Saturday, December 24, 2011

Media Hypocrisy Refuse To Publish McCann Files Which Show Inconsistances Yet Want To Out Gary Speed

PJ FILES that are of great public interest and show the fund to be fraudulent CENSORED http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/

Warning over Gary Speed and peril of a shackled Press


'Public interest': Gary Speed and his wife Louise

MPs and lawyers warned last night that legitimate journalistic investigations must not be stifled by high profile inquiries into the conduct of the Press.
The mysterious death of football boss Gary Speed has highlighted concerns facing newspapers currently under fierce examination by the Leveson Inquiry.
Since the Wales manager was found dead at his family home last month, little has been reported by the Press about why the popular 42-year-old apparently committed suicide.
And the Times newspaper, in a strongly-worded editorial comment published yesterday, used the case to demonstrate what it says is the need for newspapers to be able to undertake inquiries and publish matters of legitimate public interest.
The Times, MPs and lawyers all pointed to the fact that the internet has been awash with lurid, widely varying and totally unsubstantiated rumours about the circumstances surrounding the death of the married father of two.
‘Mr Speed has been smeared, not by the Press but in its absence,’ said the Times editorial.
Tory MP Philip Davies, who sits on the Commons culture, media and sport committee, agreed, saying: ‘The problem is that we are seeing a chilling effect on the Press and the rest of the respectable media, leaving a large field clear to the unregulated internet and social media so people can peddle lots of things that are not true.
‘These things are best covered in the respectable media so you get the truth, rather than unpleasant smears and lies.
Gary Speed untold story

Respects: A book of condolences in memory of Gary Speed is opened at the Football of Wales offices in Cardiff
Respects: A book of condolences in memory of Gary Speed is opened at the Football of Wales offices in Cardiff
‘There is a danger that the Press feel they can’t report, and this chilling effect is counter- productive for all concerned. We should be treasuring free speech in this country, not having a situation where news organisations are scared to cover stories.
‘It cannot be helpful for the family to have all these lies peddled across the social media. I would prefer it if these things were reported responsibly.’
Media lawyer Mark Stephens was also concerned. He said: ‘When the Press is restrained from legitimate reporting on privacy issues and other matters, the unregulated world of the web comes into play.
‘There is then very little you can do about rumour and allegations which must be very troubling for his family, which can’t be scotched for the crimes that they are. There is a place for decent, responsible reporting. It also puts right all the false rumours.’
Mr Speed’s death is an unusual choice of topic for an editorial in the Times, but under the headline ‘Untold Story’ the paper said: ‘Gary Speed’s death raises matters of public interest that need to be reported.’
The Times added: ‘This story is being left alone. But the question has to be asked: is this reticence a good thing?’
Paying their respects: Fans at Leeds United's ground Elland Road show their grief at former player Gary Speed's death
Paying their respects: Fans at Leeds United's ground Elland Road show their grief at former player Gary Speed's death

Tributes: Hundreds of tributes including photographs, shirts and bouquets of flowers have been left at the Elland Road ground
Tributes: Hundreds of tributes including photographs, shirts and bouquets of flowers have been left at the Elland Road ground
The newspaper described phone-hacking as a ‘disgrace’ that demanded an inquiry but it warned: ‘It is critical, too, that we do not live in a society in which rumour takes the place of reporting, and misinformation triumphs over truth.’
Celebrity PR man Max Clifford, who warned last week that tabloid editors are too scared to publish sensational stories about the private lives of celebrities because they fear a backlash from readers angered by Press behaviour exposed at the Leveson Inquiry, also supported the Times argument.
He said: ‘I know of three people whose reputations are being tarnished and damaged by false stories and allegations, all of which would have been clarified if people had come out with their exclusive stories.
‘We all want a free Press but the reality is that at the moment the Press is not free. We have got a shackled Press.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078211/Warning-Gary-Speed-peril-shackled-Press.html#ixzz1hRlwXy2h

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.

Volume X, pages 2557-2561


Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.
When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply.

If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said she would not reply. When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply. She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply.
Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply. Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply.

When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply. When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply. When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply. When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply. When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night, she did not reply.

When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.
When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply. When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

When asked whom she phoned after the facts, she did not reply. When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply. When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply.

When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply. When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates, she did not reply.

When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply. Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality, she did not reply. When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply. If she worked every day, she did not reply. When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.
When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply.
When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication, she did not reply.

During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.
Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.
With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.
When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.

The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.
At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.

Monday, December 19, 2011

McCann's And Clarence Mitchell Con Artists !

CC says:

“The Guardian says the money was paid “on condition that the terms of the deal remained secret”. A confidentiality agreement was signed in September 2008.”
Yes, this deal was so hush-hush and confidential that Clarence Mitchell, in his role as family spokesman and roving ambassador for Freud Communications, felt able to put the figure in a powerpoint presentation to IIR Middle East’s annual PR Congress in Dubai in November 2009.
This presentation has been publicly available here for two years:
http://www.iirpresentations.com/A1035/pdf/D2-0845-ClarenceMitchell.pdf
See page 10.
However, there is another payment from the News of the World to the McCanns that remains very hush-hush and as yet unreported. Perhaps this press release is supposed to disguise that?

http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com/2011/12/leveson-mccann-when-hush-money-becomes.html

Carter Ruck Press Release

Press Release

Kate McCann Diary

22 September 2008

On 14 September 2008, the News of the World published substantial, “exclusive” extracts from the diary kept by Kate McCann at the time her daughter, Madeleine, was abducted.

In fact, Mrs McCann did not consent to the publication of this deeply personal, private material and only learned of what had happened after the newspaper had been published.

The News of the World assures Mrs McCann, and she accepts, that it acted in good faith and had no wish to invade her privacy or cause distress. The newspaper immediately removed the article from its website, has published a full apology for its error and has agreed to make a donation to be used by Mrs McCann in the search for her missing daughter.

Mrs McCann wishes to make clear that she had not consented and does not consent to the publication of her diary or of any extracts from it. As such, in the event that her wishes in this regard are not respected, she will immediately take appropriate action in order to protect her rights

All enquires should be addressed to Adam Tudor (adam.tudor@carter-ruck.com) or Isabel Hudson (isabel.hudson@carter-ruck.com).

