1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Textusa: Public Misleading of Public, by McCanns

Invited Guest Author Textusa

As I’ve said in an earlier post, there’s one precious source of information that the McCanns have so altruistically and gracefully granted humanity: the Channel’s 4 “The Cutting Edge” documentary.

It’s an all-round important document.

For the McCanns, it’s their opportunity to show the world the result of their work analysing all the documentation on Maddie given to them in mid 2008.

For the world, it’s a palpable register of the McCann versions of events, in their very own words, without any censorship or external vilification.

The McCanns at the time stated that the idea behind the documentary was to enable possible witnesses to, through the images, to come forward after realizing that what they’ve might have seen on that night, or preceding and following days, could and would be of crucial importance in the safe return of their abducted daughter, little Madeleine Beth McCann, known to the world simply as Maddie.

To jolt somebody’s memory one thing is essential and that is the attention paid to detail. The smallest thing, even imperceptible to most, might just trigger in someone what could turn out to be the key to this abduction, and so help bring Maddie safely back home to the arms of her loving parents.

No effort in the replication of detail was then to be spared, and we can only assume it wasn’t. So each and every second of this documentary is to be desiccated and savoured with redoubled attention, for it’s the fruit of the effort of dedicated people and loving parents and friends who ALL possessed not one but all four of the following characteristics:

- lived themselves some of the events,

- had privileged access to police file information,

- it was either their daughter or their friend that had been abducted, and whose life was now at stake and that the documentary could save,

- they were being victims of a worldwide campaign of unjustified vilification worldwide, so here was the opportunity to clarify everything and enable all the investigative efforts to be refocused on recovering the little girl.

Could anyone expect any more precision in the description of events than from these people? Obviously not. Yes, Amaral did have privileged access to the information on police files, but did he live those terrible moments the Tapas did? No. Was Maddie his daughter or acquaintance? No. Was he being vilified worldwide? Well, he was from some bigots in UK who think the world revolves around their own belly, so the answer to this question is a no, with minor, really minor, exceptions.

What matters is that Channel’s 4 “The Cutting Edge” is what the McCann’s had to say DID happen that night. This was the documentary that showed the world “The McCann Truth”.

As far as I can recollect (I do have the thing downloaded but don't have the patience to watch it entirely again, so I just use it go and pick the images I desire) three things were reconstructed. I know I said before there were only two, but have since remembered that there's another:

First, a man watching an apartment and witnesses who described how they saw him looking at it. Supposedly, this was the BIG breakthrough of the documentary. It's been more than a year, and nothing really came out of it. Really, really lame that I’d even forgotten that he existed. If memory serves me right, it was “Pimpleman” in the tabloids, but on the documentary appeared a darkish blonde Russian looking kind of individual. Ridiculous is the word that comes to mind.

Second, the Tanner sighting. Just one tiny figment of the whole highly complex algorithm generated to calculate the comings and goings of all those who were supposed to check on their children. And also on the McCann’s triplets, by the way an egotistical couple who, as far as we’ve been told; only checked on their own.

On this sighting, the documentary was quite detailed.

All those involved that night, explained to the point of tears, as expected, what had happened. Just one personal appointment about a detail mentioned. Considering to be a “discrepancy” which side of the road were two witnesses, in a stretch less than 100 yards, is not exactly the same as not agreeing as to which side the baby stroller was turned to, but it's more like saying that WWII took place mostly in South America instead of Europe, North Africa and the Far East. Not exactly a discrepancy, but rather a blatant contradiction. And who won the argument?

That was a night that Jane Tanner learned the true meaning of two words: friendship and reciprocity. And truth is sometimes really, really bitter. To the point of bringing tears to one’s eyes. What you give is not exactly what you receive back.

We will return to this Tanner sighting reconstruction. It reveals some very interesting and telling details, like the clothing of the abductor, as an example.

The third and last reconstruction, the one I find most interesting and revealing is the Smith's Sighting. And what this post is about.

The first interesting fact about it is that, unlike in the Tanner reconstruction just before, there are no previous explanations whatsoever about the event itself. Yes, we know that none of the present lived it themselves (although I do have a strong suspicion that that is not exactly the case), but one would expect to see that brilliant detective that goes by the grace of Edgar, explain, in loco, exactly where, exactly what and exactly how it had happened. So that when we saw the reconstruction all would sink in, and, who knows, someone might just remember something. After all, NINE people (well, in fact just SEVEN as two were little children) had seen this man carry a little girl, whilst in the Tanner sighting only ONE person did.

Why weren't any of the Smiths invited, you may ask, and I must then remind you that if they didn’t think the Smith’s presence was necessary there, it was because it wasn’t. They did come prepared and with all well studied, remember? And do stop being irritatingly cocky with those silly questions.

So we were told that "possibly", only "possibly", another family had seen the abductor, and the director just rolled the scene.

Let's then see what they've shown us. Here are 9 pictures, taken in sequence of the portrayed event:

Let's look at each one, and what each has to tell us.

McCann Picture #1 – The Smith family, all nicely bunched up together, come up the Rua da Escola Primária. On your left, as per green S on the left, we have a stairs. In this particular picture it's not clear its exact location, but later you will see that it's on the near side of the lamppost shown. Notice in the background (yellow arrow), the small light that illuminates the top of the stairs that leads to Kelly’s Bar.

McCann Picture #2 – The Smith family continues to come up the Rua da Escola Primária, and is now nearer. The location of the stairs on the left is slightly clearer. Notice how they remain together as a compact group. They are almost at the S at this point. Once again do pay attention to the visibility one has of the top of the stairs that leads to Kelly’s Bar. No sign of the possible abductor at this point.

McCann Picture #3 – The possible abductor makes his appearance on scene, coming down the well illuminated Rua da Escola Primária, near or at the Y-crossing with Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz.

McCann Picture #4 – The Smith family, still a compact group and still continuing to come up the Rua da Escola Primária, have now reached a garage door, on the right of the image, signalled with G. We know that the possible abductor is near, but has yet to appear on the screen before the family.

McCann Picture #5 - The possible abductor appears before the Smiths. Notice the relative positions. The family is either in front of garage G or has just passed it, and the possible abductor is well in front of them.

McCann Picture #6 – The possible abductor has now passed the Smith family. He seems to be between the family and the garage G. Various members of the family look in an ostensive manner at the possible abductor, as if the fact that a man passing with a child in his arms is something so noticeable that one has to turn one's head to confirm.

As far as we could see, there was no interaction whatsoever between the Smith family and the possible abductor. By the speed with which he walked by the family, as well as the distance between him and them, there seems that there was no occasion or time to ask a is she asleep? or say any other similar phrase.

McCann Picture #7 – The possible abductor now appears alone, after passing the Smith family. We can see that he hasn’t yet reached the garage G, so the crossing with the family definitely occurred well before this landmark.

McCann Picture #8 – The possible abductor continues down the Rua da Escola Primária. In this picture we can see the exact location of the stairs S, on the other side of the street of garage G, slightly left of its door but in exact opposite of a street sign.

McCann Picture #9 – The possible abductor heads down Rua da Escola Primária, never to be seen again. This, according to the McCanns, was the last time Maddie was to be seen alive.

A touching picture that only a heart of stone, as Gerry so well puts it in another scene of the documentary, cannot feel moved. On my part, I feel so touched by it that I’ll use it again as you’ll see. Allow me to introduce, besides the stairs S and the garage G, yet another landmark: the window W.

From all this information, coming from the McCanns themselves, we can deduce that the Smith family crossed with the abductor somewhere in the area on the Rua da Escola Primária, just ahead of the Y-crossing with the Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, as shown below:

The McCanns, I remind you, were handed over the police files in late July 2008 [allegedly] and then meticulously translated them, for a period of time that some say was more than reasonable.

They filmed this documentary in April/May 2009

By this time I may concede that they may not have translated ALL of the files (I, as a parent of an abducted child, would have translated double the amount of documentation in less than a week, but that’s me), but it must be assumed that they documented themselves thoroughly and adequately on anything intended to be put on film before doing so. Any excuse of changing events for reasons of lighting, better point of view, or other, reveals an unspeakable frivolity that could result, through reckless misleading, in the endangerment of Maddie’s life.

Let’s then see what the PJ files, that the McCanns translated and read, have to say about the Smith sighting. In pictures, so no translation is really required:

PJ Picture #1 – Clearly shows, by the letters P, M and A, the exact location where the man carrying a child was seen by the Smith family. I’ve added the location, up-street, of the where "my" garage G and window W are approximately located.

PJ Picture #2 Shows, from the opposite angle of the previous picture, the locations of P, M and A. Notice that the man carrying a little girl had to have passed "my" window W before he ever passed by any of the Smiths.

PJ Picture #3 Shows the Rua das Escola Primária from the T-crossing with Rua 25 de Abril. There can only be seen the P and M locations, as A is behind the photographer.

I’ve also put in, for reference, the "my" locations of the stairs S, garage G and window W. This picture confirms something that I’ve already stated in the previous post, and that is that from where this photograph is taken, anybody standing in the Rua da Escola Primária beyond the Y-crossing with Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, is not seen, or, most likely, will go unnoticed, so can trace back his/her steps without anyone knowing better.

This is quite clear in the two pictures above, which Himself has gracefully sent me and whom I thank. The pictures are NOT from the McCann documentary, I believe them to be from the Amaral one’s, which explains the adequate position in which the child is carried as well as the absence of any of the Smith family up where the McCanns decided to put them.

I think I do have to redefine my Green, Yellow and Red areas on that particular post. After all, the “safety” area is much larger than said.

PJ Picture #4 – Shows the T-crossing between Rua das Escola Primária with Rua 25 de Abril. Only the M and A locations are visible. No other relevant landmarks can be seen from here. On the left, just not seen, the top of the stairs that lead to Kelly’s Bar.

From these PJ pictures, we can clearly deduce that the Smith’s were broken up into three parties. In a previous post, I divided them as follows:

I could, for obvious reasons, not be correct in the number of people per party, but there’s no question whatsoever, due to the distances between the locations, that there were THREE different sets of people spread along from the top of the stairs the lead to Kelly’s Bar to well into the Rua da Escola Primária.

Logic dictates that this was the route of the man seen by the Smiths as per the PJ Files:

I have, up to now, limited myself to fact exposure. On one hand, those that the McCanns, out of their own free will, decided to show us, and on the other, those that are in the PJ files, which we believe have resulted from the various statements of the different members of the Smith family. And, believe it or not, they did not have anything read to them before so as to refresh their memory. Very few Countries have their police do that. Very, very few, but some do.

Now let’s look at the various existing discrepancies. A perfectly natural occurring phenomenon, as per that enlightened mind that had the luck and privilege to have found permanent residence inside Edgar’s cranium.

In my opinion there are FOUR relevant differences. Of these, TWO are intentional and purposefully misleading, while the other TWO are much more symptomatic than relevant in terms of misconstruction.

Before I go into each, I hope you noticed that when writing about the sighting under the McCann’s umbrella, I called him “the possible abductor”, while when referring to him the PJ files, it was “the man carrying a little girl”. As from now on, as we’re comparing both versions, so let me call him by what I think he really was: “The Stroller”

Small Misleading #1 – The Route

Per McCanns version, “The Stroller“ walks down the right hand side of the Rua da Escola Primária, while the PJ files show that he may have walked on its center, but when passing the P location, he did it walking on the left hand side of it:

There may have been a car parked on the right, we don’t know, but we know that he did go on the left, according to the PJ files. On the McCann version, there is a car parked on the right, and yet, it’s on the right that he goes.

For me, the reason for this difference is quite simple, you walk on the right hand side of the street, the furthest from the light, if you intend to be furtive, but you place yourself under the light if you wish to be seen. Simple and clear, no pun intended.

Small Misleading #2 – The Carrying

As I’ve shown in previous posts, the McCann version shows the girl being carried in a manner different from the described by the Smith’s (a living sleeping/sedated child) or from what was described by Tanner (a dead child), although more approximate to the latter than to the first.

This, together with the fact that the girl was barefooted while "The Stroller" was wearing a warm jacket, and she was blond and wearing a pyjamas, links her, without any shadow of a doubt with the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann from Apartment 5A of the Ocean Club that same evening/night.

The reason for this misleading, as I’ve also said, was to try to give credit to Tanner’s sighting. I had an aunt who had a farm, and there’s one thing she used to say that I treasure to this day, and that is “those who fear the rain most, are usually those that end up wet”[nota: Quem anda à chuva, molha-se! Antes Escorregar Do Pé Que Da Língua! e ainda, Após Uma Mentira, Vem Outra Ainda Maior!].

In trying too much to convey the idea that Jane was speaking truthfully (yes, Jane, we both know you were) they came up with the ONLY position in which the girl couldn’t be carried and… got “wet”.

If that isn’t fate, I don’t know what is.

Big Misleading #1 – The Smith Family

The McCanns show that they were bunched up together, as one single group going up the street. The PJ files clear and adamantly deny this.

The reason they are put altogether is of minor importance, and once again, much more symptomatic than relevant: to show that there was just one single, quick contact between “The Stroller” and the Smith family, and not a repetitive and persistent one as the PJ files really show happened.

What makes this to be a BIG misleading fact is that it’s a BLATANT and INTENTIONAL distortion of information. It’s disrespecting DELIBERATELY any possibility of helping the supposedly abducted child.

No, it’s NOT attributable to mistranslation. Images are an universal language, and that is the language that we’re seeing here distorted. THAT is what makes this a very SERIOUS and ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCAL and WILFUL misleading.

