Re: (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long)

by joyce1938 20.11.11 14:58

The blood spot has never been confirmed where it came from ,most felt it was from hospital bank kept for so many years.but NO CONFIRMATION AS FAR AS I KNOW.DOES ANYONE ELSE ?joyce1938

by joyce1938 20.11.11 14:59

The blood spot has never been confirmed where it came from ,most felt it was from hospital bank kept for so many years.but NO CONFIRMATION AS FAR AS I KNOW.DOES ANYONE ELSE ?joyce1938

by **Tony Bennett** 20.11.11 21:47

Dave U. Random has changed his name and e-mail address but has sent me another e-mail in capital letters in response to a post further up the thread.

Here is the post, followed by Dave U. Randon's latest contribution to the debate:

+++++++++++++++

YOU SAID

How on earth do criminals ever get arrested and taken to Court if it is impossible to separate one persons DNA from another on an object. What a load of old rubbish the email from Dave is.

I have seen the OP before and I believe there is something very wrong with the results from the FSS. I believe they were tampered with. I also believe there is more than one child involved in this case as pictures of more than one child were released and called Madeleine..

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

YES, FORENSICS, ESPECIALLY DNA IS VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT MAKING ITS FINDINGS

U N I Q U E. A BURGLAR IS A UNIQUE PERSON WITH UNIQUE DNA IN A HOUSE WITH

5 RELATED OCCUPANTS. FORENSICS RELIES ON THE FLUKE THAT HE LEAVES DNA IN SKIN

CELLS/HAIR ON A UNIQUE ITEM. A BURGLAR DOES NOT BRING IN SEVERAL OF HIS FAMILY AND

FRIENDS, THE SAME GOES FOR MOST OTHER CRIMES, MURDER ESPECIALLY IT IS CARRIED OUT

BY A SINGLE UNIQUE PERSON.

IN THE CASE OF MADELEINE AND HER FAMILY, CHILDREN BY NATURE DO NOT KEEP THEMSELVES UNIQUE. THEY LICK EACH OTHER, PAT EACH OTHER, KISS EACH OTHER

FEED EACH OTHER CUDDLE EACH OTHER AND THEIR DNA MIXES MAKING

IT IMPOSSIBLE TO UNMIX FOR FORENSIC PURPOSES.

DONT YOU THINK THE PJ WOULD HAVE NOTICED

THAT THE STAFF WERE BOOKING IN ANOTHER CHILD INSTEAD OF MADDY?

WHERE DID THE OTHER CHILD COME FROM? DID THEY ROB THE LOCAL

ORPHANAGE??? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING. YOU NEVER USED TO SPREW [sic]
SUCH STUPID STUFF. YOU MUST BE A TROLL.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

In addition, 'Q' has replied (in brown below) to Dave U. Random's first effort:

ON HAVERNS.FORUMOTION:

TONY BENNETT AKA Q SAYS:

Q WANTS TO KNOW WHY NONE OF MADELEINE’S DNA WAS FOUND IN APARTMENT 5A OCEAN CLUB

WELL, Q, IN THE PJ FILES, WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT NONE OF M’S DNA WAS FOUND IN APARTMENT 5A?

No where in the files does it confirm that any DNA retrieved from the apartment was found to have belonged to the victim or that a DNA profile of the victim was compiled by using any genetic material found in the apartment.

Secondly it is standard procedure for all forensic scene of crime officers to locate a genetic sample of the missing person from the crime scene – in this case the being the apartment.

When collecting forensic trace evidence the crime scene officers would not have known who’s genetic material they were collecting until the analysis was done.

WE HAVE READ ALL THE FILES RELATING TO THE DNA AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY SUCH STATEMENT.

No there is no such statement, neither is there anything contained within the report to confirm that any genetic material found in the apartment was used to create a profile reference sample of the victim.

..... AND WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO MADELEINE’S HEAL PRICK (a blood test)? YOUR OWN MADE UP REF?