Tel: (+44) 207 353 5005 

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Miscellaneous/Kate%20McCann%20Diary%20
 

Freemason Edward Smethurst

East Lancashire Masonic Charity
ELMC Home Page

PGLEL Home Page
Community Fund Grants
Community Fund Applications
Application Form

Click these links for News Stories
05/06/11 - ELMC helps East Lancs Hospice
14/12/10 - Grants made by the Community Fund
21/09/10 - 100 Year Birthday for Jim Campbell
14/09/10 - ELMC AGM 2010
14/06/10 - 100 years Young
14/04/10 - Comforts Fund Spring Party
19/01/10 - Young Peoples' Committee Activities
14/01/10 - Donation to Beechwood Cancer Care
28/11/09 - ELMC gives £50,000 to new hospital
24/11/09 - Helping Adolescents with Cancer


Archives 2008 - 2009

Archives 2006 - 2007

The Aims of the ELMC
The History of the ELMC

Click these links for the Structure of the ELMC
Board of Directors and Trustees
Committee Of Benevolence
Comforts' Fund Committee
Young People's Committee
Community Fund Committee
ELMC Residential Home - Hewlett Court
Investment Subcommittee

Contact Details
Visit the Secretariat Web Site
Legal Disclaimer
The Young Peoples Committee
Chairman:
WBro Paul G Chadwick

Appointed Members
WBro Peter Cole
WBro Edward G Smethurst
WBro H Nigel Pickering
WBro Roger Tinker
This Committee organises events for younger persons who are beneficiaries of the Royal Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys and also ensures that on the occasion of their birthday and at Christmas they are remembered by way of a monetary gift.
Additional support is provided by way of book tokens to be spent at their discretion, the finance for these to be provided from several trust funds specifically designated for this purpose.
THE YOUNG PEOPLES COMMITTEE - A 25 year personal perspective from both a Committee member and a former beneficiary by Edward Smethurst.
As I write this article, I see that I am getting old! and that the 16 October 2006 will mark, not only my 38th birthday but also the 25th Anniversary of my association with the Young Peoples Committee.
On the 16th of October 1981, my life radically changed forever when my father was tragically and suddenly killed in a house fire on my thirteenth birthday. As you would expect, this left a huge hole in my life. This date also triggered my first involvement with the warmth and fraternity of the craft and with the Young Peoples Committee, an organisation which so positively demonstrates the values of Freemasonry, and which in my own experience makes a real difference to the lives of its beneficiaries.
25 years later, I am now fortunate enough to sit on the Young Peoples Committee, and to experience its excellent work from, the other side of the fence, as a committee member as opposed to a beneficiary. The work of the Young Peoples committee, however attracts little publicity, and I have been asked to write this short article in order to communicate to brethren, and to Lodge Almoners in particular, the services and events offered by the Young Peoples Committee, and to hopefully ensure that the young dependants of Brethren who have sadly passed away are encouraged by lodge almoners to participate in the events and services offered by the Young Peoples Committee.
The Young Peoples committee is expertly administered by a welfare officer,  Julie Ward ( E-Mail julie.ward@eastlancsmasons.org.uk telephone 0161 832 6256) and Julie is the first point of contact for both Lodge Almoners and beneficiaries.
A typical year in the life of a beneficiary might be as follows;
Christmas - Every year a Christmas party is organised which usually involves an evening out at the Theatre or the pantomime, and a nice dinner. Each beneficiary also receives a Christmas gift from the Committee of book tokens or cash.
Spring - A day out would be organised to, for example a zoo or a museum, or a place of interest. The beneficiaries are regularly surveyed and consulted as to their preferred destinations
Summer - A day out to a theme park is normally arranged. This year over 30 of us had an excellent, albeit a very wet day at Alton Towers. Nothing however could dampen the spirits of the children who had a thoroughly enjoyable day in the Theme park, followed by a meal in a restaurant on the way home.
Autumn - This year for example, we have a day out in Blackpool arranged for 25 October 2006, to coincide with half term. The Fun packed day will include Blackpool Zoo, followed by a meal out, followed by the illuminations, before returning to Manchester to rendezvous with parents at around 9.30pm .
In addition to the above the Young Peoples Committee is forward thinking and flexible enough to arrange "one-off" events where there is a need or an interest expressed by beneficiaries. The emphasis is on fun and informality and meeting the needs of the children.
When I was a beneficiary, I also particularly valued the regular contact that I had with the welfare officer, who in those days was Margaret Dryburgh. During difficult times in my own childhood, following my bereavement, I would often telephone Margaret and I would always receive a sympathetic ear and good advice. As I had no parents to attend my graduation, Margaret even accompanied me to my graduation ceremony and was always there for me, when I needed her.  Julie Ward now performs this valuable role and clearly has a similarly warm relationship with many of the beneficiaries, maintaining regular contact and a watchful eye over the welfare of the beneficiaries.
At a time in my own childhood when I needed positive influences, and role models in my life, they were often to be found in the Young Peoples Committee members, and their partners. Russell Allamby was the Chairman of the young Peoples Committee back then, and always found time to enquire with genuine interest as to how I was progressing and to spend his time offering his guidance and advice when asked. These traditions continue and the committee is now ably chaired by Paul Chadwick. Peter Cole, Stephen Smith, Nigel Pickering and myself form the rest of the committee team. For me the work of the Committee symbolises in many ways what Freemasonry is all about. The Committee enjoys a real sense of fraternity.
All events are of course completely free of charge to beneficiaries, and to an accompanying parent or guardian, should they wish to attend. Should brethren or Lodge Almoners have potential beneficiaries in mind , who they believe might benefit from the services offered by the Young Peoples Committee I would strongly urge them to get in touch and to  contact Julie Ward ( Tel 0161 832 6256, E-Mail Julie.ward@eastlancsmasons.org.uk ).




Edward Smethurst

Committee member

Young Peoples Committee

 

Madeleine McCann Fund : TRADEMARK NO: 2456061

Trademark applied for May 18th 2007..no thoughts of Maddie returning soon then !

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2456061

Sunday, December 18, 2011

McCann Diary Lifted In It's 'Entirety'

https://twitter.com/#!/ElementaryForce/status/148437057545584641/photo/1

Elementary Force

Kate tells fib at Inquiry about her diary: "it was lifted IN ITS ENTIRETY" - 38,000 words translated; 5,500 words published


It took Pt translator 192 hours to trans from Eng to Pt. NoTW had it trans back in 1 week - would need 5+ FT translators

Death Of Madeleine



One thing can't be changed, when you make a post in a blog -  the original "adress name" of that post: 

http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/the-prime-ministers-instruction-to-the-metropolitan-police-to-review-madeleine-mccanns-death-is-in-breach-of-the-draft-protocol-that-is-supposed-to-protect-the-operational-independence-of-the-poli/

People can edit the content, but if they don't delet the post, the original first phrases are still there, in the post internet adress name. "Netiquete" demands that you show clearly to your readers that you corrected or changed the content of a post. Lord Toby Harris forget that?

Friday, December 16, 2011

Time For The Truth To Be Exposed !