You ONLY intentionally and UNEQUIVOCALLY mislead when you wish to LIE. And here the McCanns are LYING about the fate of THEIR OWN DAUGHTER. How more explicit can their guilt be? Are they able to deny anything I’ve said so far? Let me give you some news that you already know, they won’t also be able to deny anything I have to say next.

Big Misleading #2 – The Location

What can one say? It’s just a 40/50 metre discrepancy, in the stretch of a street that is no more 80/90 metres.

Even the McCanns, finding it completely unable to justify the contact between “The Stroller” and the Smith family as “accidental” they had to pull the encounter further up the road, so as to make any sense out of it’s intended fortuitousness.

How far up?

Let’s look at our McCann picture #9 again. It was taken from the Y-crossing between Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and Rua da Escola Primária, around about when one becomes perceptible to anyone at the T-crossing down at the Rua 25 de Abril, where the A and M locations are as per PJ photos #3 and #4.

As the “possible abductor” is about to fade away, “the man carrying a little girl” hasn’t even begun to go past the first group of the Smith’s family.

Where one version has ended, the other hasn’t even begun:

So why fake it to where it was placed?

First of all, by placing the sighting where the McCanns allege it to have occurred, TWO of the possible escape routes are rendered completely useless. Of the other TWO, the first would then clearly show what would seem to be a suspicious movement of hiding. The second, would just simply be too late to be used. The possible abductor just HAD, according to this McCann fiction, to proceed and act as natural as possible, much like in the documentary.

It would then be defensible to justify the whole encounter as accidental. This would remain very arguable, as it implies that the “possible abductor” must have to have been hearing his iPod in the loudest possible volume, for he was unable to hear the noises made by a numerous family of NINE just up ahead. But it would removes the entire absurdity of it, and THAT would be one huge positive step for the McCanns.

ANYWHERE else, THERE’S SIMPLY NO JUSTIFICATION for the encounter to have happened accidentally. And if it didn’t happen accidentally, then it could ONLY have happened intentionally. And the McCanns realized this at once.

Let me explain.

Let’s look, once again (I warned that I was going to use the picture many times…) at McCann picture #9:

You’ve simply got to love this picture, especially when it was handed out to you by the McCanns themselves.

The whole of the T-crossing between Rua da Escola Primária and Rua 25 de Abril is CLEARLY visible, as is the top of the stairs leading to Kelly’s Bar. No, no extra lighting was used, as is demonstrated by the single shadow of the road sign on the right.

Having come down from where in the Rua da Escola Primária, from where the Smiths were unable to see him, but from where could certainly hear them, he arrives at the Y-crossing. And this is what “The Stroller” sees before him:

Now answer this in conscience, you, seeing this street filled with people, with an abducted/dead child in your arms, what option, in panic or otherwise, would you take at that moment: go down Rua da Escola Primária, straight right into those people in front of you, or go instead into the well-lit and deserted Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on your immediate left?

It’s IMPRACTICABLE, UNREALISTIC, UNTHINKABLE, INCONCEIVABLE, OUT OF THE QUESTION, UNIMAGINABLE and HUMANLY INCREDIBLE for anyone with a dead/abducted child in their arms to opt to go down Rua the Escola Primária as “The Stoller” did.

In other words, one could almost say it would be IMPOSSIBLE to someone have done that.

Impossible? No, of course not. First because “The Stroller” DID opt for THAT, and second, almost all is possible when you set your mind to it, and he had set his mind that he had to be seen.

And he was seen. Just exaggerated a little, otherwise he wouldn’t have given anyone enough time to ask “is she asleep?

All just a momentary lapse of reason, as only Himself could so concisely express the whole thing correctly:

Mind you, “a momentary lapse of reason” ONLY on the deciding to go strolling about, NOT about this misleading.

The lapse was fruit of arrogance and misconception of reality, and that will be for a later date. This misleading was conscious.

And criminal, as it clearly constitutes the perpetration obstruction of justice. Independent of justice herself seeking to be obstructed, like we know she was looking to be, as the common slut she’s demonstrated she's nothing but.


Debunking Body Disposal, Part II - The Beach

Clarifications on Body Disposal Debunking, Part I - The Church

Body Disposal Debunking, Part I - The Church

Make your comments at Textusa's house, thank you.

Maddie, The Truth...

broadcast April 13, 2009, by TVI

...of the Lie

broadcast May, 7 2009, by Channel 4


  1. Actually, two of the most important points made in the documentary were:-

    1. The inordinate amount of time spent in persuading everyone which side of the road Gerry and Wilkins chatted - before the 'detective' said it was not relevant anyway.

    2. Kate McCann admitting that she had intended leaving without actually seeing Madeleine and then, after having noticed the door was in a different position than it had been in when she they had left the apartment (so admitting that Gerry had not actually been back in the partment at all) she admits she went to close the door without visually checking Madeline.

    Whilst all this other stuff is interesting, the documentary reveals some very basic information - that the McCann's claim is that they literally ran a listening and not a viewing check - and that Gerry was therefore lying when he claims his 'proud father' moment.

    Could it be that the McCann's were actually slewing everything just to avoid a neglect charge? If they were, then they were putting their personal freedom and careers in front of finding their daughter! Utterly incredible - and probably not true - far more likely that they have something much more sinister to hide.

  2. They forgot to mention that Smith said he saw Gerry carrying the child.

  3. If Textusa is right, the little girl in Gerry's arms was alive, she belonged to Tapas 7, this crime could have been premeditated.
    How could a couple being in schock with a terrible unexpected accident,short after 5.30 pm, in a unknown country, manage to get rid of the body and plan everything on such a perfect way?
    This could explain why none of Gerry's clothes had any cadaver odour.
    Than I go back to the information that was post here yesterday, by Joana,many articles, also of a psychologist who suspects the same of the parents.
    Christ, tell me this is not true.Let's pray it was an accident.If it was not an accident, they had five days to plan the disappearence of the body.
    And it happened on Thursday, short before Tapas 5 went back to England.
    The police could not ask them much, could they?
    The couple could not be monsters.They are irresponsible, selfish parents but no monsters.This kind of crimes happens in the States, a lot,but not in Algarve by good looking doctors. I pray Textusa is wrong.

  4. An alive, sleeping girl would explain the lack of cadaver scent in Gerry's clothes.
    I always wondered why the dogs did not bark at any cloth of Gerry's.
    In this case, Kate carried the daughter, imo.

  5. Thank you J, for helping to spread the information. Truth shall prevail, Justice will be vindicated!

  6. thank you joana,and thank you textusa for showing in a simple way that anyone can understand and i think you are spot on.

  7. You are out of your mind allowing this fantasist the oxygen of publicity on your site, Joana

  8. Anon 1
    Very good points, and for me another powerful one is Tanner bursting into tears, in public, on camera, and recorded for all time, when her story is so publicly trashed by Gerry. I am sure she was trying to help, doing her inadequate best for them, but got it so badly wrong.
    Tanner for me is the weak link in all this. She was clearly coerced into identifying Mr Murat, a decision which she may come to regret. And in the street scenario she tried too hard, adding details where a lack of detail would have been more convincing to an experienced Police officer.
    Gerry and Kate have done it too, the Disney proud father stuff, exact details of the precise angle that the door was open, details of cuddle cat on on existent high shelf, or the bed, or somewhere.
    There was far too much detail given, which would make any cop very suspicious.
    And it is those very details which can then be picked at to reveal the underlying lies. And incidentally the underlying truth.

  9. The dogs weren't brought in until several weeks later.

    Gerry had been back to the UK by then, and could easily have left his clothes back there.

    As for Gerry running the risk of walking around PDL with any child, alive or dead, when he knew so many people, and he could have bumped into them at any minute, that is a risk too far just to prove an abducter scenario. The vanishing of Madeliene from the apartment would 'prove' that anyway, once their publicity machine got into swing.

    If that was Gerry, he was carrying a dead Madeleine because he had no choice.

    How many people are you going to have in this 'secret'. You know the saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. Somebody would have talked by now if that had been the case.

    As for planning, this certainly was not planned so well. They didn't jemmy the shutters for a start, and then had to say they left the door unlocked. They must have been adapting their story and making it up on the hoof.

    When are you going to get onto the Gaspar statements and dismiss them also Textusa as having been made up, as that is what you also say you believe?

    The McCanns sure will like that one!

  10. PeterMac (7) Excellent post.

    Poster 8: You'd better make your comment at Textusa's house.

    Poster 2: They did mention Gerry, but said it was ruled out by the police.

  11. If Jane Tanner thought fit to describe a male ' abductor' fabricating about almost every aspect of his outlook, isn't it time we started considering the possibility that the so-called abductor could have been a woman, like, say, one of the so-hastily-got-rid-of nannies, or one of the Tapas dames?
    The whereabouts of the men have been combed with a toothbrush, but how about the ladies?

    Has anyone kept a log on their comings and goings?

    But of course the first question is: Was there ever a person named Madeleine Beth Mc Cann, and if so, when was she last seen dead or alive, and are there any independent witnesses thereof?

    I still feel that the truth is out in the open, and if we scrutinize the dossier up and until may 3rd closely enough, the truth will out.


  12. Lisa Donovan, the US actress who was supposed to play «Kate McCann's role» and never did, last minute edits by Emma Loach/Mentorn Media/Steve Anderson for the chanel 4 mockumentary «Maddie was Here»



  13. I think it is very important to remember WILKINS...he not only saw Mccann but Tanner..Tanner ,although he did not know her name at this time said she was wearing a purple dress. Tanner claims to have been wearing cropped pants and noisy flip flops...So is she calling WILKINS a liar?

    Tanner also claims not to have taken jeans to PDL...why is this important to her...She said she saw a photograph of herself wearing jeans and knew it was from another time...PLEASE does anyone have a photograph of Tanner wearing jeans ????I think not...If it existed it has been removed, the question is why...Kate McCann mentioned the abductor was wearing jeans but she would have to confirm this with Tanner...Very, very odd.

    There were no checks, nor was there any plan to claim on checking the children...they would have gone for neglect leaving hours of time when the children were alone...

    The Mccanns would have returned to the apartment together and found Madeleine gone...BUT McCann had to explain what he was doing outside the apartment just after 9 pm...Remember WILKINS said he could have met with McCann anytime betwenn 8.45 and 9.15...It is Mccann who has given us this timeline....THIS is when the checks were invented...there was no time to smash shutters and create a break in....Does anyone believe if Mccann had not seen WILKINS anyone of them would have gone knocking on his door, not to ask for help but to inform????

    Mccann claims to have just checked the children' I thought how lucky I am'....Wilkins and Mccann 'SEEN' by Tanner who also saw the abductor...ALL before 9.20 pm...before Oldfields check that never happened. Therefore WILKINS saying they only spoke for three to four minutes...while abductor was outside with Madeleine means the entire abduction took around four minutes.

    The Gaspar statement...well we will cover this on Textusa and do our own reconstruction and you will see Katherines statement has one very big gaping hole.


  14. The way Jane Tanner is 'sort of' discredited only goes to credit Gerry McCann as having been as white as snow, because people would simply say that Gerry must be innocent as he would be agreeing with Jane.

    It is this kind of thing which Gerry was doing, this little game he was playing, that was for a purpose. That is to really back up the JT sighting, and look like him not being involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, or, people might ask, why would he raise any doubts? It is subtle but effecive, and very manipulative.

    In trying to raise doubts about her, he is hoping to reinforce himself in the eyes of the public as being whiter than snow.

    Jane Tanner is their main player, there is no way Gerry is going to dismiss that sighting. What he said, was done for one effect only, and that was to make him look innocent of any involvement.

  15. Were those night photos taken when it was a full moon, because, but please correct me if I am wrong, it was a full moon the night of the supposed vanishing?

    That would have made the sighting of Mr Smith and his party much better.

  16. Textusa misses the point entirely.

    The important point about this scene and how the McCanns and Mitchell, with either the connivance or lack of rigour of the director, her editor and the production team at Mentorn, let alone any editorial control at Channel 4 Dispatches, misled their audience is this:

    The "abductor " described by Tanner and shown in the 'reconstructed' scene by the apartment and the 'carrier' seen by the Smiths in the 'reconstructed' scene analysed above are played by the same actor, with the same hairstyle and clothing, carrying a child in the same position.

    It is the clear attention of the McCanns to persuade the public that these sightings are of the same person. Because Tanner claims she saw Gerry McCann at the same time as the 'abductor', we are thereby led to believe that the man the Smiths saw cannot be Gerry McCann.

    However, the Smiths and Tanner do not describe the same person:

    Aoife Smith describes him so: His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, cut in a short style, short from behind (normal) and a bit longer on the top. She did not see the child’s face because she was lying against the individual’s left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual.

    Martin Smith describes him so: His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual’s shoulders to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.

    Peter Smith describes him so: He had short hair, brown in colour.

    Jane Tanner describes him so: Very dark hair, thick, long at the neck. (Noticed when the person was seen from the back). He was carrying a sleeping child in his arms across his chest.

    She's adamant about that hair. As she says in her rogatory interview:

    00.34.37 4078 “Is there anything else about the man that you can remember now?”
    Reply “No, I mean, I would be so worried now about things that are put into my, I think the
    only two things that I’m still absolutely adamant on is a lot of hair, sort of a lot of
    thick, thick hair and sort of dark and baggy, well not, ill fitting clothes

    That's not the man the Smiths describe. It simply isn't. And it's misleading to pretend it is.

    Which was exactly the point of this scene.

