Friday, 29 November 2013

Intentional - Not Debatable Fact


Crimewatch last night was like watching a re-run of Team McCann in Lisbon for the Libel Trial: weaker then the anticipated weak.

A public display of a publicly known humiliation that SY is undergoing epitomised by an evidently embarrassed Andy Redwood.

Why no mention of 2-Face, when just in Oct 14 2013 he was UK Crimewatch's biggest star?

In the Maddie Affair, there are things that are open for debate. Others aren't.

An example of something that is debatable: did Jane Tanner see the man that has become known as the Bundleman?

We say she did but most say she didn't. It's debatable. We accept and respect that many don't accept our opinion and we can only hope they return the favour.

An example of something that is not debatable: was Maddie abducted? It's a fact she wasn't.

But what proof do we have? The sheer impossibility of it happening?

What if the abductor used one of the doors instead of the window? It would mean the parents lied but the abduction would have been possible, wouldn't it?

What makes it a not debatable fact that there was no abduction is all the surmounting evidence to the contrary. Namely, but not exclusively, what the forensics have shown.

This post has the objective of proving that the Smith Sighting was intentional and that fact is not debatable.

Let's first understand where it all happened. The Rua da Escola Primária:
 


We have signalled, from left to right, an alleyRua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, an unnamed streetstairs and the 3 locations of Smith's 3 groups, Smith 1, Smith 2 and Smith 3:

We know the sighting happened around 22:00, so at night, and we also know that the street was well illuminated by street lamps:


What we propose to do is to have you walk with me, using Google Map street view images, in Rua da Escola Primária:


I will incorporate the only possible character for the Smith Sighting to have happened by chance: a man, in his late 30s early 40s, carrying the body of a dead young girl, Maddie's body.


original picture

Scenario - I left apartment 5A via front door (parking area). Turned left on Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva and walked all the way to the end. There, turned left on Rua Primeiro de Maio and immediately turned right on Rua da Escola Primária. This street curves first to the left then to the right and finally bifurcates.




Photo 1
Photo 1

I'm just before that Rua da Escola Primária's final left turn. I've walked approximately 200 m (218 yds or 8.4 tennis courts) holding the dead body of a young girl.

Have crossed with no one and haven't been seen by anyone either.

I have decided to turn left down Rua Escola Primária to continue my walk.

There's absolutely no reason for me not to do so.




Photo 2
Photo 2

I've passed the left turn and am heading down Rua da Escola Primária. Remain unseen so continue not to have a reason not to proceed.

However, I would say that here I would be able to hear in the silence of the night the noise made by the 9 Smiths, namely by the 3 teenagers.

I won't state that as fact, just raising it as a possibility.



Photo 3a
Photo 3a (detail of Photo 3)

For us, the key moment.

The moment I see Smith 1, Smith's son and wife, at the end of the street.

They are just a little bit down the road from the person with a black top in the picture above.

For those saying that there was no way I would see them let me remind you of just 2 small details.

The first one is that the distance between us is just 122 m (133 yds or 5.1 tennis courts) with no obstacles in between. Completely unobstructed view.

A football pitch is 90 - 120 m (100 - 130 yds). The couple is at a distance in which a goalkeeper sees another on the playing field.

The second detail is that I have a corpse in my arms. I have committed a serious crime, even if manslaughter, and am fully aware that I'm NOW committing the crime of obstructing justice so you bet I am very, very attentive in watching out for anyone seeing me while I'm doing it.

All my senses are switched on pitch high.

At this distance I probably can't tell if they're a couple or two people of the same gender, but do I care? It's someone, that's all that matters. I have a dead body in my hands. Do I want to be seen?

When one is stealing a cookie from the jar and one hears someone coming down the corridor does one care who that someone is or is one simply worried that it's someone?

I haven't stolen a cookie. I have a dead body in my arms.

But if you say that it's too far away, we'll respect that. Just make up your mind as to from where, as of this point, do you think you will see the Smiths.




Photo 3
Photo 3 - 122 metres

So, as I said, I am at 122 m (133 yds or 5.1 tennis courts) from Smith 1. My head starts to race as to what I can do to avoid contact.

Maybe I'm not aware yet but I have at 44 m (48 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) an escape route by the alley on the right, at 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) an escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, at 73 m (80 yds or 3.1 tennis courts) an escape route by unnamed street on the right and at 103 m (112 yds or 4.3 tennis courts) an escape route by stairs on the left .

Instead of following my natural instincts, I decide not to turn back and to continue.



Photo 4
Photo 4 - 112 metres

I am now at 112 m (122 yds or 4.7 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 34 m (37 yds or 1.4 tennis courts) from escape route by the alley on the right, 53 m (58 yds or 2.2 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 93 m (101 yds or 3.9 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

As I have decided to continue instead of turning back and  there's nothing new to decide, I decide to continue.

  

Photo 5
Photo 5 - 102 metres

I am 102 m (111 yds or 4.3 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 24 m (26 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from escape route by alley on the right, 43 m (47 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 53 m (58 yds or 2.2 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 83 m (90 yds or 3.5 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

Same situation as in photo 4 with the difference that I now can see both 2 nearby escape routes: alley and Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz.

So I continue.




Photo 6
Photo 6 - 89 metres

I am 89 m (97 yds or 3.7 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 11 m (12 yds or 0.5 tennis courts), from escape route by alley on the right, 30 m (33 yds or 1.3 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 40 m (44 yds or 1.7 tennis courts) and from escape route by unnamed street on the right 70 m (76 yds or 2.9 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left .



Photo 7
Photo 7 - 82 metres

I am 82 m (89 yds or 3.4 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 4 m (4 yds or 0.2 tennis courts), from escape route by alley on the right, 23 m (25 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 33 m (36 yds or 1.4 tennis courts) and from escape route by unnamed street on the right 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left .

