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.


  1. bonjour Textusa et tous ceux, qui comme moi, lisent et apprécient votre blog pour votre grande intelligence.
    tout devient si simple, grâce à vous !
    il nous reste à savoir qui a protègé les mac cann et leurs "amis", pourquoi, et comment Maddie a trouvé la mort, et par les mains de qui ???
    merci, Textusa pour tout votre travail, j'ai déjà eu l'occasion de vous le dire, vous êtes un fin limier !!! et une bonne personne.

    1. Anonymous 22 Nov 2013 10:39:00

      Ceci d'étant une bonne personne, Fred (et d'autres) n'est pas très d'accord!!!

      Merci beaucoup.

  2. Thank you, Sisters.
    Now it's easy to see why the DNA discussion all this time was only about what was found in the Scenic. Amaral in his book gives more importance to the DNA found in the apartment than what was found in the car.
    Só não vê quem não quer.


    Maddie’s blood ‘found in flat’

    Monday 6 Aug 2007 3:17 pm

    "Traces of Madeleine McCann’s blood have been discovered in the flat where she was last seen, according to Portuguese police sources today.

    It’s been reported that attempts were made to wipe away any signs of the blood.

    There’s now a growing belief among the police in Portugal that the four-year-old girl may not be found alive.

    The newspaper Jornal De Noticias reported: ‘This evidence locates Madeleine’s death inside the apartment, but the investigators are still not certain it was murder, despite the fact that somebody did try to erase the blood traces.

    ‘The theory most favoured by detectives to explain Maddy’s death – now taken as almost certain – is that it involved an accident.

    ‘The investigators are convinced that the blood belongs to Madeleine, but they are still holding back the detailed results of the tests until their suspicions are confirmed.’

    Forensic experts carried out extensive tests today using ultra-violet lights to scan the flat, which is in the resort of Praia de Luz.

    Last week, British sniffer dogs that are trained to detect tiny blood traces, were brought in to assist with the search. They can distinguish whether blood comes from a living or dead person.

    The forensic discovery comes three months after Madeleine disappeared, as her parents Gerry and Kate McCann had dinner nearby."


    6 Sep 2007 00:00
    Parents demand DNA test results

    By Keith McLeod

    By Keith McLeod

    6 Sep 2007 00:00

    Parents demand DNA test results

    MADELEINE McCann's angry parents last night blasted Portuguese police for failing to tell them if they have found their daughter's blood.

    The results of DNA tests on bloodstains from the holiday flat where the four-year-old vanished have been sent to Portugal by a UK lab. Sources said the results could spark a "significant breakthrough" in the case.

    But Kate and Gerry McCann were still in the dark last night. The Portuguese cops have not even confirmed to them that they have received the DNA findings.

    A friend of Glasgow-born Gerry said last night: "He was upset that detectives did not bother to let them know about the results.

    "The police have Gerry's mobile number and can call him at any time, but he found out from the media.

    "That's bound to be frustrating. Gerry and Kate used to have a good working relationship with the police. Not anymore."

    Forensic samples from the flat in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz were sent to the UK for analysis a month ago. They included two suspected bloodstains discovered by British police sniffer dogs.

    Insiders say experts have now obtained at least one DNA profile from the samples.

    As a result, arrests in the case are expected soon. One source said: "What happens now is up to the Portuguese. But people should be keeping a very close eye on events over there in the next few days."

    Portuguese police spokesman Olegario Sousa refused to confirm that the results had arrived. He said all lines of inquiry were open but added that police were paying "special attention" to the theory that Madeleine, who went missing on May 3, is dead.

  5. Today we celebrate the biggest State-Hoax of all time: the JFK assassination was 50 yrs ago.

    In our Jan 31 2011 post "When Nations Lie to Their Citizens", we were clear about what we thought Nations were willing to go to shamelessly, openly and blatantly hide something that was/is in their interest to hide: "This post is NOT about the assassination itself, but to illustrate that when the “Establishment” decides that its citizens are not worthy of handling the truth, it will stop at nothing to hide the truth from them."

    On Feb 11 2011, we also made a parallel between JFK's assassination and Maddie's disappearance in our "10 Common Facts Between Two Global Lies" post.

    In Portugal, on Dec 4 1980, the Portuguese's PM, Sá Carneiro, was assassinated. The Official version, although not yet final (?), is that it was an accident.