  1. Comments Section :
Yes Craig, isn’t it obvious, they are planning a 9/11 and the venue will be Woolwich barracks, already Boris Johnson has banned ALL children from the shooting events, no one wants to see small dead children do they ?
  1. Off topic, I have been in touch with MP Tom Watson over the McCanns for the last few months ,he gave me an e.mail to send him information which I did.
  2. I have over the last couple of days witnessed the grovel pantomime at the Leveson Inquiry apologizing to the McCanns.
  3. I thought you might like to know I have informed every British journalist today including Tom Watson that the diary which seems to have hi-jacked the Leveson Inquiry, which can now only be described as a circus was NEVER in the hands of the PJ ,in fact it NEVER was in Portugal at all !
  4. I have suggested to ALL those who claim to want the truth to investigate the McCanns claims along with Clarence Mitchell’s. Today, now the truth has come out (see link) David Leigh, Nick Davies and Tom Watson , Martin Brunt and several other so called journalists have now fallen silent.
  5. http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com/2011/12/leveson-inquiry-exclusive-mccann-diary.html
  6. So Craig my question is this, the Leveson Inquiry, is it just a platform for the McCanns to destroy Portugal because from where I am sitting it looks that way. The libel trial begins in February and Gonçalo Amaral now has plenty of amo after today to prove in court the British media have refused to publish the truth and instead have accepted the McCanns LIED under oath about a diary that was NEVER in the hands of the Portuguese so how could they possible have leaked it to the News of The World.
  7. I have screen shots of all reporters I have tweeted today with this link and I shall be in Portugal during the trial with this information and British journalism will be exposed for what it is. I and many others will not let Maddie or the PJ be stomped on by the teflon couple.

McCann Target :Sandra Felgueirus - McCanns May Be Planning To Use Sandra In Their Libel Trial Against Amaral - Media Distraction

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Detective Sousa "There is one piece of stand alone evidence"

http://spudgunsspoutings.blogspot.com/2011/05/happy-birthday-madeleine-mccann.html

“Kate Healy was not immediately made an arguida, but merely interviewed voluntarily as a witness. Only after her interview was she made an arguida, that is, after she was confronted with concrete facts that might lead to her incrimination”


 “...concrete facts that might lead to her incrimination” ???


Concrete FACTS, Kate? Gerry? Mr. Mitchell? It can’t be brushed off as “scurrilous, unhelpful speculation” by those bungling Porto Plod. It’s right there. In black and white. In the report.


The report that Team McCann so vehemently wave in the faces of anyone who dares to doubt their version of events. You can’t pick and choose the good bits, Clarence, and dismiss the rest as hogwash.

 

Post Unavailable

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed this post. If you wish, you may read more about the request at LumenDatabase.org.

Quotes From The McCann Case

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

McCann : Fabricated Victoria In Barcelona - Sketch Touched Up From An Abduction In Canada Later Used In A McCann Storyline

McCann Asked About Audience Who Do Not Believe You ?' Reply, Buy The Book'!

The McCann Fairytale...Lies About Calling The Police Within 15 Minutes !

McCann Case : Fabricated Storylines

Facts That Cannot Be Disputed

PCC :Leigh: in terms of calling itself a regulator, PCC is a fraud and bogus institution.

 

Watch live coverage of the days events.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearings/

WIKILEAKS : Human Cloning.

WANTS TO KNOW WHY NONE OF MADELEINE'S DNA WAS FOUND IN APT G5A

(2 APPENDICES ADDED) 'Q' WANTS TO KNOW WHY NONE OF MADELEINE'S DNA WAS FOUND IN APT G5A (LONG)
Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:17 pm by Tony Bennett
'Q' has presented this paper to a Madeleine Foundation Regional meeting and has given permission for it to be published:


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

Every so often we come across a word or a phrase that stands out - and sticks in our minds.

What I’m going to show you now is something that did exactly that when I read it .

Take a moment to think about it - and keep it in mind as I attempt to simplify and talk you through some of the most complex and fascinating of subjects.

A match between a crime scene sample and an individual would be a very rare event if the individual was not the true source of the crime scene sample.

This is a bit of a metaphor - for lack of a better term , or a puzzle which we can relate to in terms of both the forensic and DNA evidence in this case

I’m going to touch on a few topics related to Genetics - DNA , the Forensic Science Service ( FSS ) and General Biological Forensic Service (GBFS) reports - and even one area relating to Artificial Reproduction ( AR)- something called Twinning and attempt to simplify all this and put it into some kind of context that fits in with the MM case & investigation.

I'm sure you'll all agree - This investigation should have been trying to determine what happened to a missing child , that includes , not excludes , all trace evidence found - and that includes biological material that indicates where the child or the body of the child may have been after she went missing.

At the scene of a crime samples are collected from the surrounding area and this can be for the purposes of eliminating individuals from police enquiries as well as to help narrow down the list of suspects or victims.

Trace Evidence Analysis is the discipline of forensic science that deals with minute transfers of materials ( DNA ) that cannot be seen with the unaided eye.

The results of a DNA analysis can provide an important link between victim, suspect, and /or crime scene and can also conclusively exclude or include an individual as being the source .

The key to DNA evidence lies in comparing the DNA retrieved from the scene of a crime .To do this, investigators have to do three things

1.Collect DNA at the crime scene

2. Analyse the DNA to create a DNA profile

3. Compare profiles to each other

The effective use of DNA as evidence may also require the collection and analysis of elimination samples to determine the exact source of the DNA.

Elimination samples may be taken from anyone who had access to the crime scene and may have left biological material.

These points are extremely important in this case and something else to keep in mind .

Authorities can extract DNA from almost any tissue, including hair, fingernails, bones, skin , teeth and bodily fluids.

DNA samples can be generated by tiny amounts of tissue.

DNA is the genetic material found within the cell nuclei of all living things.

DNA is a long molecule and DNA fingerprinting relies on the fact that specific bits of this molecule are replicated in little clusters along its length.

It is this sequence and number of repeats which is a useful way of distinguishing one individual from another.

A DNA 'fingerprint' relies on the fact that hardly anyone will share the same pattern of repeats along the DNA molecule. If this happens, then the chances that they are from two different individuals is very slim.

There are only ever 3 types of results obtained from DNA analysis - Conclusive/ inclusive - Exclusive - Inconclusive .

Inclusion ; When the DNA profile of a victim or suspect is consistent with the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence.

Exclusion ;When the DNA profile from a victim or suspect is inconsistent with the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence.

Inconclusive;Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing could neither include nor exclude an individual as the source of biological evidence.

In mammals the strands of DNA are grouped into structures called chromosomes.

With the exception of identical twins, certain sequences of DNA of each individual are unique.

A DNA fingerprint is constructed by first extracting a DNA sample from body tissue or fluid.

The sample is then segmented using enzymes, and the segments are arranged by size using a process called electrophoresis.

The segments are marked with probes and exposed on X-ray film, where they form a characteristic pattern of black bars – called a DNA fingerprint.

To identify individuals, forensic scientists scan 10 DNA regions, or loci that vary from person to person and use the data to create a DNA profile of that individual (the DNA fingerprint). There is an extremely small chance that another person has the same DNA profile for a particular set of 10 regions.