Do some research - On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.
Reference sample of blood.

Generally these are heal stick samples, never the less it was a blood sample.

THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE CONFIRMED KNOWN DNA OF MADELEINE, IE. SOMETHING THAT ONLY SHE HAD CONTACT WITH,

It’s standard procedure to collect a sample from the victims home to compare with other samples for comparison & confirmation purposes.

IE THE PILLOW FROM ROTHLEY WAS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE AS AND WHEN HER BODY IS FOUND AND CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS MADELEINE

BY COMPARING WITH THE CONFIRMED DNA.

THE PJ WOULD NOT WASTE TIME TRYING TO LIFT MADELEINE’S DNA FROM EVERY CORNER OF 5A WHERE MADELEINE PLUS HER FAMILY WERE KNOWN TO BE LIVING.

The PJ / forensic scene of crime officers would not have know who’s DNA they were collecting from the apartment.

SHE LIVED, PLAYED, ATE AND SLEPT IN 5A. IT IS A CERTAINTY THAT HER DNA WOULD BE LEFT IN 5A. HER DNA WOULD NOT NEED TO BE RECORDED IN THE FILES

It’s standard procedure to find evidence in order to create a genetic profile of the victim.

AS SOMETHING TO BE INVESTIGATED. THE MYSTERY IS THAT NOTHING EXISTS OF MADELEINE OUTSIDE OF APARTMENT 5A, DNA, BLOOD OR A BODY. THE INVESTIGATION BEGINS OUTSIDE OF 5A.

OBTAINING A MIXTURE OF DNA FROM A FAMILY OF FIVE, PLUS HUNDREDS OF OTHER TENANTS OF 5A WOULD ACCOMPLISH NOTHING. ONE CANNOT UNMIX A CAKE INTO ITS ORIGINAL

COMPONENTS AND ONE CANNOT IDENTIFY AND SEPARATE MADELEINE’S DNA FROM A MIXTURE OF 4 OF HER RELATIVES. (PLUS FRIENDS AND TENANTS OF 5A)

Her DNA would not all have been mixed with other family members' DNA.

by jd 20.11.11 23:46

Dave U random...saying the PJ would be wasting their time lifting Maddies DNA from apartment 5A is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. You are an utter twat, sorry but you are

How about they are also trying to lift the abductors DNA too

by **PeterMac** 21.11.11 7:54

Smokeandmirrors wrote:A couple of things are bothering me regarding this thread. Two things I cannot understand:
1) Why can a DNA profile not be extracted from a hair, as opposed to a swab from inside the mouth?
Snip

DNA is the chromosomal content of the nucleus of a cell. A mouth swab takes living cells from the inside of the mouth. Hair is keratin and is dead, (whatever the hair product adverts urge to the contrary) It does not contain cells and cannot therefore be used for DNA profiling - except if roots are attached. They are living and are the cells which excrete the keratin. So plucked hair can be used, though strictly it is the hair follicle which is analysed, and sometimes one may find sufficient roots on hairs on the brush to make it possible.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.11.11 8:38

PeterMac wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:A couple of things are bothering me regarding this thread. Two things I cannot understand:
1) Why can a DNA profile not be extracted from a hair, as opposed to a swab from inside the mouth?
Snip
DNA is the chromosomal content of the nucleus of a cell. A mouth swab takes living cells from the inside of the mouth. Hair is keratin and is dead, (whatever the hair product adverts urge to the contrary) It does not contain cells and cannot therefore be used for DNA profiling - except if roots are attached. They are living and are the cells which excrete the keratin. So plucked hair can be used, though strictly it is the hair follicle which is analysed, and sometimes one may find sufficient roots on hairs on the brush to make it possible.