    Very recently, 33 years after it happened, Portuguese forensics have now discovered that a suicide by gunshot to the head was in fact a death by lethal injection of gas into the lungs. Very similar, it seems, ways to die so, it seems, easily mistaken forensically.

    JFK's Official version to this day is still the absurd "single-bullet theory".

    Both JFK and Sá Carneiro were the "CEOs" of their respective countries. It's natural that there were "higher interests" involved "best left unknown".

    Unless Maddie McCann was, unknown to us all, the head of a Children's State out of a children's book we cannot see, direcly related to her, any "higher interests" involved that are "best left unknown".

    The only reason for there to be present "higher interests" involved in this case that are "best left unknown" can only be NOT directly related to the child.

    One common thread to the 3 cases: forensics have been manipulated to serve the insterests of "higher interests".

    Can the common citizen trust any forensics that is put out by their repective and LEGITIMATE state agencies? Apparently not.

    In the video above, David Cameron explains what the Magna Carta, signed in 1215, was about and it's importance: the "lower" layers of society showed the "higher" ones that their rights had to be respected.

    The "higher" layer hold and exercise power but the "lower" one has to have the power to supervise that same exercise. Only then will the use of power be legitimated.

    Today the "powerful" exercise their power without any real, unbiased supervision. It befalls on the internet the responsibilty to exercise the right that the "lower" layers of society have to supervise.

    We will not abdicate that right.

    We will play the fool when needed but will never play the idiot.

  6. I am currently a course on microorganisms pevention spillages ect of infection in the two course work books it always says bodily fluids and blood never refering blood as a bodily fluid i dont know what i am really saying i do not know enough about genetics dna but all i know is that bodily fluids and blood are not the same

    1. We're still waiting for the answer to a very simple question: if not blood, what do these stains consist of?

      3rd time we're asking.

    2. Anon 13.31
      Could you please provide the ref to the 2 "course work books" where such a thing is said?

  7. Blood IS a body fluid! It's the fluid on living humans that nurishes the cells with nutrients and oxigen, enables the transportation of hormones produced in the endocrine system and by the cells of the imunitary system, while also removing toxins and waste produce.

    1. Anonymous 22 Nov 2013 15:51:00,

      We don’t know if you are, but please don’t interpret our question to Anonymous 22 Nov 2013 13:31:00 as the desire to engage with the person/team in a debate as to whether blood is a body fluid or not.

      We will gladly engage in such a debate, although it will be like debating whether the Earth is flat or not, but we will only do that when an answer to our question is provided.

      You see, the Black Hat comfort zone on this matter is simply to say the stains found on the walls, floor and couch in the corner of the apartment 5A don't consist of blood without giving any sort of alternative as to what they consist of in their opinion.

      They will just state that it’s not blood and try to take the discussion into some sort of technicality where they can comfortably present ridiculous argumentation and comfortably defend with ridiculous argumentation the ridiculous argumentation that they have introduced into the debate.

      So, with reference to the picture we used in our “DNA is… DNA post”, we will patiently wait for the monkey to say something else besides “It’s not blood because it’s not blood”

      We recommend that our readers avoid getting into needless and distracting debates.

    2. Dear god, why do you persist in writing this nonsense?

      I think the problem everyone has when addressing your posts is that they are so utterly wrong that it's almost impossible to know where to start, other than to say that you are completely clueless.

      Why would you expect anyone to be able to tell you what the stains are when as John Lowe has made abundantly clear that can never be determined from LCN-DNA?

      You can't be helped, Textusa, because putting it quite simply, you don't have the intellect or the education required to understand any of this. You would have been perfectly capable of educating yourself, all it would have taken was a little studying at some point in the last six years, but you clearly can't be bothered.

      Your conclusions are ridiculous, ill-educated and simply wrong. Your claims are irresponsible and malicious. You really are a very very stupid person

    3. Anonymous 25 Nov 2013 02:15:00,

      Lowe does say what you say he says.

      About swab 3A he says “LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid”

      But before saying this he does say in the Interim Report:

      “What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling –
      When was the DNA deposited -
      How was the DNA deposited -
      Was a crime committed –“

      So, according to you, because LCN-DNA is so determining, not only is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the origin of the fluid as it is also IMPOSSIBLE to be determined when or how the DNA was deposited nor if even a crime was comitted!!