A nuclear DNA match of loci permits little doubt that a questioned sample has come from a known individual, except in the case of identical twins.

On average, two people would probably have six or seven DNA markers in common out of 20, simply by chance, but with over 12/13 bands in common, you very, very rarely see unrelated people with that degree of similarity.

If the DNA fingerprints produced from two different samples match, the probably of two samples being from the same person is extremely high .

Generally, courts have accepted the reliability of DNA testing and admitted DNA results into evidence.

An example of conclusions provided to the Courts when a DNA match is observed would be as follows:

Approximately 1 person in every 5 trillion chosen at random from the population would be expected to possess the same DNA genotype as that found in a questioned sample . Since 5 trillion is much less than the population of the World (and so one couldn’t have 5 trillion people to compare) an alternative conclusion (based upon the same data) may be adduced. The DNA results are 5 trillion times more likely if the questioned sample originated from the suspect than if it had originated from a randomly chosen unrelated individual from the population.

Tiny amounts of Madeleine's DNA which can last for many years without substantially degrading are probably present on just about everything the family has, toys, Madeleine’s clothes, their clothes, furniture and in their car etc. Believe it or not we loose / shed aprox. 4000 to 5000 skin cells every minute and each one is unique to our very own personal identity .

As you are probably all aware, a familial profile* would show, when compared to one of their children’s DNA profiles [amended from the original - T.B.], enough components to prove whether or not a child was theirs ... but that’s all it would do , it would not prove which child it was, as everyone, bar identical twins, all have DNA components that are unique to us and make us all different .

It wasn't possible to use the same method to create an actual genetic profile for Madeleine so instead of attempting to create one from genetic evidence found on items of clothing she wore , toys she played with or anything else personal to her that she used in PDL, the authorities went back to the UK to Rothley to try and find a sample from her home & found the stain on a pillow case ( believed to be saliva ) Ref. (SJM/1) in the FSS report .

So we know they created two genetic profiles, one created from the DNA taken from her parents (a Familial profile sample) and one created from the stain found on the pillowcase in Rothley which matched a blood sample which we assume was from a heel stick sample.

Just to clarify, these two genetic profiles would not have been identical because only one would show the unique DNA components which only MM had in her genetic make up.

The need for the blood or heel stick sample if that’s what it was is understandable for definite comparison purposes but, call me an old cynic, I am naturally suspicious that this was not or could not be compared to DNA found both in the apartment and on anything belonging to Madeleine from PDL.

They were successful in locating a stain on a pillow case which is believed to be saliva , ( ref SJM/1 ) , this was compared to reference samples of Madeleine’s immediate family and proved to be different .

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

The DNA profile was the same as that obtained from possible spots of saliva existing on the pillowcase and thus was born a true genetic profile of MM .

The FSS confirmed this by stating ' The results of the DNA profile obtaïned from the pïllowcase is approximately 29 million times more likely if the profïle originates form a natural child of theirs rather than someone unrelated to them. ' .... can't really argue with that .

I’ve no doubt the heel stick sample was necessary in order to provide them with a definite genetic profile to compare to the Rothley sample and that a true profile was assembled as a result.

I’ve heard various suggestions as to why this might have occurred, everything from the police & forensics not initially looking for a specific sample of her DNA in PDL to attempts to wipe out any evidence of her existence.

Whatever the case, one thing is certain, her DNA should have been present on many things and in many places, they even had a sticker book belonging to her I believe, perfect I would think for collecting a DNA sample from.

So if the heel prick sample was compared to a sample found in Rothley ( the pillowcase sample ) and proved conclusively to be from Madeleine but nothing was found in PDL , in real terms this means we still do not know for certain if the child who was in PDL has the same DNA profile or was in fact even the same child.

There is no genetic evidence to prove the profile compiled from both the heel prick & pillowcase is compatible to any DNA from the child in PDL. We simply don't know if any DNA from clothing, toys, toothbrush, or anything else she used in PDL matched that profile.

I would have thought most intelligent people who’s child goes missing would try to preserve some sort of evidence (worn clothes) belonging to the child, if not more for emotional rather than for forensic purposes?

Worn clothing is the most obvious choice when no other biological sample is available. As I’ve mentioned humans shed aprox. 4000 – 5000 skin cells a minute, each one unique to that person, - not to mention other biological stains/traces that would have been present on items of clothing. In an early report publicized in the press it was said that a white soiled sock supposedly belonging to Madeleine was sent to the FSS in order to extract a sample of her DNA - though we have never seen any report about this in the files.

Realistically there should have been an ample supply of worn clothing - and we’ve seen two photographs supposedly taken on May 3rd of her dressed in two different outfits – the tennis ball pic and the famous last photo showing her by the pool . This is not to mention other items where her DNA should have been present and should have been as easily collectable as any sample from Rothley.

I have to admit at this stage, like so many people, I’m baffled by the results and conclusions of the FSS report - in so much as results should have provided an important link between victim, suspect, and /or crime scene. They can also conclusively exclude an individual as being the source of the evidence – this is another point I believe is particularly relevant to this case, because that is what appears to have happened.

I’d like to just refer to a Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA profile [/b]

This serves to add [to the case file] a laboratory examination report prepared in England, written in English and translated into Portuguese, delivered to this police force on 4 September 2007 by English police officer Stuart Prior.

This laboratory report tells about the examinations made of two trace evidence recoveries, one behind the living room sofa in apartment 5A and the other in the boot area of the vehicle used by the McCann family, hired [by them] from the end of May this year.

In some of these recoveries (samples) DNA was found whose components are also found in the profile of Madeleine McCann.

With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann.

In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components.

Portimao, 11 September 2007


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* ‘ Familial' searching

Matches parents to children. Standard DNA profiles examine 10 markers in the DNA. Each marker has two sequences - one inherited from the mother, and one from the father.

Familial searching is based on the way in which DNA is inherited within a particular family group, DNA profiles of individuals who are related to each other being more likely to contain similarities in their DNA profiles than two unrelated individuals.




'Q' then added this further commentary:

Clearly something changed as the interpretation of the results by John Lowe attempted to exclude MM as being someone who contributed to the samples found. – I say attempted because he failed and ended up contradicting himself.

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

"DNA analysis uses a technique in which specific regions [areas] are seen and copied (or amplified) many times. A DNA profile obtained from biological material, such as blood, semen, saliva or hair may be compared with a DNA profile obtained from a reference sample of any person. In the case that the DNA profile of the particular person is different from the DNA profile of the biological material, then that person is not the source of that material. If the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material."

This investigation should have been trying to determine what happened to a missing child, that includes not excludes all trace evidence found, that includes biological material that indicates where the child or the body of the child may have been after she went missing. The cellular material found contained enough DNA components to fit the profile of the missing child and the report clearly states she should have been considered as a potential source of the material / sample , so why was she not ?

