Jenny Murat on Kate McCanns book

parapono wrote:@Tombraider
Welcome

IIRC the haplo types of Murat an Jane Tanner were similar.

And what is that all about definite hair samples, of whom? Madeleine?
Madeleine McCann? Lead me the way through the files and show me where you found that, please

Kindest regards

parapono

joyce1938 wrote:I think the reason was ,some hairs seemed to be wrong colour and were discarded,so were not used to find out anything ?as far as my memory serves me ,there was talk of thatfor some time ,no one could understand that at all? joyce 1938

Tombraider wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:I think the reason was ,some hairs seemed to be wrong colour and were discarded,so were not used to find out anything ?as far as my memory serves me ,there was talk of thatfor some time ,no one could understand that at all? joyce 1938

Hello joyce 1938, this is correct, samples found on 3 tops supposedly belonging to Madeleine, 11 hairs if I'm not mistaken, were compared to photographs or a photograph of Madeleine and they could not determine whether or not they were in fact samples of her hair.

It should have been a relatively simple test to find a reference sample belonging to Madeleine, after all they were able to identify other individuals hair samples which were found, even 53 that were believed to be from KM or a maternal relative - someone from the same bloodline.

Interesting also and what I think is key to this is that neither of the twins hairs were identified in the report. Now anyone would think that was impossible but no where in the report does it specifically identify any hairs as belonging to them.

So, if they didn't have reference samples of the twins hair how could they possibly compare and identify any hairs found as belonging to Madeleine and this I believe is why the only option they had was to try and find a comparison using photo's.

parapono wrote:

Tombraider wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:I think the reason was ,some hairs seemed to be wrong colour and were discarded,so were not used to find out anything ?as far as my memory serves me ,there was talk of thatfor some time ,no one could understand that at all? joyce 1938

Hello joyce 1938, this is correct, samples found on 3 tops supposedly belonging to Madeleine, 11 hairs if I'm not mistaken, were compared to photographs or a photograph of Madeleine and they could not determine whether or not they were in fact samples of her hair.

It should have been a relatively simple test to find a reference sample belonging to Madeleine, after all they were able to identify other individuals hair samples which were found, even 53 that were believed to be from KM or a maternal relative - someone from the same bloodline.

Interesting also and what I think is key to this is that neither of the twins hairs were identified in the report. Now anyone would think that was impossible but no where in the report does it specifically identify any hairs as belonging to them.

So, if they didn't have reference samples of the twins hair how could they possibly compare and identify any hairs found as belonging to Madeleine and this I believe is why the only option they had was to try and find a comparison using photo's.

Yeah but yeah but no...
Comparison using which photos exactly, we have a full range of 'purportedly' Madeleine photos,
from the initial far too young poster photo, compared with for instance the Donegal pic, where the girl looks far older.
The hair colours in all these pics also differ enormously.

Which makes 'comparison by using photos' an insult to common sense, let alone to science.

IMO of course

parapono

worriedmum wrote:Does that mean that no samples were taken from the twins or parents as 'control' samples? I thought that was normal scientific procedure?

parapono wrote:errr no again. We simple do not know, as the files are incomplete. Mouth swabs were taken from the parents, the tapas 7 and many more people, all to be found in the files as they have been made public. The files include their signatures.
Now, although in the official correspondence, the necessity of mouthswabs to be taken from the twins can be found, no correspondence, no permission by their parents, no exhibit numbers nor results, no receipts, there is nothing to be found in that part of the files that is available about mouthswabs taken from either twin.

But, at the FSS the scientist (Leslie Denton? not sure) concluded that the DNA on the pillow case from Rothley was from a female child of
the McCanns,, not being the female twin


parapono

parapono wrote:Right, hair samples of the twins, nope.
Instead they "managed to 'squeeze in' a hair-cut for the twins, Gerry McCann wrote in his blog.
Snipping off possible evidence of sedation... Who knows..

parapono

Q: How many hairs are required for laboratory testing?
A: Approximately 40-50 strands cut from the scalp line at the crown (or when bundled, about the diameter of a shoelace tip).