      If through LCN-DNA is only is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the origin of the fluid then why were the Portuguese forensic experts ordered “that it should NOT be used any of the indication tests that permit the identification of what type of vestiges that the referred stains could contain"

      Wouldn’t it be important to determine the body fluid from which DNA originated from? Yes it would. So if FSS knew that LCN-DNA wouldn’t respond to that very important question why wasn’t Jonathan Smith instructed to test the type of vestiges?

      But isn’t LCN-DNA just one of many, many pieces of the puzzle that when put together answers ALL the questions to determine what happened?

      By logical deduction, from location of stains on wall, they can only be blood or cerebral fluid.

      Not saliva or any other body fluid accounts for stains over wall surfaces.

      4 people's DNA was identified by FSS. One a 2yr old boy who left a stain (of what?) 1,50 cm high, where he can’t possibly reach. One female. The other 2 are 2 out of 4 Portuguese forensic experts that collected biological evidence.

      Presumably the forensic experts officers wore gloves so no sweat contamination, so did they spit on the wall too? No, they couldn’t, as they wore face masks.

      And add the blood detector dog alerts. The dog alerts ONLY blood.

      Call the stains factor X or whatever you want. They yielded Maddie’s DNA. That is according to Lowe.

      We would like to thank our biological semantics expert Anon. Not only does this person say clearly that Lowe is ignorant (shouldn’t have he said "BLOOD/BODY FLUID(S)" instead of just "BODY FLUID(S)"?) as has given us a precious technical manual on how to clean blood.

      About being malicious, I'll have to live with my conscience and you with yours. About being stupid, sorry, too stupid too understand what you mean.

    4. Jesus christ, what is it you can't understand?

      Let me try to give you an example, something that hopefully you can get your head around.

      You will agree that water is a constituent of many things, yes?

      It makes up 60 to 70% of our body mass. All of our cells contain water, be they blood cells, soft tissue, bone - all of them. Okay?

      Water also makes up a significant proportion of the mass of a grape. Or a strawberry. Or an apple. Or a tree.

      Minerals often exist in their hydrated state, meaning that they are bound to water molecules.

      Water surrounds us every day. It's in the sea, the rivers, in the humidity in the atmosphere, in trees, in the grass.

      So - if I find a droplet of water - just water, now, without any contaminants - how can I tell what the source of that water was?

      I can't.

      Exactly the same with LCN-DNA
      All our cells, with the exception of red blood cells, have a nucleus containing DNA. Low copy number analysis of DNA takes a very very tiny sample and enhances it, copies it - until the sample is of a big enough size to sequence. But what is being analysed is the DNA from the cell nucleus, and that is the same whether the source was blood, serous fluid, lymph, spittle, tissue, skin cells. So the technique cannot identify the cellular source of the DNA, it just analyses the DNA itself. Nothing more.

      Your assertion that stains on a wall can only be blood or CSF is also totally nonsensical. The stains can be of any biological substance, or may be non-biological in origin. Hence they can be saliva, jam, oil, grease, paint, insect - the list is endless. Ever pick a child up and have them touch their sticky fingers to a wall? That's how a kiddie's DNA can get there. A large proportion of household dust consists of dead skin cells containing DNA - if dust can get there, DNA can get there.

      Anyone reading your blog should ask themselves this - who should I believe? A highly qualified forensic scientist, with impressive qualifications and many years experience, or a daft bimbo who doesn't understand even basic science?

      The fact that you felt the need to attack John Lowe says it all.

      You will never understand because you have no knowledge of, understanding of, or intent to learn even the most basic general science. You are an irresponsible, wittering fool. You always have been and you always will be.

    5. Thank you for such an extensive explanation to explain that water.. is water.

      When we ask if not blood then what do the stains consist of, we're not asking for the "origins" of the blood, or using your example, the "origins of water".

      About that, Lowe is clear: "all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann".

      The question remains: what do the stains consist of?

      6th time.

      And do get to the point or your comments will not be published. We will not engage in needless arguments

    6. Which part of ''you can't tell which bodily fluid they originate from'' are you struggling with?

      The DNA cannot tell you that. That's why John Lowe stated so in his report. From your expert knowledge, do tell what other tests you think might have done so? Because I can tell you quite categorically, you have no bloody clue.

      |Do you really have any conception at all about how this type of crime scene and forensic analysis is done? I think it's pretty clear you don't. Sometimes it is possible to use enzymatic tests to check for a specific fluid, like the acid phosphatase reaction used to identify semen samples, but sometimes it isn't. These were tiny residues, yielding virtually nothing by way of organic residues. Even an acid phosphatase reaction is not 100% specific.