I'm pratically on escape route via alley but from this point I can also see that Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz might be a better option as it allows for my movement to go naturally unnoticed by the Smiths.

By the way, this is the location where first Smithman appears in the Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting:


Notice how clearly you can see the white mini-van at the end. And the details of the shadows reflected on the wall behind it. Also count the number of cars that Smithman had to pass to be where he is.

Back to me being Smithman. Even in the unlikelyhood that they have noticed me, there's little they can tell the cops that will incriminate me in any way.

So I continue.




Photo 8
Photo 8 - 67 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and am 67 m (73 yds or 2.8 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 8 m (9 yds or 0.3 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 27 m (29 yds or 1.1 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 48 m (52 yds or 2.0 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

This means that I have opted not to use my first option to escape: the alley where I could hide. This is a fact.



Photo 9
Photo 9 - 59 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and am at escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and am 59 m (64 yds or 2.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 19 m (21 yds or 0.8 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 40 m (44 yds or 1.7 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

To claim that I cannot see a crowd of 9 at a distance of 60 m in front of me is absolutely ludicrous.

To claim that I haven't seen a crowd of 9 at a distance of 60 m in front of me while walking with a dead body in my arms is just not realistic.

Plus, I not only see them at this distance as I can also tell that the people aren't grouped together but spread out.

I may not be able make out exactly how many people there are in front of me nor in exactly how many groups they are separated into but of one thing I'm certain and that is if I continue down the road it will mean multiple encounters with multiple witnesses.

To continue down Rua da Escola Primária can only mean one of 2 things. Either I'm fascinatingly stupid or I've decided to use escape route by unnamed street on the right.




 
Photo 10
Photo 10 - 42 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and am 42 m (46 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 2 m (2 yds or 0.1 tennis courts) from unnamed street on the right  and 23 m (25 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from the stairs on the left.

The fact that I am here means that I have opted not to use my second option (the most visible one) to escape: Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz to walk away from the Smiths. This is a fact.

I am left with the last reasonable option to sustain the thesis of an accidental encounter between me and the Smiths:  I have decided to use escape route by unnamed street on the right.

The stairs option is indeed still ahead of me but why use it if I just had a timely opportunity to head towards the direction of Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and didn't do that?

Basically the fact that I am at this point clearly says that I either use unnamed street on the right or I want to make contact with the Smiths.





Photo 11
Photo 11 - 36 metres

I’ve left behind escape route by the alley and escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, am at escape route by unnamed street, and am 36 m (39 yds or 1.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1 and from escape route by the stairs on the left 17 m (19 yds or 0.7 tennis courts).

This means that I have opted not to use my third option to escape: the unnamed street to walk away and hide from the Smiths. This is a fact.

I have decided against all reason and logic to head towards the Smiths.




Photo 12
Photo 12 - 24 metres

I have left behind the escape route by alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and escape route by unnamed street and am 24 m (26 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from Smith 1 and 5 m (5 yds or 0.2 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

At this point it is impossible, repeat IMPOSSIBLE, to not have seen the Smiths right in front of me.

As shown, I have not stumbled on them by surprise.

I haven't materialised out of nowhere.

It's been a long walk before reaching this point. If I had to have panicked that would have happened well beyond. And panic makes one move away from the threat and certainly not into it.

Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies me not taking the stairs on the left. Absolutely nothing.

Even if my route to "somewhere" makes me use this particular street (we see no reason for that) nothing justifies me not leaving it, hiding, waiting for the Smiths to pass, and then returning to it.

It's equally IMPOSSIBLE, to not have seen the stairs. There's a street lamp right next to it!!

I either have a dead body on my hands and don't want to make contact OR... I don't have a dead body in my hands and want to make contact.

The decision to continue without using escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz (Photo 9) was, as we saw, amazingly stupid.

The decision to continue without using escape route by unnamed street (Photo 11) was, as we saw, surrealisticaly stupid.

The decision not to use escape route by stairs is being impossibly stupid.

Even if it might seem suspicious to the Smiths to see me turn and go up the stairs (don't see any reason for them to think that) what can they tell the cops?

They can tell the cops that I am a man.

They can describe my clothes, in a very generic manner (not all are eagled-eye like Jane Tanner who can tell minute details at a similar distance).

Eventually they can say that I'm in my early late thirties or early forties.

Besides this, little else.

One thing is certain, they will be able to tell a lot more if I continue down the road.

And, I remind you, I am not at this point because I had to be.

I am at this point because I decided to be.

We know that stupidity is limitless but no one is this impossibly stupid.

Or at least this impossibly stupid and then end up being incredibly smart to have committed "the crime of the XXI Century" and have gotten away with it to this day.

By the way, this is the location where in the Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting its single crossing happens:


They had to make it happen before the stairs.





Photo 13
Photo 13 - 12 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, escape route by unnamed street and escape route by stairs and am 12 m (13 yds or 0.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1.

From here on I know I'm going to make contact with the Smiths.  

Multiple contacts with multiple witnesses. I have chosen for that to happen.

I had 4 opportunities to avoid contact. I used none.

5 opportunities if you count, as you should, the most obvious and logical one: turning back the moment I saw the Smiths down the road.

No panic accounts for this. I had the distance of a whole football pitch to avoid the contact.




Photo 14
Photo 14 - 3 metres

I’ve left behind escape route by the alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, escape route by unnamed street and escape route by stairs and am 3 m (3 yds or 0.1 tennis courts) from Smith 1.

The Smith Sighting is about to begin.

By the way, this is exactly the location where Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting ends:



According to the McCanns all happened between Photo 9 and here. We wonder why, after all information in images don't get lost in translations, do they?








Photo 15
Photo 15

I have now passed Smith 1 by 10 m (11 yds or 0.4 tennis courts), heading towards Smith 2 and Smith 3.