Coincidently, it appears the GBFS – seem to have done the same thing with hair samples. 12 hairs were recovered from tops belonging to Madeleine, nothing from the hairbrush, nothing from the pillowcase or anywhere else we know of. These were used as substitute reference samples of her hair because others found were not considered to be authentic samples …. but

they were considered not representative of a sample of her hair because they didn't match photographs of her hair or were too short in length to do mtDNA tests .

‘a total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting at the least, that this was a hair from someone else. ‘

Conclusion

In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests, it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these
could have been from Madeleine McCann .’


‘Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitochondrial DNA tests ‘

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her.’

There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair collected . The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hairs consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann were found.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

So no hairs found that belonged to M, not even the 12 hairs found on the 3 tops she wore and apparently no other DNA samples that we know of obtained from PDL either.

How strange is that? - not only has M’s body vanished - but all genetic traces of M. seems to have just vanished from PDL?

Or have they? -

At this juncture lets not forget mans best friends Eddie & Keela , because I don't think they were wrong , but what did they find if there was no evidence of M?

Whose body and DNA was behind the sofa in the apartment and whose body & DNA was in the hire vehicle?

What a conundrum !!

Forensic evidence dogs don’t look for live scent , so whoever commissioned these dogs to search did do so to try and find any evidence of human remains.

The EVRD is trained to located the scent of a dead body . The CSI dog is trained to find human blood and blood is in fact human remains.

So were the dogs correct & did the FSS and the GBSF deliberately mislead the general public ?

Were there actually samples of hair belonging to M , and if so why hide that fact?

Was there DNA evidence in the apartment and on her clothes etc. and if so why disguise the fact.

Was the evidence the Forensic / biological evidence found as a result of the specialist dogs really M's and if so why claim it was inconclusive?

What we're left with is 5 considerations;

1.) either the Forensic results and conclusions were tampered with to get the Mc's off the hook

2.) the FSS & GBFS are useless and botched the whole thing up

3.) the results are factual and there was no DNA or hair samples belonging to MM in PDL

4.) there is something about M's DNA that caused the results to vary .

5.) the DNA & hair samples belonged to someone other than M who was obviously related to the Mc's.

If the results were tampered with, what hook did they need to get the Mc's off .

If the results are correct and there was no DNA or hair evidence belonging to M in PDL then we have to consider the last two possibilities .

It's possible a genetic defect could have caused a variation in the DNA sample , blood chimeraism might account for this or some other genetic problem , but would it account for the mystery of the hair samples .

So that comes down to no.5 which could tie in to no 1 ... I love numbers.

Let's stop a moment and go back to have a little read of our erm ... metaphor:

A match between a crime scene sample and an individual would be a very rare event if theindividual was not the true source of the crime scene sample.

A rare event, what constitutes a rare event? Could it be something to do with something or someone special ?

Could there be something that made someone very special?

Someone & something so special it would be like opening Pandora's Box if the truth ever came out ?

One thing is certain , there was according to the GBFS no hairs found in PDL belonging to M.

They do not appear to have recovered any genetic DNA evidence in PDL belonging to M.

The DNA evidence found as result of the EVRD & CSI dogs proved to be inconclusive according to the FSS .

This I believe narrows things down to 2 other considerations ;

1 There is no evidence other than the word of the MC's & family , their friends and tampered with photographs to prove it was definitely MM in PDL - realistically when we piece all this together there is actually more evidence to indicate that it was a different child to the one who's heel stick & saliva samples were retrieved from the UK.

2 It was the same child whose heal stick & saliva samples came from the UK, but there was a need to hide her true DNA .

These 2 considerations IMO boil down to one thing , there is an issue with this child’s genetic make up and that could be something as simple as blood chimeraism or something as complex as artificial embryo twinning or a combination of both .

We know or have been told , that M. had a genetic defect , though we haven’t really considered it as such , but her coloboma , if she had one was a genetic defect.

Were there any other things the Mc's haven’t told us about M's genetics ? Have these Doctors been playing God ?

I'm just going to touch on something called - Artificial Embryo Twinning: Once an egg has been fertilised by sperm it soon starts dividing. When it divides into separate embryos and the cells are separated , those cells can be implanted into separate mothers and almost identical twins will then be born .- Dizygotic twins.

This isn't Sci Fi, it's another type of IVF, and many studies are being done on this subject and on the children born as a result of this process . the children are called Dizygotic twins - DZ twins like any other siblings, don't necessarily have the exact same chromosome profile. Like any other siblings, DZ twins may look similar , but that’s as far as it goes

- DZ twins do not necessarily have exact same chromosome profile .

Back again to our little metaphor ;

A match between a crime scene sample and an individual would be a very rare event if the individual was not the true source of the crime scene sample

I'd like to read something to you now -it may be related to this case or it may not, but it certainly makes you wonder .

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

The Vatican on - Human cloning

Human cloning refers to “the asexual or agametic reproduction of the entire human organism in order to produce one or more ‘copies’ which, from a genetic perspective, are substantially identical to the single original” (n. 28). The techniques which have been proposed for accomplishing human cloning are artificial embryo twinning, which “consists in the artificial separation of individual cells or groups of cells from the embryo in the earliest stage of development… which are then transferred into the uterus in order to obtain identical embryos in an artificial manner” (footnote 47) and cell nuclear transfer, which “consists in introducing a nucleus taken from an embryonic or somatic cell into an denucleated oocyte. This is followed by stimulation of the oocyte so that it begins to develop as an embryo” (footnote 47). Cloning is proposed for two basic purposes: reproduction, that is, in order to obtain the birth of a baby, and medical therapy or research.

Human cloning is “intrinsically illicit in that…it seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses gravely injurious to human dignity” (n. 28).

With regard to reproductive cloning, “this would impose on the resulting individual a predetermined genetic identity, subjecting him – as has been stated – to a form of biological slavery, from which it would be difficult to free himself. The fact that someone would arrogate to himself the right to determine arbitrarily the genetic characteristics of another person represents a grave offence to the dignity of that person as well as to the fundamental equality of all people… In the encounter with another person, we meet a human being who owes his existence and his proper characteristics to the love of God, and only the love of husband and wife constitutes a mediation of that love in conformity with the plan of the Creator and heavenly Father” (n. 29).

Okay , let me bring this back on track ....

It’s evident someone has attempted to distort all the facts and evidence surrounding this investigation, and I believe that includes the DNA & genetics of MM .

I think every attempt was made to confuse M's DNA , hence the reports of Amelie wearing M’s clothes and it wouldn't surprise me to learn JT's child wore some of her clothes .

It would be relatively easy for someone to mix up two or three peoples DNA , simply by getting other children to wear the missing child’s clothing for a day or so.

It would be easy to get rid of any hairs from a hairbrush, mix DNA on a toothbrush, change & wash bedding , confuse people about which toys or books belonged to which child etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if the famous Cudle Cat didn't have any traces of MM's DNA on it, hence the need to wash it - not to get rid of any genetic traces of her, but to cover themselves should the police have seized it and discovered that there was nothing on it, or nothing that matched the assembled profile sample - prior to it being washed.