I can confirm this from a different perspective. In the summer of 2001 I was arrested by Essex Police over the issue of amending a road sign which had illegally been erected using a metric distance ('50 metres' in this case). When I say 'illegal', I mean that the relevant highways regulations - The Traffic Signs Regulations Directions and General Directions 1994 - prescribed only distances in Imperial units - miles, yards etc. On arrest and detention in the custody suite, I was taken for fingerprinting, mugshot and a DNA sample. I was offered a choice for a DNA sample: a mouth swab, or a minimum of 10 hairs extracted by the root. After carefully reading the regulations, I elected for the pulling of 10 hairs from the root. This the police officer spent ages trying to convince me was a mistake. However, I held my ground and then there was a comical performance of his trying to get 10 haris out. On examining the regulations, the police officer had to wear plastic gloves, and this made it almost impossible to pull the hairs out. He succeeeded eventually, taking 12 'just to be on the safe side'.

I was charged and the case went to court. However, the owner of the sign, British Airways Authority, eventually conceded before the case came to trial that their sign contravened the regulations, and as Section 131(b) of the Highways Act 1980 allows anyone to obliterate or destroy any sign 'unlawfully placed on the highway', they withdrew their evidence and the case was dropped. I had represented myself and was entitled to claim my costs from the prosecution - £360.

After a number of similar instances, the government in July 2002 read the Riot Act to all Chief Executives of authorites in the U.K., reminding them that all distance signs on the highway must be in miles and yards, not kilometres and miles.

In February 2006 the Labour government finally dropped its long-standing plans to metricate Britain's 2 million road signs at an estimated cost of £1,000,000,000.

by happychick 21.11.11 8:41

PeterMac wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:A couple of things are bothering me regarding this thread. Two things I cannot understand:
1) Why can a DNA profile not be extracted from a hair, as opposed to a swab from inside the mouth?
Snip
DNA is the chromosomal content of the nucleus of a cell. A mouth swab takes living cells from the inside of the mouth. Hair is keratin and is dead, (whatever the hair product adverts urge to the contrary) It does not contain cells and cannot therefore be used for DNA profiling - except if roots are attached. They are living and are the cells which excrete the keratin. So plucked hair can be used, though strictly it is the hair follicle which is analysed, and sometimes one may find sufficient roots on hairs on the brush to make it possible.

PeterMac, do you know how long a hair stays alive for once it's not attached to the body? presumably it begins to die as soon as it's not attached.

by Guest 21.11.11 8:47

Tony Bennett wrote:Dave U. Random has changed his name and e-mail address but has sent me another e-mail in capital letters in response to a post further up the thread.

Here is the post, followed by Dave U. Randon's latest contribution to the debate:

+++++++++++++++

YES, FORENSICS, ESPECIALLY DNA IS VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT MAKING ITS FINDINGS

U N I Q U E. I agree, the 14 markers of Madeleine's bodily fluids found in their hire car just goes to prove this !!

A BURGLAR IS A UNIQUE PERSON WITH UNIQUE DNA IN A HOUSE WITH

5 RELATED OCCUPANTS. FORENSICS RELIES ON THE FLUKE THAT HE LEAVES DNA IN SKIN

CELLS/HAIR ON A UNIQUE ITEM. A BURGLAR DOES NOT BRING IN SEVERAL OF HIS FAMILY AND

FRIENDS, THE SAME GOES FOR MOST OTHER CRIMES, MURDER ESPECIALLY IT IS CARRIED OUT

BY A SINGLE UNIQUE PERSON. - Not where spousal murder has taken place !!

IN THE CASE OF MADELEINE AND HER FAMILY, CHILDREN BY NATURE DO NOT KEEP THEMSELVES UNIQUE. THEY LICK EACH OTHER, PAT EACH OTHER, KISS EACH OTHER - Yes, but their own individual DNA remains unique to them !!

FEED EACH OTHER CUDDLE EACH OTHER AND THEIR DNA MIXES MAKING

IT IMPOSSIBLE TO UNMIX FOR FORENSIC PURPOSES. - the same utter rubbish and ramblings of the Lowe report.

