wrote:I don't think anyone can understand why a pillow case had to be given from their home in Rothley.

Even if her sister had worn Maddie's shoes and frocks, cardigans, and even if they were all washed, I cannot see why she would have needed  to wear Maddie's outdoor coat/jacket and I cannot understand why an outdoor coat/jacket would need to be washed?

As Worriedmum asked, are these basic questions being asked and if not why not?

No medical records, no samples of Madeleine's clothes are typical of the McCann case. Was there a whole lot more intrigue to what Madeleine's DNA might reveal?

All the "evidence" is what the McCanns tell the police. One said it was warm, others said it was chilly. It was 61F at best with clouds and rain all week. For all the doctors to go there rather than the Canaries in April, there must have been a good reason. Edmunson , who was in steel, and also the boss of a large factory who supplies coal to the steel industry from New Zealand were both there. Certainly a strange choice of holiday destination at that time of year. The accommodation was nothing to write home about.

To admit that there was no item of Madeleine's clothes which had her DNA on is ridiculous and points to the fact that she was never in 5A....maybe another apartment.

What must the police have thought when Gerry said he would have to return to Rothley to get "Madeleine's" pillow?

Is in the UK routinely blood type determined in young children? I don't think it is in the US. I remember I had to sign a special permission slip for it when we were sent overseas. They were 2 ans 3 yrs at that time.


I do agree this whole DNA absence is very puzzling.

Er, why wasn't Madeleine's' pink blanket' used ?

Isn't this a really really  REALLY big question?

worriedmum wrote:Er, why wasn't Madeleine's' pink blanket' used ?

Isn't this a really really  REALLY big question?

Yes it is,this is the key to the mystery.
I don't Think Maddie never put her foot in G5A.
The dogs?
A bag with her clothes was placed in the wardrobe and was hidden for some time behind the sofa.
IMO.

NickE wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Er, why wasn't Madeleine's' pink blanket' used ?

Isn't this a really really  REALLY big question?

Yes it is,this is the key to the mystery.
I don't Think Maddie never put her foot in G5A.
The dogs?
A bag with her clothes was placed in the wardrobe and was hidden for some time behind the sofa.
IMO.

I thought Madeleine was seen by a cleaner in the apartment?

worriedmum wrote:

NickE wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Er, why wasn't Madeleine's' pink blanket' used ?

Isn't this a really really  REALLY big question?

Yes it is,this is the key to the mystery.
I don't Think Maddie never put her foot in G5A.
The dogs?
A bag with her clothes was placed in the wardrobe and was hidden for some time behind the sofa.
IMO.

I thought Madeleine was seen by a cleaner in the apartment?

Huh!

WHEN did K McCann EVER admit to seeing Madeleine in the apartment!

worriedmum wrote:

NickE wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Er, why wasn't Madeleine's' pink blanket' used ?

Isn't this a really really  REALLY big question?

Yes it is,this is the key to the mystery.
I don't Think Maddie never put her foot in G5A.
The dogs?
A bag with her clothes was placed in the wardrobe and was hidden for some time behind the sofa.
IMO.

I thought Madeleine was seen by a cleaner in the apartment?

From memory the cleaner allegedly saw children in shoes/trainers that had lights in the soles of the footwear and she remembered seeing Madeleine goingup the stairs in the block. presumably to the Pyne's apartment for midday meals. If the PJ saw three pairs of these shoes in 5a then hopefully the biggest pair would contain Madeleine's DNA- but this is a digression.

As far as I am aware Nuclear DNA is the best DNA to gain a profile of an individual from. It is usually easy to attain from crime scenes of the victim ( obviously ) and a little harder to obtain from the perpetrator. Yet leave it behind they do in both cases. Saliva, blood, scratches on the victim , under the victims finger nails and hair pulled from the victim, skin cells from the criminal etc etc. The list is endless unless the perpetrator is wearing a space suit.

I do suspect that it is even rarer that even in an abduction scenario that the victim doesn't leave any trace of being in the place from where they were abducted or removed from. To put no fine point on it patsy or no patsy a Jury or Judge would surely have to know beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was indeed in the place where the accused was allegedly said to have performed the deed in question. From abduction to removal to prior murder.

In the wonderful world of this investigation we have no clues whatsoever that the victim has been in 5a nevermind been removed from 5a.