Photo 16
Photo 16

I have now passed Smith 1 by 18 m (20 yds or 0.8 tennis courts), am at Smith 2, heading towards Smith 3.

Here I do the most amazing thing for someone with a dead body avoiding contact: I stop!!

Sky News, April 07 2008:

Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”

I stopped long enough and with near enough proximity to be asked by a total stranger if the dead body of the child I'm holding was asleep. Isn't that just absurdly surreal?



  

Photo 17
Photo 17

I have now passed Smith 1 by 26 m (28 yds or 1.1 tennis courts) and Smith 2 and am heading for Smith 3.

Google Maps street view doesn't go down Travessa das Escadinhas, so we have to stop our walk here.



Feeling tired? Please don't be.

It seems that I have given you a lot of detail but all given, with the exception of the Mockumentary pictures, is what we think went on the mind of the man seen in the Smith Sighting IF he was carrying the dead body of a child and DIDN'T want to be seen.

It would be unrealistic on our part to think the man thought about each detail with the precision we have presented.

But all of the details referred to would have been present in his mind.

As we said, this man has just committed a very serious crime and is supposedly trying to get away from it without being detected by committing another serious crime

All his senses are heightened. His space perception also. His mind working faster than full speed.

At each moment he's looking for escape routes in case he encounters someone unexpectedly. Obviously not only in Rua da Escola Primária but throughout the whole route to "wherever".

Before, during and after Rua da Escola Primária contact must be avoided at all costs.

All costs. All possibilities.

As you saw, this man walked into a very compromising situation for himself when he had all the time and opportunity(ies) to avoid it.

That can mean only one thing: he walked voluntarily to make contact with the Smiths.

But is it only his attitude coming towards the Smiths that tells us that this contact was absolutely intentional?

No. His actions while in contact are equally revealing of that intention.

One fact is that the Smith Sighting ended with the man going down the stairs, at Travessa das Escadinhas, towards Kelly's.
 

Taking into account that you are already on the left side of the street, which path would you choose, the blue or the red?

He chose the red. Why? Why zig-zag to go towards the stairs?  Wouldn't it be more natural and instinctive to "hide" the dead body by having it nearest to the wall as possible?

Why flaunt it?

Only one reason, he wants the Smiths to really grasp they have seen a man with a little blonde child in his arms

He crosses the road seeking proximity with Martin Smith and his wife. Note that Smith notices the man turns his head away from him. 

Why? To show he's holding a "sleeping" child but avoid revealing details about himself.
 

The two paths, blue and red, seen from different angles. Again, which would be the natural choice?

He chose red. Why?
 

Now imagine you are where the man on the picture above is. That's where Smith 2 contact happened.

You have already crossed with Smith's son and wife (Smith 2) and have stopped where Martin Smith is with his wife (Smith 2).

There's 2 options before you. You either go via red route and make the third contact with 3 teenagers or go via blue route where there's absolutely no one?

Like we showed you here, the man chose red. To make the third contact (Smith 3). Why?

The fact that the Smith Sighting was no accident and was intentional is not debatable. It's fact.

The only thing we hear contradicting this is those saying "It can't be so because he simply wouldn't risk being recognised after".

Let us just repeat what we said when proving a point about TS's first sighting of Pimpleman: "Try an experiment. Get an adult friend to look at a person you point to in the street. Make sure you have as much detail as you can yourself first. Give them some time to absorb detail, but don't tell them you are going to ask them to describe the person they are asked to look at. Then ask your friend to describe what s/he saw. I'd be surprised if they could remember half as much as TS."

The Smiths don't know they are going to be asked to recollect this incident, nor are even aware that it is an incident, so they're paying attention to the man as they should.

Martin Smith's son's attention is turned to his wife's welfare, Martin and his wife have their attention turned to their grandchildren and AS has her attention turned to the 2 other teenagers she's playing with.

They likely paid the man only a fleeting attention. They do grasp the big picture, a man with a blonde girl in his arms, but the details escape them.

This is confirmed by the fact that when the Smiths talk to the PJ none refer the possibility of the man being Gerry McCann

The McCanns' faces only became known in the evening of the 4th. If the Smiths had come forward during that day (the story was already in the news), they wouldn't be able to tell the McCanns apart from anyone else.

And their faces only became notoriously known in the subsequent days. Plenty of time for Smith to have come forward.

Note that when the Smiths speak to the PJ both Gerry and Kate are worldwide celebrities. The only face more known than theirs is Madeleine's. And none of them refer Gerry as the 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics.

The reference to Gerry only comes months later when he's seen coming down from the plane, holding his son.

If this hadn't jolted Martin Smith's memory the way it did to this day he would be the "perfect witness" as he would be both desired by the Black Hats as the mythical proof of abduction and by "White Hats" and White Hats alike as it would be the mythical proof of Maddie's body being disposed.

All the necessary ingredients for a never-ending discussion towards the blurry horizon of mythology.

It was that fascinating thing called subconscious that betrayed the whole subplot. That and Mr Smith's mouth. No one blames him for remembering but many do for having spoken.

And as we've seen the man was NOT very much worried about being recognised as he just walked literally right into the Smiths and even stopped so that he could be clearly seen.

Risking recognition does not deny that the Smith Sighting was intentional. It's no reason to outweigh all the surmounting evidence that it was.

It's a not debatable fact that it was.

Note that we haven't said, in this post, that it was Gerry or not, or if the child was dead or alive. All that is debatable. What isn't is that it was intentional.

I did portray a man carrying a dead body because it was the only scenario that the encounter could have been a surprise.  In case of the girl being alive, then there's no surprise whatsoever. It would be either someone trying to pass off the girl as Maddie, so wanting to make contact, or a PdL father simply walking home, so with no need to avoid it.