DONT YOU THINK THE PJ WOULD HAVE NOTICED

THAT THE STAFF WERE BOOKING IN ANOTHER CHILD INSTEAD OF MADDY? - Did the staff already know Madeleine before that holiday then Dave, or how else are they to know?

WHERE DID THE OTHER CHILD COME FROM? DID THEY ROB THE LOCAL

ORPHANAGE??? I would think that the person who originally organised the whole event and I'm not talking about Payne here, took care of those details.

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING. YOU NEVER USED TO SPREW [sic]
SUCH STUPID STUFF. YOU MUST BE A TROLL.

by Guest 21.11.11 9:04

joyce1938 wrote:i have read from another site where,it was admitted that all hairs were not chosen to be tested as some looked darker/lighter and not correct length,where did rest go and why on earth were not all collected tested?mind boggles joyce1938

You are referring to the hairs found in their hire car, which is a seperate subject.

Q's OP and comments relate to the hairs found in the apartment that all belonged to adults.

by pennylane 21.11.11 9:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:A couple of things are bothering me regarding this thread. Two things I cannot understand:
1) Why can a DNA profile not be extracted from a hair, as opposed to a swab from inside the mouth?
Snip
DNA is the chromosomal content of the nucleus of a cell. A mouth swab takes living cells from the inside of the mouth. Hair is keratin and is dead, (whatever the hair product adverts urge to the contrary) It does not contain cells and cannot therefore be used for DNA profiling - except if roots are attached. They are living and are the cells which excrete the keratin. So plucked hair can be used, though strictly it is the hair follicle which is analysed, and sometimes one may find sufficient roots on hairs on the brush to make it possible.
I can confirm this from a different perspective. In the summer of 2001 I was arrested by Essex Police over the issue of amending a road sign which had illegally been erected using a metric distance ('50 metres' in this case). When I say 'illegal', I mean that the relevant highways regulations - The Traffic Signs Regulations Directions and General Directions 1994 - prescribed only distances in Imperial units - miles, yards etc. On arrest and detention in the custody suite, I was taken for fingerprinting, mugshot and a DNA sample. I was offered a choice for a DNA sample: a mouth swab, or a minimum of 10 hairs extracted by the root. After carefully reading the regulations, I elected for the pulling of 10 hairs from the root. This the police officer spent ages trying to convince me was a mistake. However, I held my ground and then there was a comical performance of his trying to get 10 haris out. On examining the regulations, the police officer had to wear plastic gloves, and this made it almost impossible to pull the hairs out. He succeeeded eventually, taking 12 'just to be on the safe side'.

I was charged and the case went to court. However, the owner of the sign, British Airways Authority, eventually conceded before the case came to trial that their sign contravened the regulations, and as Section 131(b) of the Highways Act 1980 allows anyone to obliterate or destroy any sign 'unlawfully placed on the highway', they withdrew their evidence and the case was dropped. I had represented myself and was entitled to claim my costs from the prosecution - £360.

After a number of similar instances, the government in July 2002 read the Riot Act to all Chief Executives of authorites in the U.K., reminding them that all distance signs on the highway must be in miles and yards, not kilometres and miles.

In February 2006 the Labour government finally dropped its long-standing plans to metricate Britain's 2 million road signs at an estimated cost of £1,000,000,000.

That was a great victory, and I applaud your efforts. Very well done, Tony! (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 725573

(2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 725573

What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis, and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

by Guest 21.11.11 9:18

TrollAng wrote:I find this very confusing. Are we saying:

There was no trace of Madeleine in the apartment because:

1. She was never in 5A That is a possibility that needs to be explored.
2. Her DNA traces were removed from the apartment (except for the trace evidence under the tiles) If the whole apartment had been scrubbed, then this is also a possibility.
3. They never looked for her DNA They searched for all DNA at the time.
4. The control DNA was wrong This is also something that needs to be considered.

It's unknown what control sample the eddie & keela samples were compared with? Exactly.