  17. poster 9, are you sure the police were presented with Smith's statement that he thought it was Gerry? If so, did the police base the rejection on statements that gerry was 'elsewhere' at the time? Surely this is valid and blows apart Text's theory as it couldnt have been Gerry - or is it not a fact that Gerry's whereabouts is not corroborated independantly?

  18. 16 ...and that means that the film makers have taken part in a deception - fraud to support a fraudulant fund.

    The 'authorities' not only look on passively but actively support the McCanns through the waste of money CEOP (an organisation that should be terminated at a time of shortage of funds in the UK, as by Gamble's own description it takes no real active part in anything).

    The UK authorities have collapsed into illegality - police killing innocent news vendors, brazillian students...

  19. One thing re this docuementary we can be sure of absolutely was that it was made with the intention of misleading the public. For anyone viewing who had not followed the case they saw and perhaps believed what the McCann's - Carter Ruck's clients, wanted them to.

    These people to me are devious, fighting for their "lives" making them very dangerous individuals. They have demonstrated that they will go to any lengths to self preserve.

    This case is not about a missing child, not now and not at the time of that documentary was made. It was designed to protect the parents.

    Edgar in my opinion is a disgrace. But he is being paid by the McCann's so he will do their bidding.

    Can anyone imagine the Portuguese/UK police when conducting a reconstruction of events telling the 'players' that it does not matter if they do not position themselves exactly where they stood at the time in question (in this case which side of the road) absolutely not!

    What says it all is that the American actress who was to take the part of Kate (who found it too upsetting to go to Portugal) was dismissed, but Kate found the courage to act out her part in her home in Rothely the filming from there included in the documentary.

    What were they afraid of? That when this American actor carried out the scene, opening the patio door, proceeding to the bedroom door, demonstrating the search of the apartment which Kate claims to have done, searching in the parents bedroom, going over to Madeleine's empty bed as she also claims to have done, going over to look out THAT WINDOW WITH THE JEMMIED SHUTTER -- were they afraid that Kate's version would come across as wholly unbelievable? Most definitely.

    Using a door leading off the McCann's kitchen at their home in Rothley, and then film footage of net curtain blowing in the wind was what we were to accept as the 'CHILDREN'S BEDROOM IN PDL.'

    That was as close as the viewing were going to get to the scene of that night be reconstructed. Some watching may not have realised this was the McCann kitchen in Rothely!

    No way then could the public begin to imagine the scene inside apartment 5a that Kate McCann claims to have found. The viewer could not establish distances from patio door to bedroom door, could not visualise properly what Kate claims to have seen - the open bedroom door from her position standing just inside the patio door. Nor could they visualise Kate standing over Madeleine's bed, or rushing to check out the apartment, or looking out the all important open window. SHE NEVER DEMONSTRATED ANY OF THIS FOR THE DOCUMENTARY.

    Do we take it that the American actor did in fact film this but for some reason they decided NOT to let the viewing public see it?

    I would bet my last buck on that!


  20. Textusa, you have done a marvellous job on the above article it is very interesting and I will go over it all again, an incredible amount of work and attention has gone into this. Thank you.

    May I just add, not with regard your article Textusa, a little off topic, so will apologise now, but I have always wondered about the fact that Kate McCann has never to my knowledge, said that on this check of the children when she discovered Madeleine to be missing and knew immediately that she had been abducted, that she looked at the twins in the cots to see if they were okay?

    We know she left them alone again when she went to raise the alarm. We know too once the alarm was raised she is said to have spent most of her time in her and Gerry's room, bashing herself off the walls, punching doors etc (which is supposed to be the reason her hands were noted to have been bruised - personally I think they became bruised wrestling with the shutter and she had to batter them on the walls to account for the bruising)occasionally going through to the twins and placing her hand over the mouths to check their breathing--- but has anyone read or ever heard her say that at the time of discovering Madeleine missing, in her mind, abducted, that her thoughts then immediately turned to the safety of the twins babies, or that she checked them before running out of the apartment.

    That has always troubled me. The fact she left the babies alone again is troubling, but the fact she does not appear to have given them any thought or checked on them before raising the alarm, or so it seems, I find disturbing and unnatural.

    Sorry for long post.

    Again Textusa you have put in an incredible amount of work in your article.


  21. bestbefore,

    You're missing the point. What man are they describing then? The the Smiths describe another? Is that a Smith-lane and the Smiths the McCanns describe are another different set of Smiths? And how many Smiths cross with a man carrying a child on the night of 3rd of May?

    By the way, which Tanner version of the abductor are you talking about? Because if it's egg-man, then, no egg went down that street that or any night.

    What is misleading is whatever you're pretending to be. You know Textusa is right and has a lot more up his/her sleeve, and that's why you quetsion his/her post here and not on Textusa's blog.

    You and your friends be ready... justice is acoming...

  22. From Anon 10.
    To prevent misunderstandings I meant PeterMac (now 8), excellent post. Agree, 'Tanner for me is the weak link in all this.'

    Poster 8 is poster 9 by renumbering.

  23. Anon 11
    "If Jane Tanner thought fit to describe a male ' abductor' fabricating about almost every aspect of his outlook, isn't it time we started considering the possibility that the so-called abductor could have been a woman, like, say, one of the so-hastily-got-rid-of nannies, or one of the Tapas dames? "

    And of course Edgar, their No 1 Detective, also made it quite clear some time later, on record, on television, in the presence of the world's press, that Tanner might have seen a woman.
    No wonder she burst into tears. Everything she said was being shown publicly to be a lie. Shown on prime time television, across the world.
    Look folks. Here is a liar. Guilty of conspiracy to pervert, assisting offender, accessory after the fact, various other conspiracies, perjury in a libel action, and a few other things too trivial to mention.
    And very soon she is to have her own 15 minutes of fame in a court in Portugal.

    Will the GM and KM controlled family assistance fund help ? I doubt it.


    Do NOT let yourself be fooled by the diversion the McCanns are creating. It seems that there is a book questioning the McCanns attitude on the 3rd of May. Not questioning the authenticity of the authoress, nor even implying that she’s linked with the McScum. As far as I’ve read, she’s NOT.

    However, that book has been published 22 days ago. When Amaral’s book came out, did they ask for Portuguese translators? NO.

    Why do they need German translators NOW?!?

    They are simply trying to divert the attention AWAY from this article from Textusa because they have no away around it. The longer it stays online, the more awkward the situation becomes. Please, please, do not let yourselves be diverted from this. Twit this, e-mail this, for the more people that know this the less space the McCanns have.

    I have nothing against the authoress of the German book and if the McCanns make a move on her, I’ll be in the front line to help, but please realize that this is ONLY a maneuver to distract the attention to this exposure, which is undeniable.

    Joana, please leave this here for a couple more days!

    Thank you

  25. One waiter, I forget his name, said that the only person checking on the children that night was Gerry McCann,precisely every twenty minutes, so either he is lying or the tapas 9 are.

  26. It was no full moon on May 3rd 2007.
    The moon was growing, on that day.

  27. If "Stroller Man" had anything to do with Maddie's disappearance, I DON'T agree that he wanted to be seen.


  28. Bestbefore I have to disagree...the whole point is the child and nothing more, her description and what she was wearing..and the fact it was a cold night..her bear feet emphasised by Tanner and the Smiths. It is the CHILD the Mccanns want to get across who was being abducted...(who did the abduction is of no importance.)..They needed a child out of the apartment looking exactly like Madeleine and they neded a witness to back up Tanners sighting and alibi for Mccann.IMHO


  29. Bestbefore @ #16, thank you. Your post explains exactly my thoughts on the matter.


  30. The narcissist is a mental three-year-old who knows only one trick: "Throw a temper tantrum whenever people aren't doing what you want them to do, and keep throwing it until they get it right"

    People are perplexed by off-the-wall reactions to things, they cannot imagine why anyone would do that. Even seeing it happen doesn't quite make them believe it because it's too crazy to really have happened so we go into denial about it.

    Normal people would never degrade themselves by behaving in this childish manner, they don't realize that the narcissist is different - a being with a towering ego and zero self respect , who therefore is not above behaving childish, irrationally, or insanely on purpose..... just to get his way with you.

    Because he never has to know he's doing that. He can forever not know he's doing that. That's what his Magical Thinking Machine is for.....Playing Pretend.

  31. If someone had planned an abduction-this was supposedly planned in advance, according to the McCanns- After "the man" had cased the apartment, and followed the McCann schedule, it would make sense for the "abductor" to park a car outside the apartment, nip inside during the "small window of opportunity" that Kate McCann described and take Madeleine away in a car to get her out of the area at once. Instead, the Tapas Friends have the abductor running all over hell's half acre carrying a child who, though unsedated, according to her parents, never wakes up.

    Lies upon lies.

  32. A. Miller,

    Thank you.

    Responding to your questions in a very short manner. Kate did not discover Maddie missing in that room. When she discovered that Maddie was not where she thought she was, the twins were not in the apartment. When she left the apartment to "raise" the alarm (in my opinion an hysterical reaction to an unknown situation) she didn't leave anyone abandoned in the apartment. And she knew they weren't abandoned.

    In fact, in no night, were any of the children left alone in any of the apartments. In no night, except the 3rd, did the McCanns or friends dine at Tapas.

    Someone has used the expression that too many cooks spoil a broth... yes, they do, at least I hope they do, because, they were many, many more cooks in this broth, and one cook came and spoiled it all. Question here is, when a broth is spoiled, who is most affected, the numerous cooks, just because of the incompetence of one, or the guests that can find somewhere else to eat?

    Too many cooks spoil a broth? Maybe not. Maybe just one cook spoils the broth of many cooks... And then, when the other cooks try HASTELY to correct what could've been corrected, more harm than good is done, and the recipe is just lost altogether, and no one knows where exactly all went wrong... It just did. But when it comes to broth I'm sick and a perverse person as you know.

    Hope I answered, and thank you for your compliments.


  33. Textusa and Ironside, believe what you like about the Smith and Tanner sightings, but when you want to demolish the Gaspar statements as well, you are taking away one of the main threats to the McCanns.

    It is the Gaspar statements coming out into the open that the McCanns truly fear, because that could lead to somebody in their group feeling so threatened they go spill the beans.

    It is the Gaspar statement that need to be broadcast to as many people as possible, not swept under the carpet and ignored.

    Sometimes I have to wonder just what you really are trying to do. This kind of thing is simply devisive at a time when we should be uniting behind Dr Amaral. We should certainly not be shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Leave the Gaspar's out of it! It took a lot of guts to do what they did and report what they saw and heard, and its a pity there aren't more like them.

  34. The full moon was on the 2nd May 2007, the night before, so on the 3rd May the moon would still have been very bright.

    Apparently, that particular full moon fell on a special festival in black magic, or some such pagan thing, which is connected with ritual child sacrifice. Not that I am suggesting that is what happened to Madeleine, but another strange anomaly, as who knows when Madeleine really did die.

    This was discussed on 3As.

  35. @21 I've no idea what you mean by that post so I'm afraid I can't sensibly respond.

    @26 Ironside. If I'm not wrong, your theory is that someone was wandering around PdL with a substitute child, trying to be seen, having chosen to use one of the least likely visited alleyways in town rather than the main road where there is through vehicular traffic. That, I suggest, is nonsense.


    I expect the McCanns coming up with a sighting, not because of Textusa but because of Halligen. next Thursday.

  37. Poster 17.

    In the video above (broadcast May, 7 2009, by Channel 4)
    0:35:40 - 0:37:20 a voice-over is mentioning a sighting of another family, 14 minutes after Jane's sighting. This lady says that they thought it was Gerry, but that this was ruled out by the Portuguese police.

    Don't know if this is based on facts (maybe lack of evidence), but imo the way the Smiths sighting is done in this 'documentary' is just another misleading of the public.

    I wonder why the McCanns changed the Smiths sighting; the Smiths say the man was carrying a child 'vertically', the McCanns show the same sighting with a man who carries a child 'horizontally'. I understand this is probably done to make Jane's sighting credible, but it is also very stupid to alter the Smiths sighting, because it makes the whole 'documentary' completely incredible.

  38. Textusa, I will make A. Miller's words my own.
    Thank you for an article which I will read several times in order to refresh my own patchy understanding of all the discrepancies.

    A lot of work has gone into it and it is an almost mandatory discussion, based on facts, for anybody with an interest in the case.

  39. As impressive as the scale and scope of the OP's efforts are..

    for those of us with limited attention spans or just a few weeks to live..

    is there a 'Reader's Digest' version, pretty please ????

    (does not need to include any graphical depictions)

    PS: a one-liner would do

    PPS: ta ever so much


    aka Ministry of funny walks

    -respectfully and all that

  40. I'm a greatgrandmother, albeit a young one, but in all my years I've never heard of a case where the suspects are allowed to lay down the rules. Expecting the world to believe an abduction, disregarding evidence shown by highly regarded dogs etc etc.
    I think those two have ruined so many peoples lives, all fearing for their own skins.
    Even their families seem to have given up.

    I hope I live long enough to see justice for Madeleine, and those two locked up for a good few years.

    The twins must be hearing comments from kids at school by now, and once they are old enough to use the internet will realise how they were all neglected and put at risk.