Besides saying that it was intentional, anything else said, by us or anyone else, about this incident is debatable.

Starting with as to the why it was intentional. That is debatable.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it. We say it was because it had the clear objective of having a 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics and with a blond girl in his arms seen there and there.

If it was Maddie related or not. That is debatable.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that the fact the girl was blonde, same age as Maddie and was in pyjamas and barefooted while the man carrying her had a coat on a chilly night makes it Maddie related.

If the girl was alive or not, is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that by the vertical way she was carried and by the fact she was barefooted we think that the girl was alive and sedated.

To help prove our point:


(at Jill Havern and unterdenteppichgekehrt)

And in this post we have said that the intentionality of the sighting could only be because the man was not holding a dead body in his arms.

If the man's destination would have been the beach or not, is open for debate.


We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that it wasn't, as the access, via Rua Escola Primária and beach, to the sewer near the church, besides being an absurd route, is much too difficult for a foreigner to the town to know or to use (and certainly was one of the first places to have been searched) and to bury the body in the sand is simply ridiculous.

Out ot the 3 illogical but possible routes we know the man didn't use 2 (Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and Rua 25 de Abril). One cannot understand why he would use the third one, via Rua da Calheta, as it goes unnecessarily by Kelly's and Dolphins. 

If the man acted alone or had external help (a destination such as the church or an apartment), is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that to have external help of some sort with the exception of the one that mattered the most, a car to transport the body, doesn't make any sense.

To clarify our position we openly defend that the McCanns had external help that night but the distance to which Maddie's body was transported did not require a vehicle.

If the sighting took place at 22:00 or not, is open for debate.

We haven't given our opinion on this yet but will say that as there's proof that the Smiths were exiting Restaurant Dolphins at 21:27 (exiting doesn't mean out the door as the payment could have been made while sitting still at the table) and that they supposedly headed for Kelly's afterwards for a quick drink as Martin's son had to fly the next day, we think it the incident happened between 21:45/21:50 - 22:00/22:15.

If the man was Gerry or not, is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that it was him as he's the only T9 male with no particular outstanding characteristics.

We would like, at this point, to point out to all those gleefully saying that "2-Face" is Gerry to please be aware of the implications of saying that.

If we were you, we would dampen our enthusiasm for the sake of coherence

There's currently a debate about 2 OC employees not being sure whether Gerry was at Tapas at 22:00, the possible timing of the Smith Sighting.

This was said publicly by Mr. Amaral on CMTV

As we said, we will not comment on anything Mr Amaral has said lately, in exact the same way we kept silent about Tony Bennett's trial until the final decision.

But what all those people defending that "2-Face" is Gerry have to check is if their "storyline" allows for a prolonged absence on the part of Mr McCann from the Tapas dinner.

If any OC employee noticed it.

We will remind you that it was quite an activity filled dinner.

Do take into account that this prolonged absence has to allow him leave the table, go to apartment 5A, pick up the body, walk out via back door (why not use the front door?), be interrupted by Jez Wilkins, engage in small talk, wait for Jez to disappear out of sight, walk up Rua Dr. Franscisco Gentil Martins, turn left on Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, head towards the Smith Sighting, be seen, then from there head to "wherever", dispose or hide the body (if hidden remember to include time needed to ensure it was adequately accomodated and left) and then go back to Tapas.

We haven't included the expected change of clothes to avoid being seen wearing the same while carrying the corpse and when the GNR arrived. If he changed clothes, as he should, that would mean extra minutes at the beginning and make obligatory the return to the apartment before returning to Tapas at the end.

It does explain the mystery of the disappearance of the beige trousers on the McCann bed.

So to say that it was Gerry that Mr Smith saw, one has first to look attentively as to what the OC employees have said they saw that night.

And, if by chance, one is to discover that between what they have said and what is required for Gerry McCann to be at Rua da Escola Primária, one will have to say they're lying.

And if one discovers that ONE OC employee has lied, then one must question why. And if ONE has lied, how many others have too and why?

Where does one then draw the "honesty" line?

We, as you know, think that almost all, if not all OC staff who were in contact with the swinger group were quickly ordered to sing according to the same hymn music sheet that protected these guests and their "activity" above all else.

That's where we draw our "honesty" line and we like to be coherent.

Lastly, if the sighting really happened or not, is open for debate.

The fact that the Smith Sighting was intentional renders this particular debate irrelevant.

What?!? Say you...

Yes, that's right. All that matters is that it was concocted.

If you happen to believe, like we do, that the Smith Sighting happened as genuinely described by the Smiths, then the whole event was concocted up in apartment 5A by whoever and played out by a man, who we think is Gerry McCann.

This makes the Smiths unintentional and genuine witnesses.

There are some who defend that Mr Smith has come up with this convenient story to protect Robert Murat.  That he took too long to come forward (oddly, it's many of the same people who find it perfectly natural and acceptable for Mrs Fenn to have come forward only in late August).

We believe in the Smiths because their diverse statements are logical and coherent between themselves as they appear not to suffer from "Now-I-See-Now-You-Don't" Syndrome.

The syndrome that afflicted TS's mother, stopping her from seeing what her daughter saw although walking by her side, and Derek Flack's partner who, likewise, is unable to see what he can although like him almost bumping into Pimpleman.

But a debate is a debate and one must accept that there are those that believe the Smiths made it all up.

Then it simply means that the whole episode was concocted up by Mr Smith or by someone else for him.

This makes the Smiths Black Hats.

In both hypotheses, the episode is concocted.

In both hypotheses, it has the exact same objective: to have a 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics and with a blond girl in his arms be seen in Rua da Escola Primária around 22:00 on the night of May 3 2007.

As both have the same objective it's irrelevant whether it happened (Smith WH) or if it didn't happen (Smith BH).