The Rothley pillow sample was compared with Madeleine's heel prick samples just after birth? Is it not illegal to keep these records without permission from the parents. Why would the parents allow them to be kept if there was a problem with Madeleine's DNA? Why did they agree to collect the control sample in Rothley and not in PDL, her DNA should have been all over everything including all of the artwork she did during her hours each day at the creche. Better samples would have come from been deep inside her tennis shoes and from her underwear.

Forensics retrieved 12 hairs from 3 of Madeleine's tops and excluded them all as Madeleine's potential DNA without testing them? This must have seemed more than unusual. Why didn't they then test the tops for skin samples to ascertain the DNA profile of the child who wore the tops? Skin cells recovered from the inside of her tops, especially from the armpit area would have been a good start.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.11.11 9:33

pennylane wrote:What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis...

REPLY: To make life as difficult as possible for the police officer. It was a form of protest against the police arresting me when I was actually enforcing the law.

...and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

REPLY: A year earlier, the law had been changed, allowing the police to keep fingerprints, DNA and mugshots of anyone arrested, even if they were immediately released without charge. This was to help the police build up a massive DNA database. In a lab somewhere in the U.K., my 12 hairs remain, in case they're needed. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that forcing anyone arrested to give over their DNA, even if wrongfully arrested, was going a bit far, so procedures have now been changed, I'm not sure what the precise rules are these days

by pennylane 21.11.11 10:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis...

REPLY: To make life as difficult as possible for the police officer. It was a form of protest against the police arresting me when I was actually enforcing the law.

...and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

REPLY: A year earlier, the law had been changed, allowing the police to keep fingerprints, DNA and mugshots of anyone arrested, even if they were immediately released without charge. This was to help the police build up a massive DNA database. In a lab somewhere in the U.K., my 12 hairs remain, in case they're needed. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that forcing anyone arrested to give over their DNA, even if wrongfully arrested, was going a bit far, so procedures have now been changed, I'm not sure what the precise rules are these days

Thank you for your reply. I think it horrifying that the police were able to keep your fingerprints and DNA results, particularly since the case was dropped against you, and your objections were later proven to be legally spot on! As for the hair analysis, although a greater hassle for the police, I think I would have opted for a saliva swab test as there's no way I would want them to have 12 of my hairs in a lab somewhere. I have very little trust in our police and their ability to avoid undue influence from above.

The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice. I believe the writing was on the wall where the MM case is concerned the moment the Birmingham FSS did a jaw dropping U-turn following the release of their first DNA results. (imo)

by jd 21.11.11 10:22

pennylane wrote:
The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice

Perfectly said pennylane

by pennylane 21.11.11 10:33

jd wrote:
pennylane wrote:
The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice

Perfectly said pennylane

Thank you jd. It's quite soul destroying really. (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 173510

I just keep hoping they've made one gigantic error, and something none of them anticipated will hit them square on one day soon, and be impossible to erase or cover up! (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 0197

(2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 0197

by Nina 21.11.11 10:38

Stella wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:Looking at those photos Stella I find it impossible to believe that three young children were living in that apartment. Where is the 'stuff? They cannot have eaten at the table as there are no high chairs. Sean and Amelie would definitely have needed high chairs or some kind of tot seat/booster seat. Where are the packs of baby wipes that parents of small children carry by the sack load? The toys and books to keep them amused? A potty for Madeleine? Children create mess and everywhere they go has a lived in feel, especially if there are three! A few strategically hung jumpers do not make a convincing picture IMO.

Precisely uppatoffee. That is exactly what we see in a nutshell.

If you combine this with no DNA of not just Madeleine, but any children having been there, you can see exactly where Q and the rest of us are coming from.

Agree. What we do see is an apartment devoid of children other than childsize jumpers that is it. Where are the little toys that children seem to carry, one in each hand. The twins were in nappies so were is the mega size packet of nappies? Do we have any photos of the bathroom?