  41. Well said Anon 39. How true that is.

  42. Anonymous. 31
    "If someone had planned an abduction- EDIT . Instead, the Tapas Friends have the abductor running all over hell's half acre carrying a child who, though unsedated, according to her parents, never wakes up.
    Lies upon lies."
    And let us not forget that Edgar has stated publicly, on record, and never questioned or contradicted, that he believed that the children were "Chloroformed". KM was an anaethetist, and like all doctors and A-level chemistry students would recognised the distinctive smell of that particular Victorian anaesthetic, just as she would have detected the livid burn marks on the twins faces, but has never been heard to say that Edgar got that part wrong. Mitchell has also never elaborated.
    Why not ?
    It clearly serves the McCanns to have the majority of the population, including so-called journalists, believing all sorts of nonsense simultaneously. That way there can be no focussed examination on the facts of what happened. Divide and rule.
    Look at the Sun 'reporter; who got the stuff about the shutters totally mixed up, but still believes that she understands the situation (on the Madeleine foundation site),
    They and Mitchell are playing a clever game, putting so many stories into the public domain to confuse and obfuscate.

  43. Beware not of those who say they're your foes. Beware rather of those that say they are your friends. The first you know how you can count on them, whilst from the latter it will always be a mistery.

    I'm tired of the "divisive" argumentation. Heve been for a long time. The belief that those who are nt for me are against me is infantile, and I don't intend ever to write on this subject to be read by children. This is much too serious, and your efforts to deviate me from mine are useless. Have been so for a long time, and will continue so. I'm proud to be known in certain corners of the internet as "The Vile One".

    To ward off somethingg for fear of division can only mean one of to things: arrogance in calling others ignorant for they're apparently unable to see by themselves the forthcoming divisive threat, or aknowledgement that whatever was supposed to be "united" has no inner strength to remain so, thus proving that it was never united, so calling for its "unity" it's nothing but a futile exercise.

    Others, besides myself, have warned that many here are not what they say they are, and seek the opposite heir mouth speak. The McCanns, for ones, but not only them. And when, as I say in my blog, only through reasons beyond reason itself can one defend the indefensable.

    I trust the judgement of those who read me. The feedback I've received tells me that I do well in trusting. Accept diversity, and have learned a lot from it, and have changed many of my initial thoughts. Have not turned anyone's armto believe in me, but will not be by force that I'll change my beliefs.

    Thank you all who've complimented my work.


  44. Textusa,

    To answer just one of your questions: So why fake it to where it was placed?

    You should consider that at least one of your facts is wrong. You claim: "No, no extra lighting was used, as is demonstrated by the single shadow of the road sign on the right."

    I'm afraid you're wrong. They have a big light parked in the open area around S on your plan to illuminate that part of the street. They had only one night to shoot everything and had neither time nor budget to light the street artfully to enable filming. That's whgy they shifted it back up the street, to get that nice big shadow of the scary abductor on the wall in picture 5. They cheated the position to make shooting easier.

    An exact recreation was not what they intended to make. They just wanted to present the story so that people would believe the 'abductor' seen by the Smiths was the same person seen by Tanner earlier. The exact location was immaterial to this end.

    If the person seen by Tanner is the same person seen by the Smiths, then the carrier can't be McCann, as Tanner claims to have seen him on the street with Wilkins at the exact same time.

    Wilkins, of course, states clearly that Tanner was not on the street and could not have walked past him.

    The documentary is nothing less than propaganda.

  45. Anon 36
    "I expect the McCanns coming up with a sighting, not because of Textusa but because of Halligen. next Thursday."
    In some ways you have to feel sorry for Mitchell, just as you do for a prostitute. They say they do what they do vountarily, and for money, but in reality they are trapped. Mitchell is now trapped in what even he must see is a huge conspiracy. We saw his body language at the last Edgar/Mitchell show in the cellar with the Barcelona-Beckham fairy tale, and he was clearly uneasy.
    When the truth comes out he will be showbn to be a total idiot, even if he escapes prosecution, and he will not be able to refuse to speak to journalists on the record, because that is his job.
    Pity him, but while he is still having to invent sightings, enjoy the moment.

  46. Quoting Textusa

    ''In fact, in no night, were any of the children left alone in any of the apartments. In no night, except the 3rd, did the McCanns or friends dine at Tapas.''

    No-one appears to have commented upon this.

    Are you seriously suggesting that they only ate at the tapas bar on one evening?????

    Sorry, but that's even more insane than your usual proclamations

  47. Without even the need to re-read the PJ files, which clearly indicate the parents involvement, IMO,I like to contrast the McCann documentary, a fictional cover-up, to the REAL videos we have seen.

    Those include the videos of Eddie alerting to McCann items / apartment, the numerous McCann interviews, Tanner's interview, Gerry laughing on the balcony a few days after Maddie "disappeared", the "cheer up Gerry" bus video and the video of Gerry claiming the abductor must have given the twins something to "keep them asleep".

    Clearly the McCann "documentary" was nothing more than a PR exercise, full of deceptive manipulation of what they believed the general public already knew - courtesy of the British Press and their willingness to abandon their ethical responsibilities and parrot every word Clarence Mitchell fed to them - slanting their stories to portray the McCanns as suffering, innocent and victims of the fat, drunken, sardine munching, Portuguese Keystone Kops.

    The fact is that they refused to return for an official, police requested reinactment because the police would NOT have allowed them to deviate from the official statements we have all read and which are NOT presented accurately in their "documentary".

    When reviewing the videos that are not scripted, it is easy to understand why we will not stop analysing the case and why we are certain there is a cover-up underway:

    (continued below...)

  48. (continued from above...)

    The videos of Eddie and Keela at work: There is absolutely no doubt that Eddie alerted ONLY to items belonging to the McCanns and ONLY to their hired car. Martin Grime makes it abundantly clear that in the video Eddie can be seen alerting to what he was trained to find (cadaver scent). Even without knowing what we do about Eddie's sterling record, even without being aware that there has never been another death in the apartment, this video tells us more about Maddie's fate than a single frame of the McCann "documentary".

    Bus Video: Gerry was "troubled", had something on his mind. The others (including Kate) were, IMO, clueless about whatever Gerry was bothered about and appear to be relaxed - on their way to a nice family vacation. Question: What was on Gerry's mind that the others were not privy to? Who shot that video? Who uploaded it and why?

    The video of Gerry driving and talking about sedation: This video is very important, IMO, because it completely debunks every attempt they have made to convince the public that an abductor was involved. It is impossible, given the timeline (in any of its various manifestations) for anyone to have been able to sedate the twins before lifting Maddie from the room. The sedation of the twins seems very likely, given that they slept through all the chaos, and the question becomes WHO sedated them and why were the McCanns not willing to have the twins tested? Why did none of the doctors in this group (all of whom were aware that the twins were not reacting naturally to the noise and activity) offer to transport the twins immediately to a hospital for analysis? IMO, this alone indicates that every one of the Tapas group KNEW the twins had been "safely" sedated, which indicates that every one of them knew WHY the twins were sedated.

    The video of Gerry laughing in a "carefree" manner on the balcony speaks for itself. NO father believing his child was in the hands of a paedophile could have even one relaxed minute, laughing and gesturing as he does in the video. It is entirely abnormal and incredibly suspicious as to his state of mind.

    The McCann interviews and the Tanner interview have been discussed at length on the many forums related to the case and I urge anyone who is newly questioning the case to read over what has been said already on the forums (and blogs).

    Thanks again to textusa for your analysis. Although I do not agree with all of your conclusions, I do agree with the most important ones.

    The day approaches in which Dr. Goncalo Amaral will be vindicated and when Madeleine McCann's fate will finally be disclosed. Any and all involved in the disposal of her body, the lies told to authorities and the fraudulent Madeleine Fund will be held to account for their crimes.

  49. @Textusa,

    Having viewed that section of the documentary again, I take back my comment about the lighting. What I thought was a shadow at 5 is a silhouette of the 'carrier'.

    But further viewing only confirms my belief that the whole reason for this section of filming was to convince viewers that the two 'carriers' had been described as the same person.

    Even the voiceover in the documentary states at 1:20 of part 4 of 5 (here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=related)

    "In the 45 minutes that followed, there were two significant sightings of a man carrying a young girl.."

    This, too, is designed to imply that they were the same person. We're not told:they were described differently.

  50. Anyone who can read post 43 and fail to realise that the author, Textusa, has a serious problem, needs to go back and read it again.

    You are starting to believe your own publicity, Textusa. Understandable - you wrote most of it.

    Please, people. Don't fall into the trap of over-elaboration. Textusa takes the tiniest pieces of information, or usually in her case. misinformation, and weaves a whole story around it.

    All of this is nonsense, and she is making fools of anyone who believes it. Read that post again. You are reading an egomaniac and a megalomaniac, and I am, as ever, constantly amazed that anyone as sensible as Joana is taken in by her.

  51. guys...t'was a TV show..nothing more nothing less

    to base a thesis on it...which shadow hopped first under which light is utterly ridiculous and smacks of the desperate measures of a certain 'sentimental agent' - well known from the MF days...

    incidentially the same poster who always went on about 'brothes'

    re-read and go figure-a WUM (wind up merchant of the order of the unrepentant axe murderer)

    a bit of realpolitik please



  52. Anon 46

    Good points.

    The McCanns and their friends did dine at the Tapas, and there is comment in statements about how they managed to get a table each night when they were not supposed to be able to, because so many others could not. That party was treated differently and the question is why?

    As for Textusa stating that at no time were the children left alone, where did that little gem come from? The whole lot of the Tapas friends should have been investigated as to how often the children were left and whether they went on to Chaplins after the Tapas.

    Thing is Textusa, you are coming out with things as if they were FACT when really you should be qualifying them by saying it is your belief that is what happened. What somebody believes may have happened is not necessarily a FACT that it did.

    It is the same with the Gaspar statements that obviously don't fit your storyline, so you simply dismiss them as made up.

    No FACTS to prove that whatsoever. Again it is your belief in order to fit the storyline, so you have to try and demolish them.

    That's OK, it is your story and you can write it as you please, but don't try and qualify your belief as FACT as if your pronouncment of that word makes it so.

    You may be telling a good yarn, but there is a danger that you are going to end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and the truth of what really happened will be more clouded than ever.

  53. Isar 51

    You have really made me laugh with those 'hopping shadows', a new way to describe them.

    So funny.

    As for the rest, it's a bit too deep.

  54. Anon 48

    Yes, Gerry surely didn't look very happy on the trip out there.

    Perhaps he had money on his mind, or lack of it. Is that maybe why they didn't pay for a babysitter?

    No credit cards were forthcoming for the investigators to discover what the money situation was. How do the McCanns get away with lying to the police like that, and saying they didn't have any when really they did?

  55. Can somebody inform me if, after the alarm, at least one person of each couple went back to his own apartment in order to protect his own children?
    Gerry knew immediately that she was abducted by paedophiles.
    Did Tapas 7 protect their own children during the rest of the night?

  56. Somewhere I saw pictures of the beach, Tetusa's theory, and I can't find them back. Please help me.

    If the body was hidden on the beach, the PJ would have found a mixture of blood and sand in the Scenic.
    And the dogs would have smelled it, on the beach itself.
    And how would they have exhumated the corpse later,transported it, without being seeing? Not only the police but also the rest of Algarve had already heard about the disappearence.
    I think Maddie was taken to a safe clean place and I suspect the church.

  57. Again I ask:

    How come the PJ suspects Kate and not Gerry caused the accident?

  58. Very good post anon #52

    Unfortunately, Textusa is unlikely to see it that way. All of her theories are pieces of complete invention and she will brook no criticism. She will of course accuse you of working for the McCanns. At least on here your comments have been published. Disagree with her on her own blog and she won't even print your comments, unless to give herself the excuse to be extremely abusive and insulting.

    As anon 52 has said, Textusa, these stories are just that. They are your theories, they are not facts, nor are they based on facts. In fact, in many cases they actively promote ideas which we already know to be untrue. I don't know why you would wish to drag people up a blind alley - presumably you have some sort of motivation for it - but you are a malignant and disruptive force for bad.

    If we just take the idea that the only night the McCanns dined at the tapas was on 3rd May - something you have stated in this thread as fact - then we know that to be palpably untrue. So you start with a lie, and build other untruths around it. I doubt whether you are even able to remember that you invented the first bit, because you have repeated it so often I think you have even started to believe it yourself.

    Is this all to fit in with this theory that you and Ironside have that the McCanns went to Chaplins and that there exists cctv footage of this? When you were challenged on that the answer was just ridiculous - that it did exist and it would turn up one day.

    You remind me of the astronomers of old, predicting the existence of a planet by observing the fluctuations in the orbit of other bodies, but with one important difference - they were right.

    So what can we expect next? Your theory about the involvement of the priest, perhaps. Or maybe you would like to repeat on here your threats to the family of Robert Murat?

    Anyway, I shall leave it there. It's impossible to improve upon the wisdom of anon 52 when s/he said
    ''That's OK, it is your story and you can write it as you please, but don't try and qualify your belief as FACT as if your pronouncment of that word makes it so.''

  59. i also believe that the children were not left on thier own each night as it seems someone fron the group seem to be to be unwell themselves or were looking after a sick child.

  60. Anon 59

    There is no evidence that it is a FACT that they were not left alone. It is pure conjecture that they were not.

  61. 52 and 58. I agree there is danger in this post - too much is read into the documentary ('text' is very clever but too self absorbed to be a reliable person on whom to base any case).

    I refer you back to my own post (1) and use the phrase 'keep it simple, stupid!'.

    The documentary is revealing - but it is dangerous to read too much from it and risk being discreditted - and as was rightly stated above, causing the baby to be thrown out with the bath water.

    In my simple view it simply reveals that Gerry and Kate are not stating events truthfully. It does not reveal the truth that they are not stating.