All this is possible - but it still leaves us with the big question - Why? Why the need to go to such lengths to hide this child’s DNA?

What difference would it have made if they found an abundance of her DNA in PDL which provided the authorities with a genetic profile ....

I've no doubts about Eddie and Keela's abilities, and I believe a body was present in that apartment & possibly the hire vehicle . Common sense tells us that there is only one person that we know of that’s missing and the investigation has shown that no one else died in the apartment.

I believe that person was MM , but I'm puzzled as to why anyone or why everyone and when I say everyone I’m not only referring to the MC’s & friends, needed to cover up her genetic make up.

The McCanns and their friends appear to have been afforded the highest protection , from government to wealthy sources who have invested millions in genetics. Sadly Madeleine wasn’t afforded any protection!

We know for certain that there was a long delay with the FSS‘s results , there had to be a reason for this happening and I suspect it was due to the ‘ mix up ‘ in establishing M’s genetic profile. This delay , if intentional did nothing but hinder and stall the investigation of a missing child.

On 5 April 2007, a month before Madeleine went missing , the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report on Government proposals in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill following a short inquiry...coincidence, maybe...

WIKILEAKS HUMAN CLONING:

http://thedisclosureproject-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/08/wikileaks-human-cloningcable-released.html

Thursday, December 1, 2011

The HUELVA Trip ...Why Were They Really There ?

EVRD and CSI Dogs

“ The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.”

….. Martin Grimes

The canine team were not brought in by the British & Portuguese authorities to look for an abducted child, they were deployed to look for evidence of accidental or non accidental death.

At the time of biological death the individual scent emitted by someone undergoes a transformation. This change though not immediately detectable by humans, does affect the composition of the scent detected by dogs. The body goes through five stages of decomposition before it is skeletonised and the dogs are trained to react to the scent picture through the complete spectrum.

There are no laboratory detection processes or equipment as sensitive as the canine’s olfactory system. The dog’s natural hunting instinct and their ability to detect scents cannot be defeated.

Unlike humans who would only smell the pleasing scent of a freshly baked cake, a dog is capable of distinguishing the scent of every individual ingredient used in the recipe simply by smelling the cake. They can locate a scent no matter how much it is intermingled with other odours .

When a person dies decomposition begins immediately protein synthesis in the body stops. With nothing to maintain the protective lining in the gut digestive enzymes eat the body from the inside out creating amino acids. While this is happening bacteria feed on those amino acids. According to a study in 2008 from the Journal of Forensic Science the process of decomposition produces 478 different scent signatures.

A dead human body is called a cadaver and dogs that are specifically trained to find bodies or remains of a body including the chemical residue left behind when a body has been moved, are classified as ‘Cadaver Dogs’ and or Human Remains Detection Dogs. These dogs are capable of finding the scent of a cadaver where there is no physically retrievable evidence.

When someone dies the scent from the cadaver, the smell of human decomposition gasses in addition to skin rafts emanates into the air. By definition scent is the bacterial, cellular and vaporous debris enshrouding the individual

Tests have proven that residual scent from a cadaver will last in a building with minimum environmental influences or human disturbance for at least 1 Year, even after the objects where the scent source originated had been removed.

All British police dogs, irrespective of the discipline they are trained in, must be licensed to work operationally. To obtain the license they have to pass a test at the completion of their training, and then again every year until they retire. The standards required to become operational are laid down by the (ACPO) sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods and standards.

All training and operational work is recorded, these records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine team’s reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability.


From Martin Grimes Report ;

“The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site

False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.”

The E.R.V.D. has successfully in training and in operational casework located
Human cadavers, whether in the whole or parts thereof, deposited surface or
sub-surface to a depth of approximately 1 metre shortly after death (though
precise times are not determinable) to the advanced stages of decomposition
and putrefaction through the skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if
large quantities of accelerant have been involved … “


Places and Items where the EVRD and CSI Dogs Signaled

The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified.

Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by
the door.

Living room, behind sofa.

Veranda outside parent's bedroom.

Garden area directly under veranda.

Cuddle Cat

Clothing belonging to Kate McCann x 2 - Trousers and a Top

Red Children’s T-Shirt

Hired Car – Renault Scenic
When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family,
the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert
indication at the lower part of the driver’s door where the dog was biting and
barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from
the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door.

Hired Car – Key Fob

Five apartments were searched using the EVRD.

Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at
Portimao.

The dogs only alerted to property and items associated with the McCann family.


Martin Grime, the dogs’ instructor himself [20], mentions in his report:

“Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations”; or scientist Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that the FSS has no scientific support about the use of the dogs as a fundament for the collection of biological residues and that normally take the handler’s word for certification, that asserts that the dogs are more sensitive than any chemical technique or other techniques that are normally used by crime scene sector experts"

Mark Harrison


About 4 months after the disappearance the investigation took a new direction after Mark Harrison (Highly respected National Search Adviser NPIA (National Police Improvement Agency) for Missing persons Searches, Homicides and Big scale Natural disasters in the United Kingdom) arrived to Algarve and started working with the Portuguese police, Leicester police and the Scotland Yard members present in the field. After one week Mark Harrison made a report where he stated that there were large possibilities of Madeleine being dead and her body concealed somewhere around the area. It was also him who advised for the need to get help from dogs specialized in finding dead bodies. It is also interesting to know that from the vast experience of Mark Harrison in cases of homicides of under 5 years old victims in the UK since 1960 there were 1528 cases in which 82% of them were committed by the parents and 96% were committed by persons with close relations with the victims. Only 4% were committed by people not known by the victims.

The two English dogs were presented as an indispensable help to the investigation, after their abilities and the manner in which they are trained were explained in detail, as well as the fact that they both react to blood traces and cadaver odours, without a single episode of “false positives” in the investigations.

In a report, Mark Harrison listed cases of success that offered a guarantee of reliability. And he asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie’s death, then it would be a fact.


Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable said:

” Keela’s training gives the force an edge when it comes to forensic investigation, which we should recognise and use more often. Martin has developed this capability through innovation and experience, and we are now considering how best to develop the training further. We know other forces are interested, both here and abroad, and we must see what opportunities we can develop. We know we have an operationally excellent dog section, and our specialist dogs are being developed in a unique way.”


Team McCann counter-attack

Gazeta Digital: “Kate and Gerry McCann's legal team has contacted American lawyers over a case where key sniffer dog evidence was thrown out of court in the hope that it may help them fight any charges that they were involved in the killing of their daughter; according to today's edition of The Thelegraph. Angus McBride and Michael Caplan “consulted the legal team of Eugene Zapata, 68, who is accused of murdering his estranged wife Jeanette in 1976. But a judge ruled last month that the evidence was no more reliable than "the flip of a coin" and could not be put before a jury” writes The Telegraph, quoting the judge's decision. The sniffer dogs brought to Praia da Luz by a South Yorkshire police special team, Eddie and Keela, are considered the best and only ones with the capacity to detect the scent of a corpse or blood even months after incidents happened.