I did read a statement from I am sure GA saying about there being a lack of child food and in particular milk. I have tried to find it but no success.

Of course it could be that the children were not allowed clutter, or, Kate is house proud even on holiday (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 302873

(2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 302873

by **tigger** 21.11.11 10:45

pennylane wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis...

REPLY: To make life as difficult as possible for the police officer. It was a form of protest against the police arresting me when I was actually enforcing the law.

...and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

REPLY: A year earlier, the law had been changed, allowing the police to keep fingerprints, DNA and mugshots of anyone arrested, even if they were immediately released without charge. This was to help the police build up a massive DNA database. In a lab somewhere in the U.K., my 12 hairs remain, in case they're needed. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that forcing anyone arrested to give over their DNA, even if wrongfully arrested, was going a bit far, so procedures have now been changed, I'm not sure what the precise rules are these days

Thank you for your reply. I think it horrifying that the police were able to keep your fingerprints and DNA results, particularly since the case was dropped against you, and your objections were later proven to be legally spot on! As for the hair analysis, although a greater hassle for the police, I think I would have opted for a saliva swab test as there's no way I would want them to have 12 of my hairs in a lab somewhere. I have very little trust in our police and their ability to avoid undue influence from above.

The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice. I believe the writing was on the wall where the MM case is concerned the moment the Birmingham FSS did a jaw dropping U-turn following the release of their first DNA results. (imo)

When exactly did Gordon Brown visit the FSS? I believe it was about the same time that the great man paid a visit to Leicestershire police?

Was the FSS second report - the jaw dropping U turn - the result?

The DNA issue is now purely hypothetical, apart from the screamingly obvious gaps in normal procedure. The FSS is no more, somewhat surprising, who is doing the job now?

It will not stand up in court, I mean. I really don't think that there is a (national security) genetic 'secret' re the McCanns. For a start, if you're going to do experiments in cloning and genetics, you'd want to start with better basic material.

by pennylane 21.11.11 11:13

tigger wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:What was your reason for requesting hair over a saliva analysis...

REPLY: To make life as difficult as possible for the police officer. It was a form of protest against the police arresting me when I was actually enforcing the law.

...and what happened to those hairs and the DNA results thereof, in light of the fact that the case was dropped against you?

REPLY: A year earlier, the law had been changed, allowing the police to keep fingerprints, DNA and mugshots of anyone arrested, even if they were immediately released without charge. This was to help the police build up a massive DNA database. In a lab somewhere in the U.K., my 12 hairs remain, in case they're needed. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that forcing anyone arrested to give over their DNA, even if wrongfully arrested, was going a bit far, so procedures have now been changed, I'm not sure what the precise rules are these days

Thank you for your reply. I think it horrifying that the police were able to keep your fingerprints and DNA results, particularly since the case was dropped against you, and your objections were later proven to be legally spot on! As for the hair analysis, although a greater hassle for the police, I think I would have opted for a saliva swab test as there's no way I would want them to have 12 of my hairs in a lab somewhere. I have very little trust in our police and their ability to avoid undue influence from above.

The McCanns and Clarence Mitchell are a constant reminder to me that the system is corrupt, and nobody in power cares about truth or justice. I believe the writing was on the wall where the MM case is concerned the moment the Birmingham FSS did a jaw dropping U-turn following the release of their first DNA results. (imo)

When exactly did Gordon Brown visit the FSS? I believe it was about the same time that the great man paid a visit to Leicestershire police?

Was the FSS second report - the jaw dropping U turn - the result?

The DNA issue is now purely hypothetical, apart from the screamingly obvious gaps in normal procedure. The FSS is no more, somewhat surprising, who is doing the job now?

It will not stand up in court, I mean. I really don't think that there is a (national security) genetic 'secret' re the McCanns. For a start, if you're going to do experiments in cloning and genetics, you'd want to start with better basic material.

