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.”
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.