What is relevant is that, whether real or fiction, it was intentional and that is a not debatable fact.

You can read our opinions about this particular episode in our Smith Sighting posts list on the blog's front page:

Friday, 22 November 2013

FSS: It's Maddie's Blood


In our last post, Perhaps... Confusing, we showed you how the FSS Final Report was so unscientifically written up that it could only have been for want to be intentionally confusing.

We also said that to understand the reason for this intentional confusion all that was needed was to know the timelines in which it was written.

So, what was happening on Sept 06 2007?

It was that time when The McCann Hunting Party 07 went from full throttle into “hesitation mode”.

And hesitation is the key word here.

Hesitating if it was or wasn't possible to have the McCanns and friends charged.

The Deciders wanted to serve the McCanns' heads on a silver platter but were being confronted with the harsh reality, hard for them assimilate, of what one wants is not necessarily what one can get.

September was when it finally dawned on the 2007 Deciders that without a body there was no way they could isolate the death to the T9.

No Maddie's body means it was disposed of and for that the T9 had to have external help.

The Deciders had, in our opinion, on their hands the forensic proof that Maddie had died in the apartment but couldn't use it as it would turn back on them.

But not using it then and there meant that it couldn't be ever used afterwards.

There's no timeframe to have a sample match biological evidence collected from a crime scene which the collection of that evidence does have.

For example, a sample collected today can match (or be made to match) any of those collected from the 15 stains but there's no reason to justify finding, today, new biological evidence from apartment 5A.

Biological evidence doesn't just appear by surprise

What a dilemma. To use or not to use the evidence. Either use it then or never use it.

The solution? To not use it then but allow it to be used later.

Lowe was, in our opinion, instructed to produce a document that would leave all avenues open for use.

That's why the Interim Document is purposely a very confusing document, true to its intended “perhaps” spirit.

The decision to stop going for the McCanns' jugular had an immediate and direct consequence and that was it made the Deciders, in the following months, to work and grind to see if they could get the McCanns charged while at the same time working and grinding really hard to untangle the mess created by The McCann Hunting Party 07.

What had been a mere dislike for the couple and their friends grew into hatred.

So when it came, in June 2008, the time to write up the final forensic report, it was decided to maintain fully the "perhaps" spirit.

An “either-way” document, serving 2 purposes.

The first, was to allow the McCanns to get off the hook without really ever getting off it. They had their arguido status lifted due to the archiving but were never cleared.

The second, is that it could, can and will be used in a later date when the opportunity arises. For some reason The McCann Hunting Party 11 was launched. That opportunity will arise.

The FSS interim and final reports were meant to let the fish off the hook but keep him in the pond.

That’s why the content of the 2008 Final Report is basically what was written back in 2007 with the exception of two small but relevant alterations, which we will mention later in the post.

But the fact that these two reports have ended up being “either-way”, due to their intentional “perhaps” nature, means that if one is to look for clues damning to the McCanns, one is able to find them.

And you don’t have to go any further than to see what Lowe has to say, in the FSS Final Report, about stain 3:

286A/2007-CRL 3A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

An incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from the cellular material present in the dry swab (3A). The attempt to obtain a result from any cellular material that may have been in the same area and present in the wet swab (3B) was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN tests.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.

A low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3B). In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.

Excuse me?!?


So, according to Lowe, it could be from Maddie (if single source) or it could be linked to Kate and Gerry (if more than one person) BUT it’s in no way linked to the McCann family?!?

Where is the logic in that?

Note that no other hypothesis is raised as to the origin of the stain 3’s DNA.

We're told shamelessly and without any logic that although it could be Maddie’s or be a mixture of Kate and Gerry’s, it just isn’t from any of the McCanns!

Wouldn’t this be the logical interpretation?


Yes, it is.

But Lowe does use “could”, which is NOT totally affirmative.

As we said, there are, in terms of stains 1 to 15 in the living room of apartment 5A, only two subtle differences between the 2007 Interim Report and the 2008 Final Report.

One is that stain 9 is no longer from an unknown male but from CG, a 2 yr old boy. As we showed here, it's physically impossible for CG to have left his DNA where FSS says he did.

This difference, as we explained, was to “exempt” the presence of semen from an existing stain on the bedcover of the bed nearest to the window.

By saying that both are from CG, the presence of semen becomes impossible.

Note that it exempts others, more precisely the "sperm donor", but maintains pressure on the McCanns.

The second difference is what is written about stain 3.

This is what the Interim Report says about stain 3: An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

So what in the Interim Report is a IS “all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann” has then become, in the Final Report, a very convenient COULD

A strange “COULD”. One that said the DNA belonged to “one” or to “another” but, astonishingly, according to FSS belonged to “neither”.

It's usual in any reporting for an interim “could” to become a final “is” but whenever an interim “is” becomes a final “could”, besides being extremely rare, is always accompanied by the respective explanation as to why what was certain has ceased to be.

No such explanation is given by John Lowe.

Taking into account that on tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye stains it's much more likely to have a single source than a soup-effect, it has to be concluded that the DNA of stain 3 belongs to Maddie.

It’s not us saying so, it’s John Lowe. It's the FSS saying so.

And there’s no perhaps about it.

And it's not only us who reads John Lowe's words the way we do. PJ reads them the same way.

In PJ Files’ “joining term” (pages 2615 2616), Inspector João Carlos writes that “This serves to join [to the case file] a laboratory examination report prepared in England, written in English and translated into Portuguese, delivered to this police force on 4 September 2007 by English police officer Stuart Prior.”


Inspector João Carlos in that same document is very clear: “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.”


The “laboratory examination report” referred to is John Lowe’s mail, on Sept 3 2007 (received by "Task Portugal" on Sept 4 2007), to Stuart Prior: “An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.”