      You are also utterly misleading people in two further respects.

      Firstly - John Lowe did not specifically identify Madeleine's DNA from any of the residues in the flat, despite your claims to the contrary. In the passage you quote above where all the components matched hers, you have tried to mislead people by leaving out the most important part :
      ''The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person...........''

      Very little information. What information there was corresponded with her. But it was not a complete profile, far from it - and the DNA was from more than one person.

      Secondly - Madeleine was resident in that flat for a week. Even if her entire profile was found IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE unless the context indicates a crime.

      You are a fraudster, Textusa. It is even possible that you know more than you let on, as you often know which bits to omit in order to make the passage misleading.

      One should always be suspicious of the motives of people like you who try to discredit the credentials, the expertise and the integrity of an expert witness. It's a typical McCann trick, and I am surprised your readers haven't cottoned onto that yet

    7. Insane,

      John Lowe says ''The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person...........''

      If so little information then on what is based Lowe’s statement that "all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann"?

      Are you saying that John Lowe is absolutely irresponsible in saying what he said about the most talked about and followed crime in the entire world at the time? Lowe does use the word “confirmed” which seems to be abusive in ref to your “very little information”.

      You say “what information there was corresponded with her” and that information was simply “confirmed DNA components”. Not that little.

      Lowe says that it could be from a single source OR from more than one person. Why do you contradict him by stating that “the DNA was from more than one person”? Why have you left out the part where he says it could be from a single source? Do read our Remarkable Marksmanship post.

      Yes, indeed Madeleine was resident in that flat for a week, and yes, even if her entire profile was found IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE unless the context indicates a crime. It happens that we are talking of a context indicating crime. A child is missing, a crime occurred. So, using your words, IT IS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

      And if Maddie was there for a week, why did CG full profile DNA show up on the wall and no full profile of any of McCann family or from any other member of the Gordon family, including the shaving-accident prone father?

      We loved your jam, oil, grease and paint (was the whole living room one enormous stain?) but the DNA stains from dust just takes the cake… or should we say jam?

      We are sure that when CG was picked up, with his hands filthy with your jam, he just, very delicately, touched the wall with just a tip of his tiny little finger. The soul of an artist in such a small body. Do read our Super-Kid post.

      Why no DNA from the Scenic’s mechanics? I’m sure that with each oil change the mechanics, between oil and grease, must of have left quite a lot of their DNA there. After all, they don’t wear gloves and face masks, while forensic experts do.

      And the dust on the dashboard? We’re sure it reeked of DNA…

      As we have stated we are not forensic experts, just logical thinkers, we would never suggest which tests should have been done in preference to those carried out.

      But as the UK expert gave instructions NOT to carry out any tests to identify stains, whatever test he was referring to, that particular test (whatever it was) would be the test that should have been used if it could identify origin of stains.

      Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to which test(s) he was referring to?

      Amazing that you accuse us of trying to help the McCanns. How proving that it’s Maddie’s blood in that corner, helps, in whatever way the McCanns?

      Blog readers will be able to judge for themselves whether we are McCann supporters. We are scratching our heads as to how DNA posts are helpful to McCann cause.

      We thought they would be grateful that the FSS final report undermined the PJ's case.

      The McCanns are dog evidence deniers. You are too. We are not. So which side are you on?

      We have always maintained that there are serious divisions within the BH camps and readers can see this more clearly illustrated in the DNA debate.

    8. Insane gave me the laugh for today! I like the idea of must be some sort of pastime holding sticky kids up against the wall behind the sofa then crawling on the floor with them so they could spit on that....and the back of the sofa! As for dust on the walls containing DNA and causing stains, I think I’ve heard everything now.