    It should be enough for the authorities and the media to take a closer look at the McCann's. However, the authorities do not have he stomach for it. Economically, one child is not worth it - though as an ongoing crime, the fraud perpetrated through the fund ought to attract interest. The media don't have the stomach to deal with Carter Ruck - and why bother if they can occasionally increase circulation with no risk of legal action?

    The McCann's, having successfully controlled the Portuguese irritation, are no doubt being advised to keep their heads down now and building a more modest career for Kate which generates a steady income under the radar.

    The mistake many frustrated people make is to try to explain the mystery by creating detailed explanations. Better to point out with extreme and carefull clarity why the story as presented by the McCann's is not factual. For example, to repeat the mantra that there is no evidence of abduction and ask for the McCann's and the supporters of the McCann's to explain what happened. They are the ones who state ot was an abduction, let them prove that - rather than take the weak ground ourselves and then be forced to defend it - i.e. stop providing the McCann's and their supporters with something to attack!

    To state that Madeleine was abducted as if this were a fact and use this to collect money to pay personal expenses is unsupportable and a clear misrepresentation - it is a fraud. Attack that, dont invent and provide soemthing to discredit - it is not necessary and is counter productive - it gives them credibility.

  62. I feel a sighting coming on .......

  63. Quote - Anonymous said... 56

    Somewhere I saw pictures of the beach, Tetusa's theory, and I can't find them back. Please help me.

    If the body was hidden on the beach, the PJ would have found a mixture of blood and sand in the Scenic.
    And the dogs would have smelled it, on the beach itself.
    And how would they have exhumated the corpse later,transported it, without being seeing? Not only the police but also the rest of Algarve had already heard about the disappearence.
    I think Maddie was taken to a safe clean place and I suspect the church.

    End quote

    They would still have found nothing in the scenic. Let's dispel this myth again. The forensic service said of that sample that it was incapable of meaningful interpretation. It was the PJ who stated that it proved Madeleine had been in a hire car weeks after she disappeared. This was a complete misrepresentation of the results, which did not prove that at all.

    Your question about exhuming a body from the beach is a very fair one - how indeed?

    They did not have the keys to the church until some days later

  64. What would you do if your three year old went missing from your apartment, and police forensic evidence found blood and cadaverine there, which checked to be from nobody else there. Would you
    a) encourage the officer in charge to find who killed your daughter? or b) would you sue him for suggesting that she might be dead? It's a no brainer isn't it when you come right down to the simple facts? Which is the sane option?

  65. Misdirection

    The sighting by Tanner, the sighting by family Smith
    Is maybe not that important and you shouldn't be distracted by this
    The important sighting is the one by Fiona Payne.
    And the question is why and what did she have to gain?

    In her Police statement, there to be read
    This is what Fiona actually said
    "Robert Murat came up to me and shook me by the hand"
    This was outside the flat just after Madeleine went
    Was this a false trail to put the Police off the scent

    Fiona states, the man said he was Robert Murat and was there to help out
    He clearly identified himself, of that she had no doubt
    So Tanner only thinks Murat was hanging about
    On the other hand Fiona has absolutely no doubt

    So why is this not the focus as to her reasons for framing we are told an innocent man
    Was it to divert attention away from the antics of Kate and Gerry McCann
    Why is it Murat is supposed to be suing Tanner, a fool of the first degree?
    When suing Payne for Calumny, would be a win certainly
    Red herrings and diversions discuss but do not lose sight of the ball
    Fiona and David Payne are the real key to it all

    When Gerry got rocky outside the court in February this year
    How long did it take best friend Fiona to appear?
    In Payne's Police statement he admits he is withholding important information on the case
    The Leicestershire Police ignored this and thats a bloody disgrace

    So Payne has information that may give the Police a clue,
    But so far hasn't told them, or Kate and Gerry what he knew
    Kate and Gerry ask people to do all they can
    But they are very happy their close friends stay silent in the mystery of Madeleine McCann
    Mr Gamble head of the missing children squad
    You should look into this as its very odd

  66. I agree with anon 61. The only significant fact is that there is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted from apt. 5a. We weren't there and can't possibly know what happened. I wish that those people who do know something (i.e. the holiday group and anyone they made significant contact with) could be forced to tell what they know.

    Its even possible that Madeleine was abducted, but that she was taken from somewhere else. After all, so much has been done to confuse and distract. Why?

  67. quote - Anonymous said... 64

    What would you do if your three year old went missing from your apartment, and police forensic evidence found blood and cadaverine there, which checked to be from nobody else there. Would you
    a) encourage the officer in charge to find who killed your daughter? or b) would you sue him for suggesting that she might be dead? It's a no brainer isn't it when you come right down to the simple facts? Which is the sane option?

    end quote


    Surely the reaction of an innocent parent would be one of complete horror at the thought that their child may have already been dead when she was taken? I would expect them to ask were the police absolutely sure, could the premises be checked again with different dogs, perhaps?

    You know, even if one ignores the indications of the dogs just for a moment, the vast majority of stranger abducted children are dead within hours of being taken. The few cases where that has proven not to be so are the exception, not the rule.

    More than anything this fiction that suggesting Madeleine may be dead is in some way treacherous, that it actually 'wishes' her dead and harms the search for her is complete nonsense. The strongest indication they have is that she is indeed dead

  68. Bravo @ post # 61.

    @ Post # 65, reports suggest Murat also filled a case against Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Rachel Oldfied collectively known as the "Tapas 3" along with the separate case against Tanner. It's just that Tanner's seem to be first under consideration by the courts.


  69. Dr Amaral has said there was forensic evidence found to prove it came from a previously frozen cadaver.

    As this was from the McCanns hire car, and the cadaver and blood dogs are alerting there as well as in the holiday apartment, it is hard to stretch the imagination to believe Madeleine was abducted.

    This not about proof of DNA identity, it is about proof of a previously frozen dead body or bodily substance connected with it having been in contact with the inside of the McCanns hire car.

    How can the investigators simply disregard this even if the DNA evidence is not exact, though by some it was believed to be exact enough. The investigators have been working without Madeleine's body to take an exact DNA, and the DNA from the blood in the apartment was said to have been contaminated, which is no wonder being as how there had been attempts to wash it away completely.

    The McCanns must have been extremely unfortunate in their choice of hire car and holiday apartment, for the blood, cadaver scent and forensic evidence connected to a previously frozen cadaver having been in these places anyway. What would be the odds of that happening?

    Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe the dogs are 'ludicrous' and the 'evidence' which has been found (though at the same time Gerry McCann is saying there is no evidence), has been planted by the investigators themselves, both UK and Portuguese investigators at that. The McCanns are scraping the barrel with that one.

    Nobody else has ever died in the apartment, and Madeleine is missing.

    Is there any wonder the investigators believe Madeleine is dead, though even without the dogs and all it would still be hard to believe in the abduction of Madeleine which does not ring true, jemmied windows which were not, locked/unlocked door, constant checking of children, ulike other nights when there wasn't!, and etc.

    Easier to believe Madeleine had been taken by a UFO or the invisible man.

  70. thanks kindly 53..
    guilty of the charge
    preferable though to being labelled 'shallow as a paddling pool'

    8 - )


  71. From post # 69

    quote - Dr Amaral has said there was forensic evidence found to prove it came from a previously frozen cadaver.

    As this was from the McCanns hire car, and the cadaver and blood dogs are alerting there as well as in the holiday apartment, it is hard to stretch the imagination to believe Madeleine was abducted.

    This not about proof of DNA identity, it is about proof of a previously frozen dead body or bodily substance connected with it having been in contact with the inside of the McCanns hire car.

    End quote

    Sorry, but this is rubbish

    Please, all you are doing is spreading misinformation. There was no proof of a dead body, previously frozen or otherwise. I have asked you to provide this evidence or a link to it, but you can't. That's because it does not exist.

    Nor is the DNA evidence ''exact enough'' and if you knew anything about DNA you would not come out with such a ridiculous statement.

    There was no blood recovered from the apartment, nor were the samples 'contaminated'

    You simply do not understand, and I really do wish you would make the effort to, because you are perpetuating a falsehood, and that is not a very responsible thing to do.

    The DNA evidence does NOT prove Madeleine was in the car

    There is NO evidence of a cadaver, frozen or otherwise, being transported in the car

    Does this mean the dogs were wrong?

    NO. Categorically, it does NOT mean the dogs were wrong

    Does it mean that Amaral and the PJ did not understand the forensics results? YES

    Did they then put questions to the McCanns, based on an erroneous belief? YES, it does.

    I'll say this to you again - if you believe there is evidence a frozen cadaver was transported in the car, then kindly produce or link to it. I am telling you it does not exist

  72. boy textusa certainly has set the cat amonge the pigeons,i have noticed there are some really jumpy people on here,i wonder why.
    well done textusa.

  73. Anon 71

    Rubbish yourself.

    You are asking where the information about the forensic evidence which pointed to a previously frozen cadaver came from. You have been told where this information came from. You have also been told if you don't know already that most of the File is confidential and not to be released though the McCanns have tried their hardest to get hold of it.

    You have been told that the information about this finding of forensic evidence related to previously frozen cadaver has been told by Dr Amaral himself, and still you want chapter and verse.

    You continue to try and confuse this evidence with DNA evidence when it is of no such sort, and you try to make out you are some sort of expert on DNA, yet also say you are not??

    If you don't wish to believe Dr Amaral, or that he said this, then that is up to you but it sounds like you are quite obviously calling Dr Amaral a liar.

    Listen, whoever you are, Mr or Mrs knowitall, Dr Amaral knows things that we do not know. He worked on the case. He knows there is so much that is not revealed because this case, whether you like it or not, is still ongoing. It may have been said to be shelved, but it is not closed, much as the McCanns would like that.

    What's the matter, is it the mention of that fridge or whatever it was that is still out there somewhere, and that the investigators were searching for, that bothers you.

    Now that would be a big loose end to leave lying around wouldn't it!

    You are the one spreading misinformation, and now you have also been accusing the investigators of lying to the McCanns which you state on a previous thread. Where did you get that information from? The McCanns?

    You have read a bit of the File. Unless you have read all of it, or have worked on the case, you should not think you have all the evidence to hand.

    I would prefer to believe Dr Amaral any day than you. He actually worked on the case and was there and knew why they were doing what they were doing. So why do you think they were trying so hard to find that fridge or whatever it was that was used? Whatever it was that was stinking that car out was not smelling like it had come straight from a fridge, so that was not the reason they were searching. The forensic evidence was what told them about the previous freezing.

    You will have to wait, like the rest of us, for chapter and verse.

  74. Anon 72

    It's the mention of the freezing and the fridge that brings them out.

    If only the investigator who questioned Payne had asked him more about that fridge of the McCanns that he mentioned, and the other things he wanted to say about the disappearance of Madeleine that he said he didn't want put in his statement.

  75. RIPM at 65 Good points in your verse.

    As to what was in it for JT.

    How about the providing of an alibi for all of the Tapas friends, her partner included, who was said to be away from the table at that time.

  76. How many DNA markers have been used to convictserving criminals? On the basis of the McCann case, a lot of them would have grounds for an appeal.

  77. On a lighter note, in respose to 62 and the 'next sighting', where on earth's left?
    You could get a PHD in geography by studying all the places that sightings have apparently occurred.

  78. Anon @ 3,

    The crime was not perfect. They failed many details. The cover-up worked Perfect... until one day, when will be exposed. The cover-up just worked perfect because they had a precious help: the pink man and the suport of both governments to pervert and avoid a deep and serious investigation on their lifes and on their steps around May 3.
    Like Amaral claim many times, the investigation just started when they become arguidos. Well done Textusa, you seems on the right track. Only a stupid person, without a pinch of brain believe on Mccann's and Tapas story.
    The behaviour of their friends and their active family, after September 2007 is a reference for the world- they fade in a shell like a scared "hermita crab". That mean's they know what hapenned to Madeleine and she was not victim of a domestic accident. Domestics accidents could hapen to the most responsible parents even under their eyes with innocent explanations and without the need of a writing timetable of events on the cover of an activity book of the child.
    The way they disrespect the memory of Madeleine and the rights of the twins is disgusting.
    I believe, Kate & Gerry and their Tapas friends came to thal blog and to Textusa blog everyday and don't sleep well. They know, the farce it's close to be exposed and be front pages on the newspapers of many countries in Europe.

  79. @ anon #73,

    I will try and explain this is relatively simple terms. It's pointless expecting you to understand, but perhaps others will. You carry on in your blind belief that Dr Amaral is all-seeing and all-knowing and we'll wait and see who's right when it all comes out, shall we?

    Here is what seems to have happened.

    A sample of DNA was recovered from the boot of the hire car.
    This sample was not from one individual, but had been contributed by at least three different individuals. How do the FSS know that at least three individuals contributed? Well, each person has 20 different markers - in Madeleine's case, 19 differing ones, as she inherited an identical marker from both her parents. The sample recovered contained 37 markers, so clearly was not from one person.
    FSS determined at least three individuals had contributed DNA to that mixed sample.

    It would appear from the account in Dr Amaral's book that some of the early results had been communicated to the police in advance of the official report, and that this had caused some excitement, as some of the markers identified were ones carried by Gerry McCann, and I think that the PJ and possibly Leicestershire Police got a little ahead of themselves

    Anyway, when the official report arrived from John Lowe at the FSS he explained that within the mixed sample of 37 markers were 15 that Madeleine carried, and I think this is where things really went off track.

    Lowe was very careful to explain that this did not mean that they could say that the results meant that Madeleine had contributed to that DNA sample, or that they were proof that she was in the car. He stated that the result was not open to any 'meaningful interpretation', but it seems that the PJ had already got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and believed the results DID indicate she had been in the car, and that is not what the results say at all.