Hi tigger, the initial FSS results were the damning ones for the McCanns. You are absolutely right about Gordon Brown's interference. However when Clarence Mitchel quit his MMU job, was (imo) when the evidence began stacking up badly against the McCanns, and this is when the full impact of what the pair had gotten up to on that fateful holiday was realised by the powers. I believe the cover up was somewhat late going into effect, and hence was haphazard..... but determined nonetheless.

I have never subscribed to the cloning/genetic theories. The only 'secret' (imo) is that the government realised, albeit a bit late in the day, that these two were culpable and exactly what all these doctors were up to, and the potential for enormous scandal was mounting for the NHS and COMARE, and since Gerry had over-egged the pudding from day one, it was difficult to successfully put the genie back in the bottle.

This is jmho, others may disagree.

by Guest 21.11.11 12:37

Nina wrote:What we do see is an apartment devoid of children other than childsize jumpers that is it. Where are the little toys that children seem to carry, one in each hand. The twins were in nappies so were is the mega size packet of nappies?

Spot on Nina. Where are the nappies? We cannot see them in the living room, or both bedrooms. They would not have been in the bathroom, as there was nowhere for the twins to sit in there whilst being changed. When they went out, did they take a nappy changing bag with contents for 2 children with them? and with no buggy of course.. PTOO

Do we have any photos of the bathroom?

These are the only shots of the bathroom we have.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2311.jpg

I did read a statement from I am sure GA saying about there being a lack of child food and in particular milk. I have tried to find it but no success. Sorry, don't remember that.
Of course it could be that the children were not allowed clutter, or, Kate is house proud even on holiday

by **tigger** 21.11.11 12:43

Hi pennylane,

That's exactly what I think. The McCanns in themselves are not important. The cover up and damage limitation was done badly, on the hoof so to speak. Now that Murdoch is slowly unravelling it's my ardent hope that the reasons for their protection are slowly fading away. Four years is a long time and will give plenty of people the opportunity to move out of harm's way re their earlier involvement with the McCanns.

I still think the whole thing was pre meditated, I go with Dr. Ludke on their profile. What a lot of people don't realise is that it went wrong from the start. They never meant to end up in Rothley, giving endless rigged interviews to sell their 'story'.

By now, they should have been really rich, living in a lovely villa, with all mod cons, swimming pool, sailing, golf courses nearby. Absolute role models for child protection, ambassadorial jobs for charities etc. Rubbing shoulders with celebrities and royalty. It's my opinion that they're not at all happy as they are. Kate didn't dare to do book signings, Gerry didn't dare to do a charity bike ride.

It's Amaral, people like TB and us who still worry them, having to employ people to check every word we write to each other. It's time at least one newspaper decided on a truthful and full account. The upcoming trial in Lisbon would be a perfect opportunity.

by **tigger** 21.11.11 12:46

Stella wrote:
Nina wrote:What we do see is an apartment devoid of children other than childsize jumpers that is it. Where are the little toys that children seem to carry, one in each hand. The twins were in nappies so were is the mega size packet of nappies?

Spot on Nina. Where are the nappies? We cannot see them in the living room, or both bedrooms. They would not have been in the bathroom, as there was nowhere for the twins to sit in there whilst being changed. When they went out, did they take a nappy changing bag with contents for 2 children with them? and with no buggy of course.. PTOO

Do we have any photos of the bathroom?

These are the only shots of the bathroom we have.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2311.jpg

I did read a statement from I am sure GA saying about there being a lack of child food and in particular milk. I have tried to find it but no success. Sorry, don't remember that.
Of course it could be that the children were not allowed clutter, or, Kate is house proud even on holiday

Hi Stella, I just highlighted part of a statement by Mrs. Fenn in the topic on the interview with her niece.