    9. Insane,
      Your generic exercise based on Wikipedia or not, dies on a single fact : the tyni pieces of DNA recovered and tested were recovered on places where 2 high trained dogs pointed samples with interest to the investigstion. One dog was trained to recover only cadaverine. The other dog was trained to recover "ONLY HUMAN BLOOD". Then, why wasting all your brain cells with that exercise of water percentage in different body tissues?
      Of course, there was a crime ( only the Mccann's defend the ridiculous idea of their daughter not having any harm). There was a crime and all polices and forensic experts know that. Thst's why, 2 expensive and high trained dogs were brought in and that's why the LCN was performed on the samples...with results: the amplification of the DNA on the sample shows a profile matching Madeleine DNA. And that result is where the problem started, not for the police, but for the british authorities, because they were praying for a different result to allow an alive Madeleine and an abductor in the crime scene, and to clearly, clear the Tapas9. Since the result pointed to a serious crime with the child having bleeding, the forensic expert was " forced" to write a report with a lot of peraphs. That is the traditional way to make hot things to appear inconclusive. Or you want us to believe that Lowe write the report without consulting who he has to consult for advise ( Meant the british authorities) ? Those authorities were in the case since minute one, and on the parts with low significance. They don't dismiss themselves from the most important part- the tests performed on the samples.
      You my gave me a good explanation for this 2 facts:

      - why the LCN tests, widely performed in several countries, including UK, with positive results in solving many crimes, were suspended f in UK in December 2007 and lifted the suspension some months after? What was the purpose of that suspencion if in countrie like the USA, the concerns pointed by UK were not raised? There is no innocent coincidences on Maddie case.
      - And why, after the concerns in UK, criminals which conviction was based on the results of the LCN, where not released from the prison?
      - and why the FSS ( the top british forensic lab) was closed after Madeleine case? Scientists were not accused or sacked for doing something wrong on the lab. Was just closed, without any convincent excuse for that. They may extinguish SY now, since their performance is really poor on the same case... After one month and a double face from the same suspect, they failed to arrest anyone.
      Fabulous your exercise just to avoid talking about 3 hot permisses- the samples were blood, were recovered due to the action od specialized dogs and show that Madeleine bleed in the flat without any aparent reason and specially without her parents giving an espontaneous justification for that, prior the questions raised by the police. A nose bleed is a poor justification for what the police found. If was nose bleed, why cleaning it to the point of leaving just tyni amounts? Why not calling the cleaning service of the resort to do it?

      You are really concerned with what Textusa is exposing. Like the Mccann's, you don't like people with a brain to think. You love " Sun munchers" who waste their money buying a tabloid and feeding a Fund to search a girl ( ups, a body, they know well where was/ is stored).
      Your meticulous intervention on that blog, shows well who you are.

  8. É assim mesmo!
    Com a Textusa não há cá farinha. É pão, pão, queijo, queijo e toma lá que já levaste e ainda há aqui mais se queres do mesmo!
    Se todos os tugas fossem como a Textusa os bifes nunca tinham levantado a garimpa. Tinham levado para tabaco e ido mas é parar com os ossos ao xilindró como devia ter sido. Vão gozar com outros!
    Ganda Textusa!

  9. The dogs never failed and one was trained to locate cadaverine while the other was trained to locate human blood. When they came to Portugal, their job was to locate cadaverine and Msdeleine blood, and that was what they did.
    Even if Madeleine shared 50% of her DNA with each one of her parents, the way the alleles were combined on her DNA, are different and unique, making her DNA different then the one from her parents or sibilings. To have 15 alleles in 19 matching perfectly her DNA is saying the DNA on that sample belongs to her and was recovered as a result of the trained dogs.
    If Lowe wants to confuse people by adding an hypothese of the DNA to belong to her parents, any other body fluid was out by the action of the dogs. Only blood remains, then he and the Mccann's have to explain "when" and "why" Gerry and Kate hurt themselves to allow their blood to be there, and more important " how that blood get rided of their own alleles to remain only with the alleles that match Madeleine DNA"?
    Biology and genetic are a science almost exact where statistic plays a big roll. You cannot cheat the probabilities and the probability of that blood to be from Gerry and Kate is ZEEEROOO.
    Then, Madeleine died in the 5A and there is enough forensic evidences that prove that. Why that is being covered by the british authorities, Cameron must explain it to his citizens and to Portugal because a lot of public taxes are being wasted in a fake investigation to hunt innocents and keep out of prison the real criminals. Was it the parents or David Payne, who spent 30 minutes or 30 seconds in the 5A, the responsibililty of the crime lies inside the group and tgey have to pay for it.