    If you try and imagine it in it's very simplest terms, just think in terms of where Madeleine got her markers from
    She inherited them from her parents, yes?
    In which case, a mixed DNA sample, to which both Kate and Gerry had contributed, could provide all the markers necessary to make Madeleine's profile, couldn't it?

    And hence where the sample recovered is a mixed one - especially if some of the contributors are possibly related to the person with the profile one is trying to find - the results are frequently not open to further meaningful interpretation.

    The idea of a fridge or freezer being employed arose from the erroneous conclusion that the DNA results placed Madeleine in the car, when they didn't. Commonsense would suggest that a body could not have been moved weeks after death, and already decaying, without leaving a smell that would hardly require a sniffer dog to detect. Hence, they concluded that her body must have been kept frozen or refrigerated, then later moved in the car, at which point the DNA was deposited

  80. Cont

    Except there was no DNA which placed Madeleine in the car, so the fridge/freezer speculation was all nonsense.

    One poster in particular keeps insisting that ''a substance consistent with a frozen cadaver'' was recovered from the car, and that this has nothing to do with the DNA.

    With respect, this is completely wrong. No such substance exists.
    I'm afraid to that constantly stating that Dr Amaral knows, because he knows more than anyone, he was there, etc, and that he has access to files not released is completely pointless.

    I have a great deal of respect for Dr Amaral, but from the dialogue between him and the FSS, and from his book, it is very clear that he has little or no understanding of some of the science involved.

    If you read, as I have, the forensic reports, and then read Chapter 18 of Dr Amaral's book, I think you will be able to see for yourself that he has not understood the conclusions of the report - whether because of a lack of understanding of the science or because of the standard of the translation with which he was provided, I do not know. There were certainly huge, glaring omissions in a memo from Inspector Carlos to Amaral, which may have contributed to the misunderstanding.

    Someone mentioned that perhaps there are many people in prison, wrongly convicted on the basis of dodgy DNA evidence, and I dare say there are some, but one thing is very important to remember here - you are talking about samples taken from an environment which has been in the proximity of both of Madeleine's parents, her brother and her sister. Her parents between them carry all the markers Madeleine did. Her brother and sister will also carry many of the same markers. Is it, therefore, any surprise that in a mixed sample recovered from a car they had been using that some of the same markers as Madeleine carried would be likely to be found?

    None of this means that the dogs gave false alerts

    None of this means that Madeleine was abducted.

    All it means is that the results cannot be interpreted to show that Madeleine was ever in the car, dead or alive.

  81. Anonymous 70/80, I assume that you are the same person that has posted as anonymous 104 on the blog article Silly Season Humour: The Tapas 9 Timeline Redux published on July 17, and that since then has being suffering from a verborrhea attack.

    You've stated that you are an expert in "genetic disorders", though you don't have any operational experience in forensic criminal sciences. You also claim that you have a total understanding of the FSS and the INML reports. Oh, goodie! You're exactly the guy I was looking for!

    Can you give us, non experts and sardine munchers, in layman terms, a comprehensive explanation of each one of the reports from the case files? Yes, No?

    Could you, with your...err... almighty wisdom and vast knowledge explain why is it that the FSS resorts in "certain cases" to state that there was contamination when, in fact, it was the FSS that coordinated the procedures on how to gather evidence? And why is it that those «kind of cases» end up having a common inconclusive report and similar answer: "too complex for a meaningful interpretation"?

    On the other hand, could you explain why is it that, in what one can perceive as being a "slam dunk" case, the FSS seems to be so much more assertive, advising the police to hire "prone to commit perjury" experts from across the pond even though the FSS has [correction: used to have] a top renowned forensic image expert?

    And since you know so much, I leave you with a few common denominators that due to your immense ocean of knowledge should be easy for you to follow and add up (though your self proclaimed expertise is in genetic disorders not on mathematics):

    a)"Camarate": Anthony Busuttil, FSS, Gerrard Murray and Vincent J.M. Di Maio, Scotland Yard.

    b)"Nico Bento": Casey Cottle [the US «expert» recommended by the FSS who committed suicide, after committing perjury], John Kennedy [the guy who saved Nico's life] and was forced to resign from the FSS, FSS, Bedfordshire Police.

    c) "Madeleine McCann": John Robert Lowe, Lesley Anne Denton, Andrew Lloyd Palmer, MET/SY José D' Freitas, G. Blair/T. Brown/Clarence Mitchell, Andrew Blair/COMARE, Jacqui Smith/Home Office/Rogatory letters delays, McCanns' dear Stu/Leicestershire Police Constabulary.

    Oh Yes, and please do make an effort to explain the cadaver dogs who strangely smelled cadaverine odour, found human blood, human bodily fluids only in items belonging to, rented by, used by the McCann Couple - surely you are not going to give me an answer similar to what the infamous auntie would say: "What are they, Lassie? They could be barking at anything!"

  82. Addendum to the above anonymous genetic disorders expert

    Sniffer dog located the grave of missing man - Martin Grime's cadaver dogs Eddie and Keela proved right for the umpteenth time!! A bit odd that in the McCann Case the DNA, cadaverine odour, human blood and human bodily fluids findings were dismissed due to being uncorroborated by the FSS. pfffff....


  83. Seems like what you are wanting us to believe is that although the cadaver dog alerted to cadaver scent in the back of the car, it can't be proved to have been Madeleine's. Er, so whose was it then!

    Yeah, like there are all these dead people being transported in the back of hire cars in PDL and the McCanns happened to hire one.

    And, although Madeleine is missing, and the cadaver dog has also alerted in the holiday apartment, that wasn't Madeline either because the DNA was not spot on.

    Get a life you silly person.

  84. What are the statistical odds on dogs detecting something ONLY on the McCann's :1-clothes, 2-car and car keys 3- apartment and not on any other cars, apartments.... Tresmegistus may be able to help with this.
    By the way, why were swabs taken fron Rajinder Raj Balu and Neil Berry? Is Balu the same person who is director of Cooper Tuft Immigration Advisory service?

  85. If you could actually take your hysterical hat off for a few minutes, Joana, and stop being so aggressive and insulting, then perhaps if you actually clarify what you are asking, I might be able to answer your questions. Kindly don't speak to me as if I am either an idiot or trying to perpetrate some kind of fraud on you. It's your choice, you can go and read the files for yourself at any point, and I would advise you to do so, then you won't need to take my word for it.

    Firstly, nothing I have said has any relevance whatsoever to the indications given by the dogs. I think I have reiterated on enough occasions that I am not casting any doubt whatsoever on the indications they gave. The two things are separate issues altogether.

    I have repeatedly made that point in all my posts, so I fail to see why you are making an issue out of it. I have passed comment on the interpretation by the PJ of the reports they received from the FSS. Nothing more.

    It would make no difference if the forensic tests had found no DNA at all - that still would have not in any way negated or devalued the findings of the dogs. A cadaver dog will alert where a dead body has been - that doesn't necessarily mean there will be any recoverable residues. They are reacting to the smell - that can remain in very low concentrations for a very long time, and adhered to surfaces such as textiles and soft furnishings.

    Okay? Is that clear now?

    As regards your questions relating to the choice of experts used or recommended by the FSS, I have not commented on that, nor can I. I am not privvy to any of their discussions. I have made this clear right from the beginning. I am not involved in Forensic medicine, I have not claimed to be a DNA expert, nor incidentally did I claim to be an ''expert'' in the field of genetic disorders, I said that was the field in which I work. I have had sight of no documents which are not also available to you.

    I can certainly explain the results of those two reports to you, should you wish, although the results are all there in the report, and clearly explained. The matter of contamination is completely irrelevant to the matter in hand, and I can certainly explain why those results are too complex for meaningful interpretation - although John Lowe provides a perfectly good explanation in the report.

    I really think that, as someone who styles themselves an expert on the case that you should have read these reports yourself a long time ago, and ensured that if you didn't understand them you had someone explain them to you.

    One thing I am not going to do is provide any further response to the abuse from you or any of your posters. I am sickened by this place. I am not challenging the perceived wisdom about what happened to Madeleine. I am not saying she was abducted - I have never believed she was. I am not saying she is alive - I think the indications are that she is dead and died on the night in question.

    All I am challenging is the conclusions which were arrived at by the PJ, and I am challenging them because they do not accord with the results they were provided by the FSS, and should the case ever see the inside of a courtroom, that will be absolutely apparent.

    What I will not do is come here and be subjected to abuse by you and your ignorant posters, okay?


  86. cont...........

    So, this is really quite easy to sum up. I am not going to try to cover every single result from every single swab - people can go and read the reports for themselves - but I will explain to you why John Lowe reported the results as ''too complex for meaningful interpretation'' and what he meant by that.

    Madeleine, as we all do, had 20 genetic 'markers' - and it is the combination of those markers which makes her profile unique - just as it does for all of us. She would have inherited ten of her markers from Kate and ten from Gerry, and in Madeleine's case one of the markers she inherited from Kate was identical to one of the markers she inherited from Gerry - meaning that she had 19 different markers.

    The sample which seems to have caused most of the confusion is one which was recovered from the interior of the boot of the car.

    The sample is described as ''cellular material'' but this does not specify what type of cells, and it is not possible to determine this from the report. I would hazard a guess that it could have been epithelial cells.

    The sample recovered was then subjected to LCN analysis. Low Copy Number analysis is used where the quantity of DNA which has been recovered is very small. Basically what it does is replicate the starting sample numerous times to produce a larger sample to analyse. The easiest way of thinking of it is like taking one original document and then photocopying it many times over until one has as many as one needs. There are some potential drawbacks to using this technique, but I don't think they are especially relevant here and might cause confusion, so I won't go into those.

    When the sample was analysed, it was found to contain 37 markers. Now, clearly, this sample has to come from more than one individual. In fact, further analysis showed it had come from at least three individuals. (One easy way to understand this is to think of the markers as if they were body parts. If you have 37 assorted body parts, you might only have a single left arm - but the fact that you have three heads tells you that you are dealing with at least three individuals)

    Of those 37 markers, 15 of them matched markers which Madeleine carried. And I think this is where the confusion arose

    Normally, 15 markers would be enough for a lab to conclude they were probably dealing with a match to the person concerned, but that would usually be where they were dealing with DNA from one, or at the most, two individuals.

    We know that not only was this a mix of DNA from at least three different people, but that amongst the people who had access to the car and could have contributed to the sample were both of Madeleine's parents, who between the two of them carry all the markers necessary to make a match to Madeleine.

    Lets imagine for a second just two of Madeleine's markers. We'll call them 'A' - inherited from Kate, and 'B' - inherited from Gerry.

    Let's say that the sample you recover contains both A and B markers, but that you also know the sample is a mixed one and comes from several individuals

    Is it possible to say that as the sample contains A and B, then it must be Madeleine, because she carries both A and B.

    No. It might be Madeleine, but there is no way to be certain.

    Because the A in the sample could have come from Kate, and the B could have come from Gerry.

    Madeleine's copy of A looks identical to Kate's copy of A, and her copy of B is identical to Gerry's copy of B, you see? The analysis cannot distinguish between the two.

    So the fact that of the 37 markers recovered, 15 of them match markers in Madeleine's profile, is immaterial. There are two many possible scenarios as to who could have contributed the DNA to make any interpretation possible - hence the explanation John Lowe added to his report.

  87. cont........

    Wherever this explanation is used in the reports, Lowe is basically explaining that DNA was recovered, but that analysis of the DNA reveals a mixed sample which, like the sample recovered from the car, cannot be further interpreted with any reliability.

    Several things are evident when viewing the totality of the samples recovered from both the apartment and the car.

    The samples which were recovered did not contribute anything in terms of understanding what happened to Madeleine McCann

    Despite the conclusions reached by the PJ and Dr Amaral, the samples recovered from the car were not described by the FSS as indicating the presence of Madeleine in the hire car - they were described, as I have explained here, as being too complex for any meaningful interpretation

    Most of the samples recovered yielded very little in the way of biological residues to test. Many of the swabs and samples contained either very low levels of DNA or incomplete profiles.

    The FSS were not able to identify the samples recovered from behind the sofa in 5A as being blood, or belonging to Madeleine

    Many of the samples are described as yielding weak or incomplete results. Many are a mix of DNA from more than one person, rendering them too complex for meaningful interpretation.

    I hope that makes it a bit clearer. They did not recover much in the way of DNA and what they did recover could not be interpreted to shed any light upon what happened to Madeleine.

    If anyone has specific questions I will try to answer them if I can, but you can piss off with your questions about the experts who were used and any political machinations within the FSS, Joana. I already stated I have nothing to do with the place. Nor am I interested in your conspiracy theories, so you could have saved yourself all that typing.

    Feel free to dismiss all this is you want, I really no longer give a stuff. I have no need to beat my drum for the ears of the indoctrinated. This used to be a place where the truth mattered. Now it's just a place where the only thing which matters is supporting Dr Amaral, even over matters he got wrong, and providing a platform for nutcases like Textusa to spout utter crap.

    Enjoy your delusions.

  88. Anon 85, 86 and 87

    Dr Amaral can't lose if the McCanns hired you as their forensic 'expert' because there is no doubting you would bore the judge to death, and all the court would nod off.

    Excuse me, I feel a yawn coming on.

  89. Thank you “genetical diseases anonymous non-expert” for truly clarifying that significant detail: that you base your assumptions and oh-so-scientific longwinded justifications solely on the «results...provided by the FSS».