Q: What time period does the HairConfirm™ test cover?
A: HairConfirm™ will detect drugs for a period of 90 days. The test requires a hair sample of 1.5 inches in length. Each 0.5 inch represents 30 days. The hair sample must be cut as close to the scalp as possible and only the most recent 1.5 inches are tested.

Laboratories advertise their ability for analyse for a period of 90 days. The McCanns’ samples were not taken until 24th September, almost six months = 144 days later. Although it is possible at that stage to test for continuous drug use, it is not believed in any event that a single dose of a drug, given in the amount appropriate to a 2 year old would be sufficient for successful identification on analysis.

PeterMac wrote:Particularly strange when you consider that what she or her ghost writer put in the book must have been pored over by C-R, amongst others.
They left in so much that was capable of independent verification, or in this case 'falsification' (in the Popper sense) that it makes one wonder whether it was not a cry for help, a plea to be found out, a last attempt for someone to release her from her private hell, and to bring the truth into the open.

Tombraider wrote:I think we can safely say then that for whatever reason, the investigation didn't obtain reference hair samples from the twins. Whether this was because the McCann’s wouldn't allow samples to be taken or whether it wasn't seen as necessary by the authorities at the time is something we don’t know. What I think is certain though is that without reference samples from the twins and also possibly the other children who were on the same holiday with them, it wouldn't be possible to identify any hairs found at the crime scenes which were thought to have originated from a child.
It would also prevent any tests discovering chemicals / sedatives.

Q: Do you think the children were sedated?
A: There is no doubt. (Here he told an anecdote: that Kate called a colleague of Gonçalo Amaral's in the PJ, in August, to ask them to check the twins for traces of sedation. Apparently Kate was alone when she called, and a bit upset. That same afternoon, Gerry called and cancelled the request.)

joyce1938 wrote:i also read somewhere that a lot of samples were destroyed along with others ,if not sure if it had to be macs or solicitor ,but soeone had to ask for them to be kept ,its just a bit of memory i have ,dont take it as gospel,incase i have got it muddled,i bet others will remember joyce1938

PeterMac wrote:

Tombraider wrote:I think we can safely say then that for whatever reason, the investigation didn't obtain reference hair samples from the twins. Whether this was because the McCann’s wouldn't allow samples to be taken or whether it wasn't seen as necessary by the authorities at the time is something we don’t know. What I think is certain though is that without reference samples from the twins and also possibly the other children who were on the same holiday with them, it wouldn't be possible to identify any hairs found at the crime scenes which were thought to have originated from a child.
It would also prevent any tests discovering chemicals / sedatives.

Gonçalo Amaral in Amsterdam, 05 May 2009 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Q: Do you think the children were sedated?
A: There is no doubt. (Here he told an anecdote: that Kate called a colleague of Gonçalo Amaral's in the PJ, in August, to ask them to check the twins for traces of sedation. Apparently Kate was alone when she called, and a bit upset. That same afternoon, Gerry called and cancelled the request.)

tigger wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:i also read somewhere that a lot of samples were destroyed along with others ,if not sure if it had to be macs or solicitor ,but soeone had to ask for them to be kept ,its just a bit of memory i have ,dont take it as gospel,incase i have got it muddled,i bet others will remember joyce1938

No, you're quite right. All the samples were destroyed by the FSS as 'they were contaminated'. As big a load of rubbish I've ever heard, same idea again, that contaminated DNA cannot be separated into different individuals.
Samples of decades back have brought murderers to justice, such as the killers of Stephen Lawrence.

Samples are kept even if contaminated because future technology and science may be able to analyse them. The FSS destroying the samples is a huge red flag to me.

Imo they weren't contaminated at all, they just provided the wrong result. I believe Gordon Brown visited the FSS personally, soon after the samples were ditched.

candyfloss wrote:Interview with Goncalo Amaral on the hairs found at the bottom of this piece on Joana's site.........

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/03/maddie-case-goncalo-amaral-returns-to.html