Now compare this with what the Interim Report says about stain 3. We will help you. What in the mail is “swab 3a” in the interim report is “swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a)”. The rest is a copy word for word, including the misspelled “Madeline”.

Do note that John Lowe NEVER says that swab 3A is not related with the McCanns. He only says that about swab 3B. Subtle, isn't it? About 3A, like with stain 1, he doesn't provide an opinion.

The DNA of stain 3 belongs to Maddie. John Lowe says so twice. The PJ once.

To try to ignore this FACT is to be an idiot. And the choice of word is not ours. It’s Stuart Prior’s, as Mr Amaral describes in his book:

“On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine's DNA profile.

As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed.

Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue: either this LCN technique is not reliable or it's simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine's DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance.

At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: "With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England."

Now do link all of the above with the fact that the only realistic scenario is for stains 1 to 15 in the living room of apartment 5A to have a single source origin.

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

CMTV - 19 Nov 2013


(trancript at Joana Morais and here)

The video shown is a news piece within CMTV’s “Notícias das 8” (8 O’Clock News) that aired on 19 Nov 2013.

It uses footage from various programs aired by CMTV on the subject including the “Especial Maddie” aired on 16 Nov 2013 and repeated on 17 Nov 2013.

Immediately after airing of this news piece, the anchorman, José Carlos Castro, read the following communiqué, which we consider very relevant:

“E passo agora a ler uma nota da Direção:

A Direção do Correio da Manhã reitera o compromisso público junto dos leitores e dos espectadores que vai continuar a investigar o desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann recorrendo a todos os meios legítimos e necessários.

A equipa CMTV/Correio da Manhã não descansará enquanto não for descoberta toda a verdade sobre o desaparecimento da menina de 4 anos da Praia da Luz no dia 3 de Maio de 2007.”

Which translates to:

“And I will now read a note from the Direction:

The Correio da Manhã Direction reiterates the public commitment to its readers and viewers that it’s going to continue to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann using all legitimate and necessary means.

The CMTV / Correio da Manhã team will not rest until the truth about the disappearance of the 4 year old girl from Praia da Luz on May 3 2007 is discovered.”


Friday, 15 November 2013

Perhaps... Confusing


In the apparently absolute insanity that the Maddie Affair has become, we stubbornly make the effort to keep our sanity intact and not allow ourselves to be distracted from our objectiveness.

Up to now, we've had little surprises. If we were to elect what has surprised us the most lately, we would choose how some thought that a 6,5 yr marathon would end with a short sprint.

Those people should be aware that besides their legs and lungs, long distance runners only have one tactic available to them to break the will of their opponents: alter the rhythm of the race by increasing the pace.

By doing that they force others to react unexpectedly and so waste precious energy both in compensating as in after trying to return to former effort.

Many have dropped out of long-distance competitions because of these “tactical short sprints”.

The harsh reality is that western civilization,  with particular acuteness in Britain, has gone back to medieval time.

The media, with their power to determine who is who and what is what, has taken over what then was nobility's role.

The legal system, with the fear generated by their arbitrary and selective disciplinary actions, has assumed the role of the medieval church.

The police has been resumed to their role of Sheriff of Nottingham: serve without questions or reservations the interests of those who keep them obedient.

George Orwell smiles sadly while Winston Churchill bows his head in shame.

In our DNA is... DNA post we said we were going to deconstruct all the information in the FSS Final Report about the stains found in the corner of apartment 5A that UK Crimewatch "forgot" to highlight  (Discrepancy 05 - The Living-Room Corner). 

We said were going to deconstruct it in 3 major areas "DNA Results", "Apparently Originating From" and "FSS Opinion".

The early September post, DNA is DNA, was about the first area, "DNA Results".

The second area, "Apparently Originating From" was too complex for a single post so we deconstructed into two posts: Remarkable Marksmanship and DNA - The Bar Code

Today, is about the third: "FSS Opinion":

Stains from the FLOOR:


#1No opinion. 
#2“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” 
#3“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”

Stains from the EAST wall:


#4 “In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” 
#5“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result. In my opinion, Fernando Viegas could have contributed DNA to this result” 
#6“…contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison” 
#13“…no profile was obtained”

Stains from the NORTH wall:


#7 “In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” 
#8“…contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison. 
#9“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result. Also, this result did not match in any way the profile obtained from swabs 286A/2007 CRL 1A & B” 
#10“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” 
#11“…no profile was obtained” 
#12 “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”

Stains from the COUCH:


#14“In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results” 
#15 “In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results”

This report apparently couldn’t have come to a more definitive conclusion: according to FSS there’s no relationship between the DNA found in the 15 stains in the corner of the living room of apartment 5A and any member of the McCann family.

The FSS opinion states that a very clear majority, 67%, of all stains (10 out of 15) found in that particular corner had nothing to do with the McCanns.

If we only take into account the 10 stains in which DNA was found, then that majority rises to a staggeringly and absolutely clear 90%. 

So, FSS conclusions couldn’t be more conclusive. NOT

For example, we have stain 14 that although its "results are not adequate for comparison purposes" the FSS is quite clear in concluding that it's completely unrelated to the McCanns:

"286A/2007-CRL 14A & B Swabs collected from the rear of the sofa
 

Weak and incomplete DNA results consisting only of some unconfirmed DNA components were obtained from the cellular material present in these wet and dry swabs. In my opinion the results are not adequate for comparison purposes. These samples were submitted for LCN analysis.
 

A mixed, low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in each of the swabs. In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results." 

We arent't told if stain 14 is from a male or a female or told if stain 14 is single-DNA or multiple DNA but one thing we are told: stain 14, although not adequate for comparison purposes, is not from the McCanns.

Based on what?