    What you just did was to give me (us) a revised facsimile of one of Lowe's reports for the umpteenth time, however you have failed to elucidate and once again dismissed, now as conspiracies, the remaining criminal evidence that pertains to the criminal investigation, like the INML reports.

    You stated: “Madeleine, as we all do, had 20 genetic 'markers' - and it is the combination of those markers which makes her profile unique - just as it does for all of us.”

    Really? But, but…

    Let me plagiarize your technique, and reproduce a few wide-ranging extracts on DNA, Genetics and Forensics Profiling – do bear with the poor sardine-muncher unscientific pasting approach just for a fraction of your precious time.

    And then you can piss off back to the ditch you've crawled from 10 days ago.

  90. On Genetics

    Human beings have cells with 46 chromosomes- 2 sex chromosomes and 22 pairs of non-sex (autosomal) chromosomes. Males are "46, XY" and females are "46, XX." The chromosomes are made up of strands of genetic information called DNA.

    Genes are sections of DNA. The location of the gene is called the locus. Most genes carry information that is necessary to make a protein.

    The pairs of autosomal chromosomes (one from the mother and one from the father) carry basically the same information. That is, each has the same genes. However, there may be slight variations of these genes. These slight differences occur in less than 1% of the DNA sequence and produce variants of a particular gene called alleles.
    If a gene is abnormal, it may lead to an abnormal protein or an abnormal amount of a normal protein. Since the autosomal chromosomes are paired, there are two copies of each gene, one from each parent. If one of these genes is defective, the other may make enough protein so that no disease is seen. This is called a recessive disease, and the gene is said to be inherited in a recessive pattern.

    However, if only one abnormal gene is needed to produce a disease, it's called a dominant hereditary disorder. In the case of a dominant disorder, if one abnormal gene is inherited from mom or dad, the child will likely show the disease.

    A person with one abnormal gene is termed heterozygous for that gene. If a child receives an abnormal recessive disease gene from both parents, the child will show the disease and will be homozygous for that gene.

    If two parents each have one copy of a recessive disease gene, then each child has a 25% (1 in 4) chance of showing the disease. If one parent has two copies of the disease gene and the other has one copy, then each child has a 50% (1 in 2) chance of being homozygous.

    Genetic Disorders

    Almost all diseases have a genetic component. However, the importance of that component varies. Disorders in which genes play an important role (genetic diseases) can be classified as:

    Single-gene defects
    Chromosomal disorders

    A single gene disorder (also called Mendelian disorder) is caused by a defect in one particular gene. Single gene defects are rare. But since there are about 18,000 known single gene disorders, their combined impact is significant.

    Single-gene disorders are characterized by how they are passed down in families. There are six basic patterns of single gene inheritance:

    Autosomal dominant
    Autosomal recessive
    X-linked dominant
    X-linked recessive
    Y-linked inheritance
    Maternal (mitochondrial) inheritance (....)

    Mitochondrial DNA-Linked Disorders

    Mitochondria are small organisms found in most of the body's cells. They are responsible for energy production inside cells. Mitochondria contain their own private DNA.

    In recent years, more than 60 hereditary disorders have been shown to result from changes (mutations) in mitochondrial DNA. Because mitochondria come only from the female egg, most mitochondria-related disorders are passed down only from the mother.
    Mitochondrial disorders can appear at any age. They have a wide variety of symptoms and signs.

    These disorders may cause:
    Developmental delay
    Gastrointestinal problems
    Hearing loss
    Heart rhythm problems
    Metabolic disturbances
    Short stature


  91. On Genetic diseases: Coloboma

    Coloboma, also known as keyhole defect of the iris, is a congenital genetic disorder that affects the iris of the eye. Present at birth, coloboma implies the absence of tissue.

    A coloboma describes a condition wherein a portion of a structure of the eye is absent, usually the iris, retina, or the optic nerve. The disorder is often referred to as a keyhole defect of the iris because the shape of the coloboma appears as the shape of a keyhole or an upside-down pear. There are many different types of colobomas, as described below.

    Types of colobomas:

    • Optic disc coloboma. This disorder occurs when the coloboma covers the optic nerve and may involve the macula, a structure in the eye that is responsible for visual acuity.
    • Iris coloboma. This type of coloboma may be in one eye (unilateral) or in both eyes (bilateral). The pupil is often described as an upside-down pear shape when an individual has an iris coloboma.
    • Retinal coloboma. In this disorder, a notch or cleft of the retina or part of the retina is missing. For example, 35% or more of the retina may be missing.
    • Choroidal coloboma. This condition is similar to a retinal coloboma. The choroid is a structure in the eye that lies between the sclera and the retina.
    • Morning glory syndrome. This condition, a type of optic nerve coloboma, affects the shape of the optic nerve. The syndrome is aptly named because it describes the appearance of the optic nerve, which looks like the inside of a morning glory flower.

    Genetic Profile

    Colobomas may be isolated abnormalities in otherwise normal individuals or they may occur as part of a syndrome. As isolated findings, they are generally sporadic (not inherited). Some families, however, have shown an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, meaning only one copy of the abnormal gene needs to be present for the disorder to occur. Some of the genetic disorders thought to contribute to coloboma include cateye syndrome, trisomy 13, trisomy 18, Sturge-Weber syndrome, and basal cell nevus syndrome.


    The condition occurs in about one in 10,000 births. Coloboma may be associated with hereditary or genetic conditions, trauma to the eye, or eye surgery.


  92. On Numbers

    Cells are the fundamental working units of every living system. All the instructions needed to direct their activities are contained within the chemical DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA from all organisms is made up of the same chemical and physical components. The DNA sequence is the particular side-by-side arrangement of bases along the DNA strand (e.g., ATTCCGGA). This order spells out the exact instructions required to create a particular organism with its own unique traits.

    The genome is an organism’s complete set of DNA.

    Genomes vary widely in size: the smallest known genome for a free-living organism (a bacterium) contains about 600,000 DNA base pairs, while human and mouse genomes have some 3 billion. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome.

    DNA in the human genome is arranged into 24 distinct chromosomes--physically separate molecules that range in length from about 50 million to 250 million base pairs.

    A few types of major chromosomal abnormalities, including missing or extra copies or gross breaks and rejoinings (translocations), can be detected by microscopic examination.

    Most changes in DNA, however, are more subtle and require a closer analysis of the DNA molecule to find perhaps single-base differences.

    Each chromosome contains many genes, the basic physical and functional units of heredity. Genes are specific sequences of bases that encode instructions on how to make proteins. Genes comprise only about 2% of the human genome; the remainder consists of noncoding regions, whose functions may include providing chromosomal structural integrity and regulating where, when, and in what quantity proteins are made.

    - The human genome is estimated to contain 20,000-25,000 genes.
    - The human genome contains 3164.7 million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G).
    - The average gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
    - The total number of genes is estimated at 30,000 —much lower than previous estimates of 80,000 to 140,000 that had been based on extrapolations from gene-rich areas as opposed to a composite of gene-rich and gene-poor areas.
    - Almost all (99.9%) nucleotide bases are exactly the same in all people.
    - The functions are unknown for over 50% of discovered genes.


  93. On the Validity of Low Copy Number Typing and Applications to
    Forensic Science

    Low copy number (LCN) typing, particularly for current short tandem repeat (STR) typing, refers to the analysis of any sample that contains less than 200 pg of template DNA. Generally, LCN typing simply can be defined as the analysis of any DNA sample where the results are below the stochastic threshold for reliable interpretation. There are a number of methodologies to increase sensitivity of detection to enable LCN typing.

    These approaches encompass modifications during the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and/or post-PCR manipulations. Regardless of the manipulations, when processing a small number of starting templates during the PCR exaggerated stochastic sampling effects will occur. The result is that several phenomena can occur: a substantial imbalance of 2 alleles at a given heterozygous locus, allelic dropout, or increased stutter.

    With increased sensitivity of detection there is a concomitant increased risk of contamination. Recently, a commission reviewed LCN typing and found it to be “robust” and “fit for purpose.” Because LCN analysis by its nature is not reproducible, it cannot be considered as robust as that associated with conventional DNA typing.

    The findings of the commission seem inconsistent with the nature of LCN typing. While LCN typing is appropriate for identification of missing persons and human remains and for developing investigative leads, caution should be taken with its use in other endeavors until developments are made that overcome the vagaries of LCN typing. A more in-depth evaluation by the greater scientific community is warranted. The issues to consider include: training and education, evidence handling and collection procedures, the application or purpose for which the LCN result will be used, the reliability of current LCN methods, replicate analyses, interpretation and uncertainty, report writing, validation requirements, and alternate methodologies for better performance. (...)

    Some of the pertinent issues raised in the case and the review are:

    1) There is a greater potential for error (compared with conventional STR typing protocols).
    2) Errors of interpretation can be caused by allele drop-in, allele drop-out, peak height imbalance, and large stutter peaks.
    3) There is a need for a robust and reliable quantitation assay in order to determine the amount of DNA available for analysis.
    4) LCN profiles are not generally reproducible. Because of the potential error, the probative value of the results may not be estimated reliably.
    5) The interpretation of mixture profiles from LCN typing is problematic. Interpretation guidelines based upon reliable validation studies do not exist.
    6) Because of the sensitivity of the assay and the types of samples analyzed (ie, touch samples), the LCN profile may not be relevant to a case.
    7) The evidence cannot be used for exculpatory purposes.
    8) Proper evidence collection and handling protocols have not been well established or at least communicated.
    9) Reagents and consumables may contain low level amounts of extraneous DNA that can complicate the interpretation of LCN typing results. (...)

    Issues associated with low template amounts

    There are a number of issues which are raised by the analysis of sub-optimal amounts of DNA template in a PCR. These issues become more problematic as the amount of template decreases. In addition, mixture interpretation has yet to be well-addressed and this will be alluded to in a number of sections.

    The topics are:

    1) Stochastic effects
    a. Detection threshold
    b. Profile interpretation
    c. Allele drop-out and heterozygote peak imbalance
    d. Stutter
    2) Contamination
    3) Replicate analyses
    4) Appropriate controls
    5) Application limitations

    more at the pdf link http://www.cmj.hr/2009/50/3/19480017.htm

  94. Forensic Misconduct

    The vast majority of forensic employees are hardworking, ethical and responsible. They use the best scientific techniques available to deliver objective, solid information – regardless of whether the science favors the defendant, supports the prosecution or is inconclusive.

    In many cases, the science – rather than the scientist – is inadequate. In other cases, forensic analysts make mistakes that could result from lack of training, poor support or insufficient resources to meet an ever-growing demand. But in some cases, forensic analysts have engaged in misconduct. While these “bad apples” don’t reflect the entire forensic field, one fraudulent forensic analyst can taint countless cases. For example, in some wrongful convictions later overturned with DNA testing, forensic analysts fabricated test results, reported results when no tests were conducted or concealed parts of test results that were favorable to defendants. In virtually all of these cases, analysts had engaged in misconduct that led to multiple separate wrongful convictions, sometimes in multiple states.


  95. How is DNA typing done?

    Only one-tenth of a single percent of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to the next. Scientists can use these variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual, using samples from blood, bone, hair, and other body tissues and products.

    In criminal cases, this generally involves obtaining samples from crime-scene evidence and a suspect, extracting the DNA, and analyzing it for the presence of a set of specific DNA regions (markers).

    Scientists find the markers in a DNA sample by designing small pieces of DNA (probes) that will each seek out and bind to a complementary DNA sequence in the sample. A series of probes bound to a DNA sample creates a distinctive pattern for an individual. Forensic scientists compare these DNA profiles to determine whether the suspect's sample matches the evidence sample. A marker by itself usually is not unique to an individual; if, however, two DNA samples are alike at four or five regions, odds are great that the samples are from the same person.

    If the sample profiles don't match, the person did not contribute the DNA at the crime scene.

    If the patterns match, the suspect may have contributed the evidence sample. While there is a chance that someone else has the same DNA profile for a particular probe set, the odds are exceedingly slim. The question is, How small do the odds have to be when conviction of the guilty or acquittal of the innocent lies in the balance? Many judges consider this a matter for a jury to take into consideration along with other evidence in the case. Experts point out that using DNA forensic technology is far superior to eyewitness accounts, where the odds for correct identification are about 50:50.

    The more probes used in DNA analysis, the greater the odds for a unique pattern and against a coincidental match, but each additional probe adds greatly to the time and expense of testing. Four to six probes are recommended. Testing with several more probes will become routine, observed John Hicks (Alabama State Department of Forensic Services).


  96. Dna Polymorphism Offers High Resolution

    DNA is the molecule that contains all the genetic information of an individual. One person's DNA is made up of about three billion building blocks known as nucleotides or bases. Every organism in the world has a unique DNA sequence except for identical twins. Although identical twins accrue changes as they develop, they generally do not accumulate enough genetic differences for DNA typing to be useful. Portions of the DNA, called genes, encode proteins within the sequence of bases. Genes are separated by long stretches of noncoding DNA. Because these sequences do not have to code for functional proteins, they are free to accumulate more differences over time, and thus provide more variation than genes. Thus, they are more useful than gene sequences in distinguishing individuals.

    Polymorphisms are differences between individuals that occur in DNA sequences which occupy the same locus in the chromosome. An individual will have only one sequence at a particular polymorphic locus in each chromosome, but if the population bears several to dozens of different possible sequences at the site in question, then the locus is considered "highly variable" within the population. DNA profiling determines which polymorphisms a person has at a small number of these highly variable loci. Because of this, DNA profiling can provide high resolution in distinguishing different individuals. The chances of one person having the same DNA profile as another are typically much less than the chances of winning a lottery.