In this Hall of Mirrors the Universities finest Medical and Forensic brains didn't even think to point towards the best nuclear DNA evidence and where it resides. Namely The hospital where Madeleine was born. In actuality her parents ( who are doctors and were there at the time of her birth ) when asked about a DNA Control Sample were quite happy to nip back to Rothley to get a pillowcase for testing by deduction.

This , rather than say- Hang on  a minute we have Madeleine's heel stick test to go at. This is highly provenaced and will supply all the DNA the FSS require to test against.

You have to ask the question of the FSS of- Just what exactly were you looking for if the prior assumption was that Madeleine was in 5a?

Fair enough to catch the perpetrator(s) of the crime you need to eliminate everyone except Madeleine in 5a . But what if you can't find Madeleine forensically in 5a? You can find everyone else but not the child who is alleged to have been stolen? removed? That's turning searching upside down. We'll look for the suspects first and worry about the victim later? That's absolute madness.

Yet that's how the FSS and investigators appeared to have played it.

It's very simple for myself re: the search for DNA. It still is and always was available for scrutiny as to what Madeleine's Control Sample should have been and it should have been figured out very early on by the Brains Trust of ' professionals '

The question I would ask ( and a poster has mentioned it ) is whether the  compiled parental profile from the pillowcase  has ever been tested against the now known Bloodspot in a cardboard frame for a DNA match? I think one appeared first in July and the blood spot appeared in
September/ October 07. Not sure but the latter was much later after the ' may or may not be ' FSS tests.

Why guess when you can know by exclusion via Nuclear DNA?

Pressure ?



Because DCI Wall had better be sure that the child in question was actually in the place where it was alleged she was abducted or removed from? If not ( patsy's included ) any sharp lawyer is going to ask that question. Assumption is useless in this case as there is no forensic evidence  that Madeleine was in 5a.

 Like the witnessing in general it's all hearsay. No objective proof.

Pure opinion only.

XTC wrote:In this Hall of Mirrors the Universities finest Medical and Forensic brains didn't even think to point towards the best nuclear DNA evidence and where it resides. Namely The hospital where Madeleine was born. In actuality her parents ( who are doctors and were there at the time of her birth ) when asked about a DNA Control Sample were quite happy to nip back to Rothley to get a pillowcase for testing by deduction.

I never understood this.

The pillow in 5A?
Her bedsheets in 5A?
Her clothes in 5A? (Especially the ones she was wearing when she had a nose bleed or cut her knee.)

What was this all about?

Any "control sample" from Rothley is going to have the same issues as samples from 5A plus the added factor that Gerry was choosing it.

BlueBag wrote:

XTC wrote:In this Hall of Mirrors the Universities finest Medical and Forensic brains didn't even think to point towards the best nuclear DNA evidence and where it resides. Namely The hospital where Madeleine was born. In actuality her parents ( who are doctors and were there at the time of her birth ) when asked about a DNA Control Sample were quite happy to nip back to Rothley to get a pillowcase for testing by deduction.

I never understood this.

The pillow in 5A?
Her bedsheets in 5A?
Her clothes in 5A? (Especially the ones she was wearing when she had a nose bleed or cut her knee.)

What was this all about?

Any "control sample" from Rothley is going to have the same issues as samples from 5A plus the added factor that Gerry was choosing it.

Yes it's a bit mad.

The Control sample was said to be needed urgently in order to follow a forensic trail in the hunt for Madeleine.

It was said that there was no reason to look for her in 5a. It was a given that this is where she was based on hearsay.

The biggest mistake the PJ made was to agree with this assumption. All the materials in the childrens room at least should have been taken away and tested. But tested against what? They had no provenanced sample of Madeleine's DNA.

 Enter the FSS. No suggestions from them re: Nuclear DNA - none from the 5 doctors ( 2 parents) and none from the forensic people on the British side.

That'  s why the Control sample idea was weird to me you and many others.

Actually though if SY are serious about re- testing the forensics start with comparing the compiled sample against the real thing.

Opinion.

They didn't rely on the pillowcase. They got a heel prick test card from the hospital (Leicester?), apparently, with a tiny blood spot on it. It was in the files. They got it quite a while after the pillow case and it supposedly confirmed the sample. I can't remember the exact details, but it was linked to the John Lowe (FSS) forensic report in the files, I think.