Smell in the Hired Vehicle

Michael Wright (friend who went out to Portugal several times) : "I noted some disagreeable smells on a number of occasions which I judged to have come from the twins' nappies. Discarded nappies were collected in rubbish bags and held until thrown into the [rubbish] bins, [thereby] provoking smell. I have no knowledge of anything spilling from any article nor of any cleaning of the car after such a hypothetical spill."


Alexander Cameron (Gerry's brother-in-law) : "On one occasion, I believe it was on July of 2007, I took Patricia to the supermarket. We carried bags in the boot (trunk) of the Renault Scenic; bought various items including fresh fish, shrimp and beef. When we unloaded the shopping bags, we noticed that blood has run out of the bottom of the plastic bag. After this shopping trip and still in the month of July 2007, I began to notice a strange odour in the car. I did not give it much importance and assumed it was likely due to the leakage from the rubbish bags or from the blood which had escaped from the shopping bags. As a result, we removed the carpet from the boot (trunk) in order to clean it. I tossed (beat) the boot carpet to remove any particles and cleaned it with a wet cloth and left it to air out."

The witness who lived near the McCanns’ second home, in Aldeia da Luz, who says she witnessed an uncommon fact about the McCanns’ hire car, where the dogs detected cadaver odour and remains that may belong to Maddie, was not heard, either. This neighbour has signed a document authorising the broadcast of her deposition that identifies her, but fearing threats and pressures, she doesn’t show her face.

This is an interesting matter, when I left the Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, in October 2007, nothing was known about this vehicle, about this issue of the open car boot. We knew that inside the vehicle cadaver odour and bodily fluids had been found, where Madeleine McCann’s DNA profile was extracted from, with 15 alleles. Months later, there is a jurist, who lives nearby, who came to report that after the McCanns arrived at this villa, they saw the car boot open from then on.


Neighbour: "I drive down this street every day to turn my car around at that end, and every time that I passed the house, and I looked at the car, and the car always had an open boot door, day or night. I often passed at night, and always verified it. It was a fact, I reported it, and that was it."It’s important to report the following: that lady, that jurist, was never heard at the Polícia Judiciária because her deposition was not considered to be relevant, which is strange. While she was not heard, while a rogatory letter was sent to England, relatives of Gerald and Kate McCann came out to say that they had transported, inside this car boot, food from the supermarket, namely a meat package that leaked blood.

The great question is how the family heard about the witness, despite the fact that she was not heard by the PJ, and tried to reply to the observed facts.


Gerry McCann: sniffer dogs are not reliable

Sniffer dogs have a high failure rate, according to Gerry McCann. In an interview with the Portuguese weekly Expresso, when asked to comment about Eddie and Keela searches at Praia da Luz, Gerry said that a study made in USA proved that those dogs were not reliable.
Sniffer dogs were tested, according to Gerry McCann, with boxes containing vegetables, bones, garbage and some human remains. For 10 hours, four sets of boxes were left in ten rooms. After the boxes were removed, the dogs were called in and “failed in two thirds of the cases”, said the father of Madeleine McCann.
Eddie and Keela handler, Martin Grimes, in a statement that is in the DVD files of the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance, says that the dogs have been used in around 200 cases and never gave a “false alert”.
Published: 18 Dec 2007

FURIOUS Gerry McCann believes sniffer dogs used to find Maddie clues in the family's hire car were MANIPULATED by cops.


The animals appeared to detect traces of the four-year-old's DNA in the Renault Scenic - rented 25 days after she vanished.
This lead to Kate and Gerry, both 39, being made suspects in their daughter's disappearance in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
But Gerry, from Rothley, Leics, who was shown a video of the search, told lawyers the animals' evidence was unreliable.
A source close to the couple said last night: "Gerry says a dog went up to the Scenic, sniffed around and went to head off. He watched the dog being brought back to the vehicle.
"Finally, it reacts around the boot area. Gerry was open-mouthed at that, he feels the dog was manoeuvred into a position where it could react."


The extraordinary public reactions of Doctors Kate and Gerry McCann when they were told that the cadaver dog and the blood-hound had detected the ‘smell of death’ and blood in Apartment 5A, in the Renault Scenic, and on the clothes of Dr Kate McCann and Madeleine;

The evidence from the cadaver dog and the blood-hound were convincing enough on their own. But the McCanns then went on to strongly reinforce the evidence that Madeleine had died in Apartment 5A by their extraordinary reactions when that evidence was first reported.

To most people - if their child really had been abducted - the news that the ‘smell of death’ had been found in their holiday apartment, and in their car, would have prompted an outpouring of grief and concern for their child. It would have prompted reactions such as: Who hired the car before us?, or - Is anyone else known to have died in our apartment or in the hire car?

But this was not how the McCanns reacted. Instead, speaking through a variety of sources, including their £75,000-a-year spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, ‘friends of the family’ and ‘sources close to the McCanns’ legal team’, the McCanns came up with the following five explanations for why human cadaverine - the ‘smell of death’ - and blood, had been found in their apartment and in the car they hired:

(a) First, Dr Kate McCann claimed (at first indirectly via her mother, not directly) that the ‘smell of death’ may have been found on her clothes because she was said to have been in close proximity with no fewer than six corpses in her last two weeks at work. So far as this excuse for the presence of the ‘smell of death’ is concerned, there is doubt as to whether she did actually visit six corpses. That has never been verified by the McCanns. Further, those Doctors who have to certify the cause of death do not always handle the body nor handle it long enough or closely enough for the smell of death to be transferred to clothes. It also seems unlikely that a person who really had worked in such close proximity with corpses would take the same clothes on holiday with them that they used in working close to corpses.

(b) Second, Dr Kate McCann claimed that the ‘smell of death’ was found on the pink soft toy ‘Cuddle Cat’ because she ‘sometimes took Cuddle Cat to work’. The presence of the smell of death on Cuddle Cat was particularly difficult for the McCanns to explain. As a newspaper report based on police sources put it: “Kate didn’t contradict the fact that her two pieces of clothes and the stuffed animal [Cuddle Cat] had been signaled by the English dogs trained to find cadaver odor. She justified it by her profession. Kate McCann’s mother alleged that as a doctor at the Leicester health centre, she was directly present at six deaths before she came to Portugal on holiday, giving the same excuse for Madeleine’s stuffed animal, that was with her in the months after her daughter disappeared”.