    Str Analysis

    The technology of DNA profiling has advanced from its beginnings in the 1980s. Today, DNA profiling primarily examines "short tandem repeats," or STRs. STRs are repetitive DNA elements between two and six bases long that are repeated in tandem, like GATAGATAGATAGATA. These repeat sequences often exist in a chromosomal region called heterochromatin, a largely unused portion of DNA found in each chromosome.

    continues bellow

  97. Different STR sequences (also called genetic markers) occur at different loci. While their positions are fixed, the number of repeated units varies within the population, from four to forty depending on the STR. Therefore, one genetic marker may have between four and forty different variations, and each variation is referred to as an allele of that marker. Each person has at most two alleles of each marker, one inherited from each parent. The two alleles for a particular marker may be identical, if both parents had the same form.

    The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation has designated thirteen of these sequences to use with STR analysis. These thirteen markers are all four-base repeats, and were chosen because multiple alleles of each exist throughout the population. The FBI system, called CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System), has become the standard DNA profiling system in use today.

    STR analysis begins with sample collection. Because of the often small samples involved and the legal weight that will be given to them, it is vital that the sample not be contaminated by other DNA. This may occur for instance if skin cells from the person collecting the sample are mixed with skin cells under the fingernails of a victim. Once the sample is collected, it must be kept secure at all times, to prevent any possibility of tampering.

    In the laboratory, the DNA is isolated and purified, and then multiple copies of it are made using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Technicians can specify which DNA sequences to multiply, so that only the thirteen core STR sequences will be amplified (multiple copies produced), leaving the rest of the billions of irrelevant bases alone.

    In order to specify which DNA to amplify, "primers" are used. The primers are DNA sequences that recognize a nonrepeated sequence in the genetic markers, and which are used by the DNA polymerase that does the actual copying. After the DNA has been copied, the new DNA molecules are separated by size, by gel electrophoresis. A fluorescent molecule previously attached to each primer will send a light signal to the machine that measures the length of the molecule, or allele.

    continues bellow

  98. Vntr Analysis

    An early form of DNA profiling, rarely used today, is based on VNTRs, or "variable number of tandem repeats." VNTRs requires extensive sample processing: The DNA is chopped up with restriction enzymes, separated by size, and probes are applied to the fragmented DNA to view only the relevant DNA pieces. In the DNA of two different individuals, different spacing between two cut sites for the restriction enzymes gives a unique pattern of DNA size fragments, called "restriction fragment length polymorphisms," or RFLPs.

    Making a Match

    To understand how DNA profiling is used to identify a person, imagine a sample of blood collected at a crime scene that doesn't match the victim's blood, and is presumably from the unknown perpetrator. DNA from the blood is isolated and its set of STRs are analyzed. The results will be a list of the alleles found at each of the markers (for example, VWA-12, 13; TH01-6, 7, and so on), where the initial symbol is the abbreviation for the markers and the last two are the numbers of the alleles found in the sample for that marker. The full set of thirteen markers may or may not be analyzed in each case. When a suspect is identified, his or her DNA can be analyzed for these same markers. If the set of alleles are different, the investigators can be sure that the two DNAs came from different sources, and the suspect is not the source of the blood. Since the introduction of DNA profiling, an absence of matching DNA has been used to free dozens of wrongly convicted prisoners.

    If the samples do match, the question becomes whether the blood is actually from the suspect, or from someone else with the same set of alleles. As with blood typing, this is a matter of statistics, and depends on how frequently each allele occurs in the population. This information has been tabulated and is kept on file in the FBI CODIS database. If two samples share a very rare allele, that increases the likelihood they came from the same source.

    continues bellow

  99. Matching multiple alleles increases the certainty they came from the same source. Since the thirteen STRs are inherited independently of each other, the likelihood that one person's DNA will include specific alleles of all thirteen STR sites is the product of the individual allele frequencies. For example, if each allele a person carries occurs in 25 percent of the population, then the probability that all thirteen alleles will occur in one individual is (0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25 × 0.25) or 1 in more than 67 million. This analysis can discriminate between millions of people, far better than is possible using the four blood groups. Since many alleles are even rarer than 25 percent, their presence in both samples further increases the probability that they came from the same source.

    Statistics and the Prosecutor's Fallacy

    Despite the persuasiveness of such figures, it is quite possible to misuse DNA evidence to incorrectly argue that an innocent suspect must be the perpetrator of the crime, or that a guilty suspect should go free. Both defense and prosecution attorneys can— accidentially or otherwise—misinterpret data to make a highly likely event seem improbable, or a highly unlikely event seem probable. Jurors can be confused because DNA testing reveals the probability that an innocent person's DNA profile matches the sample at the scene of the crime. Jurors must decide, however, what the probability is that a person is innocent, if his DNA matches that sample. The prosecutor's fallacy occurs when investigators focus on the existence of the match, rather than the possibility that the match could be a coincidence.

    Let's assume the DNA profile found at the crime scene—and the matching DNA of the suspect—is expected to occur once in every million people. The correct statement of probability arising from these facts is, "If the suspect is innocent, there is a one-in-one-million chance of obtaining this DNA match." The fallacy is to reverse these clauses, and state, "If the DNA matches, there is a one in one million chance that the suspect is innocent." To understand the logical fallacy, imagine the statement, "If it's Tuesday, it must be a school day." The reverse is not true - there are other school days besides Tuesday.

    continues bellow

  100. Similarly, there are other ways of misusing statistics in DNA profiling. Let's assume the suspect in the above case is actually guilty. If the suspect hails from a city with a population of ten million, there are ten people in the city whose DNA matches the DNA at the crime scene. Therefore, his defense lawyers could argue there is a 90 percent chance that the suspect is innocent, because he is 1 out of 10 individuals with that same DNA profile. If the defense can convince the jury to ignore other incriminating evidence, such as the suspect's bloody glove left behind at the scene, then the attorney may introduce reasonable doubt. Only by considering DNA typing within the context of other evidence can the probability of a DNA match improve the integrity of the justice system.

    Dna Profiling Comes of Age

    Although DNA profiling was viewed with some skepticism when it first made its way into the courts, DNA typing is now used routinely, in and out of the courthouse. It is commonly used in rape and murder cases, where the assailant generally leaves behind some personal evidence such as hair, blood, or semen. In paternity tests, the child's DNA profile will be a combination of the profiles of both parents. DNA profiling has also been used to identify victims in disasters where large numbers of people died at once, such as in airplane crashes, large fires, or military conflicts.

    in Genetics Encyclopedia: http://www.answers.com/topic/genetic-fingerprinting

  101. Internet Resources

    Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science

    FBI Core STR Markers

    DNA Analysis for “Minor” Crimes: A Major Benefit for Law Enforcement

    Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series

    20th International Symposium on Human Identification- DNA-typing via low copy number (LCN)

    Information on Low Template / Low Copy Number DNA Testing

    How DNA Evidence Works

    Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases

    Genetic marker

    DNA in the Courtroom

    Glossary of scientific terminology

  102. Thanks for posting this information Joana.

    Hopefully that will be the last we hear from the self styled know it all DNA 'expert'.

  103. I am firmly of the view that Madeleine died in the apartment as a result of her parents' neglect (if not worse). I believe that the dogs genuinely identified her cadaver. I believe the McCanns and the Tapas 7 have lied throughout. However, I think that our friend who talks about the DNA inadequacies should be givn a fair hearing. Dr. Amaral is as capable as anyone of making a mistake. In this case, I think he made very few. And in any event, it does not detract from the overwhelming forensic evidence against the McCanns.
    I admire what you are doing, Joana, but give the guy a break.
    Not sure how to enter an ID when adding a comment. Martin.

  104. From Martin again, thanks Joana for printing my comment. I should really have said "overwhelming circumstantial evidence". The phrase "circumstantial evidence" is often misleading. People often think that it is weak evidence. However, it is very often powerful evidence. If a man is shot dead in a closed room with no witnesses, the person who hears the shot and sees a man leaving the room holding a gun is giving "circumstantial evidence", but clearly it is very convincing. There is an absolute mountain of circumstantial evidence in this case. No prosecuting authority worthy of that name would have dropped this case without having been very heavily leant on.

  105. Anon 103

    Joana has given him a break. He has written the same thing over and over and over and over and over, and so it goes on.

    You have plenty of opportunity to read it.

    What is not nice is that he calls those who disagree idiots and tries to say that Dr Amaral and the investigators are stupid and lied to the McCanns.

    Joana has also address what he has said from the forensic, DNA angle. If he is genuine and not McCann (doubtful), hopefully he will read it and learn something.

  106. Ironside @ 28
    Jane Tanner's pretend sighting came after the Smith sighting, it's the very reason for its existance. Jane tanner and Mathew Oldfield had no role to play until after 10.00pm that night

  107. Inspector Clouseau @106

    As the great Sherlock Holmes used to say.

    Precisely my Dear Watson


  108. http://trannyfattyacid.blogspot.com/2007/11/assuming-baby-grace-is-madeleine-mccann.html

    The clothes Madeleine was last seen in by one of the nannies white flashing shoes pink skirt etc are identical to the clothes worn by the child named ‘baby grace’ who was washed up in a plastic container in Texus in November 2007.

    IMO Madeleine died as a result of a domestic incident her parents decided to cover it up.Amaral believes she was kept in a refrigerated condition it is possible she was kept in a container weighed down in a sea cave for later retrieval see above link, the blue holdall disappeared and Gerry and Kate had the afternoon of the 3rd on their own whilst their friends were at the paridiso restaurant, when they could have hidden her body.

    There are many similarities between baby grace and Madeleine age and looks and I notice how the media immediately squashed the idea that Maddie was Baby Grace, baby grace was cremated so all evidence has been destroyed it took some time to find her ‘parents’, team mccann spin so many lies once they become involved nothing is what it seems. Madeleine did come to harm in apartment 5a and at some stage was transported in the scenic and the argument about DNA is again attempting to mislead, the sniffer dogs got it right they detected cadaver only on items handled by the mccanns, how they have managed to escape justice for so long is mind boggling, this pair should have been hauled back to Portugal years ago, when it first became apparent they were lying, their fund should have been frozen and the money given to a reputable charity as for the Tapas Group they are not fit to work as doctors – the lot of them have lied and deliberately misled the public. They make a mockery of the justice system.

    I agree with Textusa about Gerry acting out the role of abductor they had all day to plan what they were going to do. Amaral was taken off the case because he saw through their lies and was no longer prepared to accept the media circus they had created, officers like Amaral rise through the ranks to positions of seniority through being good at their job he saw similarities in the Cipriano case if he had been allowed to continue the Mccanns would now be in jail along with some of their Tapas friends. Instead they have attempted to ruin his life.

    Criminals are often caught out by something totally unrelated to their crime and that is what will probably happen here, it is a terrible secret this group hide amongst themselves but eventually it will come out. Nothing stays the same forever the twins will grow up and start asking questions relationships within this fragile group could break up.

    For example the case of Dr Kelly is now being reviewed it would appear that many professionals have now come forward to say he could not have possibly committed suicide. Not everything is going well for team mccann they desperately want the PJ files so they are aware that there is evidence against them, they attempt to silence the internet, we live in a democratic country with freedom of speech but this case has proved there is no such thing as freedom of speech if it is not what the mccanns want said so they impose superinjunctions and sue all who dare to speak out against them but their fund is running low and they still have all those expensive lawyers to keep paying keeping them out of jail. Well done Joana on a brilliant blog justice for Amaral and Maddie.

  109. Mamphilly, read her testimony to the Leicester Whatevers, slept early next to the MCS appt and did not hear anything on Wednesday.2nd. Odd.

    No crying "Daddy Daddy" or ' Maddy maddy" (have you all noticed nobody heard Sean crying at all?!)

    Now, why would Maddy have been crying " Daddy daddy ' for over an hour in the first place?

    Do children normally cry for their mother or for their father?
    What was daddy actually up to? WHERE was daddy then? Any records? Witnesses?

    I repeat: the truth is out in the open, for us all to see, if we just put our minds to it. It is in the earliest police statements we'll find it, when the perpetrators were more or less off guard, least aware, least trained and least C-Uruchaid. See Mamphilly on Payne e.g. And was her whole family really sick/ill/throwing up all the time, when they never ever were sick before?

    Who thought fit to portray them as sick all the time and why?
    Where was their contaminated linen? (weren'y they throwing op constantly?)
    Who put what in the food? Who doctored whom?

    Or was being sick for days on end -or being reported sick five moths after the facts- perhaps considered an plausible escape/alibi?

    It is there, it has been there all the time, but we are blind. They are all in cahoots.

    Look carefully, and you will see that all the spouses are whitewashing each other as best they can.
    And Jane Tanner is whitewashing someone else's spouse into the bargain. Why?


  110. It is the Gaspar statements that may well end up being the catalyst that helps cracks this case.

    Textusa is trying to say these were made up because they don't fit her theory.

    If that is believed then they wont be broadcast which is exactly what the McCanns want. How is that for a home goal!

    But if these statements are broadcast and published in the media it may be enough to get somebody so up against the ropes that the truth will come out.

    The publishing of them is not libel because they are in the public domain already, yet the McCanns will try hard to surpress them.

    If somebody knows the truth about what happened to Madeleine, they may well speak out rather than see another crucifixion by the media. They know only too well what happened to Murat.

    We should be doing everything possible to alert people to the Gaspar statements because there may be others who want to add something to this.


Powered by Blogger.