  10. "Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry"

    The above was copied from the Mccann's site "Findmadeleine". Guess, who remain on the site as a person of interest to be identified? Creche dad and pimpleman. Not a single corner gave to the Crimewatch e-fits, officially shown by SY. Why? Did that means they don't believe on the investigation of the british official police? Or the absence of the e-fits on their site is more related with the informwtion they have hidden for 5 years and the massive phone calls to BBB, I believe mainly, to say that they identified Gerry Mccann on one of the e-fits.
    And the online store is under updating. More products on the way to sell, no matter the investigation was reopenned and the girl could be find soon. Or are they sure, she will be not found and the business must go on?
    Their absolute infalible prevision on the " NO RESULTS FROM POLICE SIDE" is amazing and should open the eyes of the authorities because they are the only ones who since minute one, BELIEVE and ACT LONG TERM, knowing how infrutiferes are the actions of the police.
    What shocks me is that half of the site is a pile to attract people to gave donations in many different ways. There is no excuse for not feeding their Fund.... All transfers are available and possible. You can pay in many different ways. Did that has no costs to them, like they want us to believe? Do you believe a bank or somebody working for so long for free?
    NO!! That is a scandalous way to feed the life of all that involved with the Fund under the umbrella that all is transparent and done for free.
    Why should we believe? Because they said it? There is nothing free on our lives.
    The Fund, the Madeleine site, the online store and the people involved with that saga must be investigated.
    Was settled in Uk but I hope the portuguese court llaunch an international request to have access to the details of that site and Fund. It is related with the case under trial in Portugal and the court must look to all sidesbof that case to get the correct picture. They cannot have two sides of justice for the same case.

  11. The work book is Principles of infection control cleaning and waste management it clearly states blood and bodily fluids in the managerment of blood and bodily fluids hope this helps

    1. Strictly speaking the fluid of blood is serum and that's why control measures speak of blood and body fluids as separate.

      But the question remains, what's on the walls, floor and couch?

    2. Dont know not clever enough brain going at my age maybe other bodily fluids that are not that easy to get washed off i really dont know textusa but could this be why kate and gerry say there was no bodily fluids the stains could be blood so the mccanns can lie and tell the truth maybe its worth going through it all again looking at it as two differant things blood and bodily fluids not saying the job you are doing is not great just need to try to get a little bit of justice for the little girl

    3. A

      Failing to seeing the relevance of McCann’s honesty or opinion have to current debate, so don't understand the suggestion.

      These are the posts we have written so far on this subject:

      "Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon


      DNA is... DNA

      Remarkable Marksmanship

      DNA - The Bar Code

      Perhaps... Confusing

      FSS: It's Maddie's Blood

      Not once have we mentioned McCann’s honesty or opinion.

      What is at stake in the current debate is the honesty and opinion of FFS on the Maddie Affair.

      As Wikipedia says “the Forensic Science Service (FSS) was a government-owned company in the United Kingdom which provided forensic science services to the police forces and government agencies of England and Wales, as well as other countries.”

      We will not be drawn into a discussion about whether a gravel on a tire is a stone or a rock to determine if a vehicle is a lorry or a bus.

      The question is not whether the blood is a fluid. The question is: what do the stains 1 – 15 found in the wall, floor and couch of the corner of the living room of apartment 5A consist of in your opinion?

      Very simple question, 5th time we're asking it and still waiting for the answer.

    Dr Martin Roberts - Mccannfiles

    A very good article that deserves to be read in parallel with your posts Textusa, regarding DNA and the various nonsense excuses for what the dogs find.

  13. I believe that the anon playing the ignoramus is also trying to distract from DR Roberts comment.
    Article by Roberts about pyjamas and DP comment about kids pjs and DNA contamination in Scenic is very good.
    Recommend highly "A BEDTIME STORY". Same reasoning, same crystal clear logic as you.

  14. It’s not only Lowe's name that appears in the interim report. These also are there (VOLUME_Xa_Page_2659):

    DNA Analysis (29):
    - Bonney A
    - Chin C
    - Thomas D
    - Chrities E
    - Hutchin JSohat K
    - Pelleymounter L
    - Dhillin MDoran R
    - Hetherington R
    - Waheed R
    - Taylor GL
    - Briscombe H.L.
    - Hodson JA
    - Deighton JA
    - Halton KJ
    - NaughtonLM
    - O’Brien MJ
    - Fairless NLM
    - Day RGRiley SC
    - Hobson S
    - Schofield SA
    - Khan S
    - Leadbeater R
    - Parkes S
    - Grange F
    - Evans M
    - Harris M
    - Pryor S
    - Fergusson-Hunter A
    - Bartlett R

    General Examination and Note taking (4):
    - Coniry L
    - Cowdry D
    - Shaw LM
    - Shaw KH

    It wasn't a one man show.
    Why don’t these names appear in the final report?