In it she says she wasn't even aware that that family was living in 5a.

by pennylane 21.11.11 12:51

tigger wrote:Hi pennylane,

That's exactly what I think. The McCanns in themselves are not important. The cover up and damage limitation was done badly, on the hoof so to speak. Now that Murdoch is slowly unravelling it's my ardent hope that the reasons for their protection are slowly fading away. Four years is a long time and will give plenty of people the opportunity to move out of harm's way re their earlier involvement with the McCanns.

I still think the whole thing was pre meditated, I go with Dr. Ludke on their profile. What a lot of people don't realise is that it went wrong from the start. They never meant to end up in Rothley, giving endless rigged interviews to sell their 'story'.

By now, they should have been really rich, living in a lovely villa, with all mod cons, swimming pool, sailing, golf courses nearby. Absolute role models for child protection, ambassadorial jobs for charities etc. Rubbing shoulders with celebrities and royalty. It's my opinion that they're not at all happy as they are. Kate didn't dare to do book signings, Gerry didn't dare to do a charity bike ride.

It's Amaral, people like TB and us who still worry them, having to employ people to check every word we write to each other. It's time at least one newspaper decided on a truthful and full account. The upcoming trial in Lisbon would be a perfect opportunity.

It seems we are in agreement on many aspects tigger, except I do not subscribe to the pre-meditation theory at all. (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 172348

(2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 172348

Hopefully some day soon (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 3934901622

we won't have to speculate any further, and this vile pair will be exposed and get their comeuppance. (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 3711883763

(2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 3711883763

by Guest 21.11.11 12:57

tigger wrote:Hi Stella, I just highlighted part of a statement by Mrs. Fenn in the topic on the interview with her niece.

In it she says she wasn't even aware that that family was living in 5a.

I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that tigger. It has baffled me from the start as to how Mrs Fenn only ever heard the one crying episode, despite there being 3 children, between 2-4 years of age, in an apartment that would echo really badly. This tells me that they could not have been living there and the apartment was used as a means to facilitate the abduction. This could be why the PJ witheld the OC daily run reports from when they arrived on the 28th, until the 1st May.

by Nina 21.11.11 18:07

Stella wrote:
Nina wrote:What we do see is an apartment devoid of children other than childsize jumpers that is it. Where are the little toys that children seem to carry, one in each hand. The twins were in nappies so were is the mega size packet of nappies?

Spot on Nina. Where are the nappies? We cannot see them in the living room, or both bedrooms. They would not have been in the bathroom, as there was nowhere for the twins to sit in there whilst being changed. When they went out, did they take a nappy changing bag with contents for 2 children with them? and with no buggy of course.. PTOO

Do we have any photos of the bathroom?

These are the only shots of the bathroom we have.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2311.jpg

I did read a statement from I am sure GA saying about there being a lack of child food and in particular milk. I have tried to find it but no success. Sorry, don't remember that.
Of course it could be that the children were not allowed clutter, or, Kate is house proud even on holiday

Hi Stella. Here is a link where the lack of child evidence is posted. I cannot quite make out where this has come from but speaks about the arrival of the police and their first observations, it's about two thirds down the page.

http://msngroup.aimoo.com/madeleinemccann/summaries.msnw-action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=426&LastModified=4675684124491605373.htm

The snip,

When the first investigators of the Judicial Police arrived to the Ocean Club, only a few minutes after midnight, in the early hours of 3 to May 4, they speak with Gerry and Kate.

The conversation took place in the apartment of the crime the 5A. The two twins, Sean and Amelie, sleep deeply. The policemen, trained to look in for the minimum details, observe curious how the house is impeccably tidy.It does not seem a place of holidays where three children run and jump the whole day.

The sofa has not one single crease and chairs are positioned meticulously. There is any clothes forgotten or out of the place, not even toys in sight.Only the cuddle cat, that was always with Maddie, is now tight in Kate's hands. The kitchen is clean, without the smallest vestige of remains of milk or children food.

by Smokeandmirrors 21.11.11 18:13

(2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long) - Page 2 847771

Thanks PeterMac and Tony for clarifying the hair/dna issue.

(2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long)