It could be on the FFS Interim Report of Sept 06 2007: "Incomplete DNA results, which in certain circumstances showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person were obtained from biological material on the following swabs: 286A/2007 CRL 14a, 14b..."

So it seems that DNA from stain 14 has degraded with time.

What in Sept 2007 was "from more than one person" became in June 2008 "not adequate for comparison purposes".

After SY's brilliant justification as to why Bundleman is Crèche Dad (UK Crimewatch Discrepancy 11 - The Direction), we've learned not to pressure logic too much when it comes to all official conclusions pertaining to Maddie.

But albeit that, one has to ask why is there a conclusion about stain 14?

And why is there NO conclusion about stain 1?

"286A/2007-CRL 1A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

An incomplete DNA result, apparently originating from a male individual but not matching any other profile obtained in this case, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs."


As can be seen, in it, DNA has been found with enough quality to state categorically that it’s “from a male individual but not matching any other profile obtained in this case”

If it’s possible to determine that no other in the case matches its profile it can only be because it was “strong” enough for such a conclusive comparison.

Lowe confirms that by saying that DNA profile in stain 1 was among the 4 he considered “strongest” (the others being 4, 9 and 16) to be compared with the “286 voluntary database”:

“For informative purposes only, a database from voluntary samples was constructed with the purpose of monitoring information. In accordance with the available records, the database is made up 286 voluntary samples, four of which were rejected. The voluntary DNA profiles were compared with the following samples:
286A/2007/CRL1A & B
286A/2007/CRL4A & B
286A/2007/CRL9A & B
286A/72007/CRL16A & B”

So why no opinion?

Mind you, Lowe doesn’t say he doesn’t have an opinion he just doesn’t write up one.

Stain 1 is the only one of the 10 stains in which "comparable" DNA was found that doesn’t merit a “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”.

One more or one less wouldn’t make much of a difference, now would it?

This absence seems to indicate sloppiness more than intention.

This apparent sloppiness extends to abuse in the use of “perhaps” language.

This is used by all of us in two circumstances. When we aren’t certain, legitimately or not, and when we don’t want to commit ourselves to a statement or statements.

We defend ourselves by populating the paragraphs of what we write with subjective terminology and the most diverse synonyms of “perhaps”.

The most commonly used are all expressions related to “opinion”. One thing is to say “It’s our opinion that…” and another, completely different in terms of assertion and certainty, is to say “We conclude that…”.

If you haven’t noticed, our posts are filled with the expression “in our opinion”. This is an intentional introduction on our part, for obvious reasons, of a subjectivity in our statements.

It’s not an innocent use of the expression. It’s intentional and we would like you to note that. In the exact same way and manner in which we want you to note how Lowe has also used it.

The job expected from Lowe was, through his scientific expertise, analysis and experience, to take out all possible subjectivity out of said circumstances that forensic science would allow him to do and certainly not to add subjectivity by selective word usage.

In a nutshell, it was expected of him to be as scientifically objective as possible.

An “opinion” is subjective and can always be corrected later, “indications” aren’t certainties, to “justify” is not to substantiate and a “theory” can be accepted or not and/or be controversial or not.

So to use “my opinion”, “indications”, “justify” and “theory” in the same sentence, meant to be precise and conclusive, isn’t exactly, in our opinion, appropriate use of words in a scientific report by someone bearing the titles of BSc, CBiol, MBiol and RFP.

Especially taking into account that said scientific report refers to the “Crime of the XXI Century”.

About those titles, we believe that Member Biologist (MBio) is the lower membership grade of Institute of Biologists, Chartered Biologist (CBio) is higher membership grade and Fellow of the Society of Biology (FSB) is the highest.

We will not question Lowe’s use of two titles referring to the same type of qualification but we will, and do, question: wouldn't someone at fellowship level membership be required to do this job on such a high profile, controversial case?

We do think a better qualified person should have been used. A professor. But maybe not, for obvious reasons.

We also noted the use of “theory” in the supposedly conclusive sentence. We honestly don’t understand what it refers to.

Was PJ investigating a theory? Please don’t confuse theory with hypothesis.

All hypothesis should have been investigated. A conclusion, or theory, occurs when one or more hypothesis are confirmed or validated and all others are discarded.

This is what we would expect from the FSS Final Report:


For each hypothesis, an explanation. Nothing of the sort in FSS Final Report.

So when Lowe says In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify the theory" it's like one being diagnosed with the possibility of having cancer and after undergoing all possible tests one is told by the doctor: “Well, maybe, it may be that you might perhaps not have cancer.”

Really reassuring.

No, we’re not downplaying cancer or minimally being humorous about it. We are comparing the seriousness and severity of both situations.

This is a scientific report, signed by a scientist, in reference to a possible death under suspicious circumstances of a little girl. It just can't get more serious than that. 

A high profile case at its peak of notoriety.

The minimum expected from a Final Forensic Report to such a case would be to constitute a volume by itself. Filled with annexes, appendices and addendums, each filled with pictures, lab results, comparisons and other scientific gibberish, unintelligible to the common mortal but easily understood by the scientific community.

Instead we got pages filled with a lot of  “perhaps”.

It begs the question… why “perhaps”? Why not go full out and simply state “the DNA tests confirmed that all DNA samples don’t match with that of any of those from Madeleine Beth McCann or with those from any of the other member of the McCann family.”

If “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” wasn’t substantiated beyond these words, a statement adamantly denying any contribution from the McCanns to the swabbed DNA wouldn’t need any different type of substantiation.

It would be sufficient just to say it, so why wasn’t it said?

Why the “perhaps” style? Why this “either-way” report?

The explanation is simple once you understand the timings.

This report was signed in June 2008. But it was preceded by an interim one of Sept 06 2007.

The Interim Report is a document written, in our opinion, to intentionally confuse.