  15. What will happen on CW update?

    Since CW shown, the following has happened:

    Times article showing Oakley PIs did photofits that Mcs witheld for 5 years under legal threat, because the document referred to discrepancies in statements.

    Bundleman identified as innocent dad (haha) still on their website means they are accusing an innocent dad and raising money under false pretences.

    Will AR confirm innocent dad identified to PJ?

    GA in his TV timings now saying Smith last confirmed at Restaurant at 9.37.
    5.30 M at Creche
    9.37 Smiths at restaurant. Timing after that needs checking.
    2 witnesses say G not at tapas at 10.
    DP timings and behaviour are questioned.

  16. "British and Portuguese police 'should join forces' in hunt for missing Madeleine McCann, Met Commissioner says"^headlines

    "British and Portuguese police should join together as one team in their investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said.

    Currently Scotland Yard is running its own inquiry into what happened to the little girl, who vanished while holidaying with her parents at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, in 2007, while the Portuguese authorities have their own investigation.

    The Portuguese shelved their inquiry into her disappearance in 2008, but last month said that a review had uncovered enough new information to justify reopening the case.

    Today, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: 'One thing we'd like to see in the future is a joint investigation team which comes under the European community.

    'It is a possibility legally, and we're working together at a political level, and at a police and judicial level, to see how we can construct that.

    'There are two separate inquiries with a different focus - we've got one particular set of lines of inquiry and they have a different one.

    'But it's important that we work together on what is clearly a common problem.

    'It's a formal arrangement, it allows officers from each country to work in the other country, it gives them powers associated with that, and it's an efficient way of doing it."

    "(...)Portuguese police are thought to have returned to the Praia da Luz area to carry out mobile phone tracking work.

    Kate and Gerry McCann also announced they are to apply under Portuguese law to become private ‘prosecutors’ and may now be able to influence the course of the investigation and any prosecution.

    Their status as ‘assistentes’ will allow their legal team to work alongside state prosecutors, keeping the McCanns informed of all new developments in the case.

    They could also bring a parallel private prosecution against any suspects charged over Maddie’s disappearance."

    What do you think about this, Textusa?

    1. Anonymous 28 Nov 2013 00:05:00

      We think it's recycled old news about a joint investigation. Conveniently revived before Crimewatch update announces nothing of any significance.

      In May this year SY were speaking of a joint investigation, this was reported in The Mail.

      In terms of feasibility, we’ll only ask if, when the time comes, UK will accept a joint investigation on the Fraudulent Fund.

      Obviously not. Why should they? Jurisdiction is jurisdiction.

      Latest from Hogan Howe is a way of saying “- if only they would cooperate with us, we could solve it.”

      156 trips to Portugal and SY come up with nothing.

      Let's blame the Portuguese again

      This is just another indication that UK seems to have its hands tied as to the outcome of the Maddie Affair. Apparently not even the Prime-Minister is able to do anything about it. Or is he?

  17. And because no decision yet, as it seems, on McCanns as witnesses, so no triumphant announcement in the press, ahead of Crimewatch and no recent suspects either. The predicted Chinese dwarf sighting never materialised and the Fund seems to have stopped taking donations.

  18. It's said that Lucifer/Satan uses specious language in order to lure the fallen angels into hell with him.

    1. I'm anon 15:13.

      Would like it to make it clear the quote refers to BHs, not to the blog!
      Particularly in reference to misleading tweets about what happened at court on the 27th

    2. Anonymous 28 Nov 2013 15:41:00

      Glad to hear it. It would be a pity to see such a rightful phrase be wasted on BH usage.

      Specious is the word we used to describe Lowe's wording, so we thought you were referring to him.

      Thank you for the clarification.

  19. In my opinion, Lowe's "in my opinion" will play out like this in court:
    Lawyer - Is it certain it's not Maddie's blood?
    Lowe - It's not certain
    Lawyer - Why did you say it wasn't from the McCanns?
    Lowe - Because we wanted to be 100% sure before saying it was Maddie or her parents. 90% isn't enough.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.