If one was to number its paragraphs we would see it has 30 paragraphs. This is how the various biological samples are referred to in the Interim Report:

01 - Introduction and objective

02 - McCanns’ samples: DNA profiles CB/1, CB/2, SBM/2, SBM/3 and SJM/1

03 - Stain 3

04 - Stain 14

05 - Stain 15

06 - Stain 15

07 - Living room tiles: CRL (2) and CRL (3)

08 - Living room curtains: CRL (16(2))

09 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(2))

10 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(2))

11 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(1))

12 - Renault Scenic: CRL (12))

13 - Various: Stain 14 and Stain 15, CRL 16 - living room curtains and CRL 2 and CRL 3 – Renault Scenic

14 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10)

15 - Stain 1

16 - Stain 4

17 - Stain 1 and Stain 9

18 - Stain 2, Stain 5, Stain 7, Stain 10 and Stain 12

19 - Various: Stain 11 and Stain 13 and CRL 3 - living room tiles

20 - Stain 6 and Stain 8

21 - Living room tiles: CRL 1, CRL 6, CRL 7, CRL 8, CRL 10 and CRL 11

22 - Living room tiles: CR/L 5

23 - Living room tiles: CR/L 9

24 - Living room tiles: CR/L 4 and CR/L 12

25 - Stain 3

26 - Stain 3

27 - Renault Scenic: CRL10 (2)

28 - Various: CR/L 16 – living room curtains, CR/L 1 – living room white curtains and CR/L 21 – bushes

29 - Living room tiles: CR/L 13, CR/L 14, CR/L 15, CR/L 16, CR/L 17, CR/L 18, CR/L 19 and CR/L 20

30 - Closing remark

Really confusing isn't it?

Information scattered all over the document with absolute no logic or sequence. Or should we say intentionally non-sequential?

So confusing that even Lowe got it wrong when it came to transposing the information to the final report as shown by the lack of coeherence on what is said in both about stains 1 and 14.

Introduce the “perhaps” factor and you have 6 pages of an intentionally really confusing document.

As was intended to be.

Remember how we showed, in our DNA - The Bar Code post, how specious Lowe was when using the expressions “apparently originating from at least two people”, “two persons” and “more than person”.

Confusion piled on top of confusion.

Add to all of the above that fundamental ingredient that most civilised nations have abandoned but which Britain, going against the grain, insists on using on any misinformation/disinformation campaign: xenophobia.

Look at what Lowe has to say about stains 5 and 17 (stain 17 is outside the scope of our current analysis at the moment but we're bringing it in to prove a point):

286A/2007-CRL 5A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment
A mixed DNA result, apparently originating from at least two persons, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result. In my opinion, Fernando Viegas could have contributed DNA to this result.”


286/2007-CRL (17) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 2
A DNA profile that appeared to be from at least two sources was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered in that area. In my opinion, the major part of the profile matched that of Lino Henriques. Departing from the principle, for it to have had a DNA contribution from Lino Henriques then the remaining information in the smaller part of the result is too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.”
 

So 2 forensic experts, collecting evidence from the scene of the worldwide most spoken of crime at the moment of collection, go and taint with their DNA said evidence and try to hush the fact by not reporting anything about it.

As everyone knows, one's DNA just jumps uncontrollably out of one's body, so maybe they weren't paying much attention and didn't see their little bits of DNA crawling out and creeping stealthily into those stains.

As they were Portuguese this not only is absolutely natural as is expected.

We bet they were doing the collection dressed in jeans or shorts and smelly and sweaty undershirts, dangling toothpicks in the corner of the mouth, belching and sneezing all over after each one having had, at least, a bottle of whisky for breakfast.

They should be blamed for contamination! One must be grateful that they only contaminated a stain each!! Those bungling Portuguese sardine-munching coppers!

But not all is lost.

John Lowe's conclusions solves the mystery for us all: it must have been Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, 2 forensic experts, who must of had a fight behind the sofa over a woman who happened to be hit when she stepped between them.

The woman, as her DNA appears in stain 4, must have been an unnamed Portuguese forensic expert also! Please don't ask us to describe her attire...

So there you have, two males and one female to explain all.

Add CG, a 2 yr old boy, into the brawl and you have all you need to explain those 15 blood stains in the corner of the living room of apartment 5A.

3 people positively identified: 2 Portuguese forensic experts, Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, and 1 little boy, months younger than the McCann twins at the time, CG.

But wait a minute... what was the Brit, Jonathan Smith who was supposed to technically oversee the collection, doing during this fight or "stain-contamination-process-without-reporting"?

You know, ...it was also requested that the signatories were to contact a scientific advisor of English nationality, named Jonathan Smith, so that he would indicate the manner in which to proceed with the collection of the referred stains.

Oh,  that's easily explainable. Jonathan Smith wasn't present because, it seems, Tapas had this peculiar policy and that was to offer free wine to any Brit (you had to be Brit to get this offer) who walked within a "good parenting distance" of Tapas.

As soon as he set foot in that apartment he just had to drink up as he had no choice but to take up the offer. So he wasn't there when the 2 Portuguese forensic experts were fighting.

But, say you, do wait another minute... if they were there to collect forensic evidence, wasn't that evidence already there before they started to fight over the woman?

Is there any other reason for them to be fighting it out behind the couch in apartment 5A?

Oh shoot... you are a real spoilsport aren't you?

You're right, that can't be explained, so please ignore our completely realistic hypothesis.

On a more serious note, we really think that someone should ask these 2 forensic professionals, Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, about how did their DNA get into those stains.

We would be very, very interested in hearing their opinion

Both documents, the Interim and Final Report, are, as shown, objectively confusing. Scientifically written to be unscientific.

As we said, they were written that way because of their timings.

What was happening on Sept 2007? And what was the implication for Jun 2008?

The answer in the next post.