Dr Kate McCann once again claimed that the ‘smell of death’ must have been transferred on to Cuddle Cat by her working on the corpses during the two weeks before going on holiday to work. Quite apart from it being unlikely that a mother would take a child’s favorite stuffed animal to work, never mind having it with her when she was close to corpses, it appears that experts say that it is not usually possible for the ‘smell of death’ to be transferred in this way. Even if the smell of death could be transferred in such a way - which the experts rule out - the McCanns would still have to account for the presence of the ‘smell of death’ in their apartment, and on the car they hired three weeks after Madeleine went missing.

(c) Third, the McCanns claimed that if DNA, thought to be Madeleine’s, was found in the boot of their car, then it could have come from the children’s dirty nappies, which they carried in the boot. First, it is unlikely, though certainly possible, that anyone would carry dirty nappies around in this way. Second, it must be remembered that the blood-hound, Keela, found the smell of blood in the hired car, not just ‘body fluids’. The ‘dirty nappy’ excuse therefore also doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

(d) Fourth, the McCanns claimed that the ‘smell of death’ could have come from rotting meat that Dr Gerry McCann was taking to the local rubbish dump from time to time. This is also impossible, as the scent from dead animals does not produce the same ‘cadaverine’ as human cadaver scent. The cadaver dogs are trained to detect only human cadaverine. Probably Dr Gerry McCann didn’t realise this when he made his comment.

(e) Fifth, the McCanns said that any blood found in the flat (apparently found having oozed underneath the tiles in the living room behind the sofa and where the wall and the floor meet) might have come from Madeleine ‘grazing her leg when she boarded the plane’, or perhaps a nosebleed. These explanations seem highly unlikely, given the amount of blood that would be needed for a small amount to seep through the tiles. The ‘knee incident’ occurred elsewhere, the day their holiday began. Any light bleeding would surely have stopped well before they even got to Praia da Luz. In addition, it is hardly likely that blood from a graze on the knee would be located at the edge of a room where the wall joins the floor. Nosebleeds usually leave only a few spots of blood (if any) on flooring, being largely contained by clothing or a handkerchief or similar over the nose. It’s highly unlikely that Madeleine would have sat still while copious quantities of blood poured from her nose on to the tiled floor, right by the living room wall.

In addition to these excuses for the apparent presence of both the smell of death and Madeleine’s blood, the McCanns and their ever-growing team of PR advisers and lawyers immediately poured scorn on the evidence of the cadaver dog and the blood-hound. They quickly cited, for example, an Irish court case where the judge would not accept the cadaver dog evidence alone, because it was not corroborated. They claimed there were Irish and American lawyers who had been able to cast doubt on cadaver dog evidence, pointing to a U.S. study which allegedly showed that cadaver dogs could be fallible. Yet cadaver dog evidence has played a vital part in securing the conviction of murderers in a number of countries. And we know from Mark Grimes that Eddie and Keela had never once been wrong in over 200 cases where they detected the smell of death or blood.

Let us ask ourselves, also, whether pouring scorn on the evidence of a cadaver dog in another court case would be amongst the first reactions of genuinely loving, grieving parents, on being informed that the smell of death had been found in their apartment and car?


And just to put a bit of spin on it ? ;

McCanns urged use of police sniffer dogs -
Couple became suspects because of the forensic tests they had requested
The couple, worried that inquiries by the Policia Judiciaria were losing momentum, asked detectives last month to re-examine the apartment where their daughter went missing and also for the use of sniffer dogs to seek fresh clues.





GNR Dogs & Search and Rescue Team


The whole idea of using Tracker Dogs and Search and Rescue Dogs is to follow and reconstruct a route that a person my have taken. This is done by using ‘target scents’, items used by the person which provide the dogs with that person’s scent. A towel, blanket and clothing believed to have been used by Madeleine were provided by the family for this purpose.

The cellular debris the dogs detect is believed to be a result of perspiration combined with skin oils that serves as a breeding ground for bacteria found on our skin / skin cells. Culture , diet , environment , and race are also influences unique to an individual and account for the singularity of a persons scent and which also forms the basis of the human scent trail.

Human beings loose approximately 4000 plus skin cells a minute and each cell is unique to that person and these dogs are capable of locating just one single cell.

The Search and Rescue Dog teams are specifically trained to find human scent and have to regularly meet certain standards and tests done to prove their competence.

The scent trail the dogs detected and followed just happens to be one that does not appear to correspond with a route which would be considered a normal route taken by Madeleine during their stay in PDL - this in its self is an important factor to consider given that at least four dogs all independently followed the same scent trail at different times and on different days.

The Search and Rescue dogs are trained to locate a scent no matter how much it is intermingled with other odours and dependant on environmental conditions, can detect that scent when it is days old. There will always be a question as to whether or not the scent was new and could it have dispersed, however this does not answer how or why days apart the dogs followed the same scent trail, clearly whatever the scent trail was, it didn’t appear to disperse.

The odds of all the dogs following the same trail by chance are too great given the number of variants in this case (by variants I mean the number of places where Madeleine should have left a scent trail prior to her going missing). This in itself could be an indication that all the dogs picked up what looks like the ‘freshest’ trail and even located it days apart.

Report on the Sniffer Dog Search and Rescue Team

“At 00.40, given the complexity of the situation that seemed to surround the disappearance, the GNR post commander requested reinforcements from two sniffer dog teams from the Portimao territorial group to help in the searches”

“ At 01.00 after the group commander had been briefed about the situation, telephone contact was made with an official from the Queluz GNR school, with the aim of their releasing search and rescue dog teams, seeing as these are specially trained to find missing persons, which is not the case with the Portimao sniffer dogs, which are essentially patrol dogs.”

“On 4th May, after having evaluated the situation surrounding the disappearance, the Lagos Post Commander ordered searches for the child to take place and contacted officers who were at home, forming a force of nine officers who searched during the night and early morning.

At 02.00 they arrived at P da L and began searching with the Portimao sniffer dog teams, the terrain searches were extended until the morning with the dogs and officers on the scene,.. “

“At 08.00 three officers with 4 search and rescue dogs from Queluz arrived at the scene, these dogs immediately began to operate.”

“ The sniffer dog search and rescue team of the GNR was sent to Vila da Luz in the attempt of locating Madeleine McCann, aged four, of British nationality, who disappeared on the night of 3rd May, from apartment 5 A, Block 5 of the OC resort, the team was composed as follows:”

Sargeant Silva – Dog: Timmy
Officer Cortez – Dog: Sacha
Officer Sousa – Dog: Kolly/Cookie
Officer Rosa – Dog: Oscar
Officer Martins – Dog: Fusco
Officer Fernandes – Dog: Rex/ Zarus

“During the afternoon of 4th May, more searches were carried out around Vila da Luz and were extended to a radius of approximately 600 metres, including the surroundings of the EN125 in the stretch closed to P da L.

At about 23.00 the extra teams that had been requested for reinforcement arrived (Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco, both from the search and rescue unit and Officer Fernandes with Rex and Zarus from the tracking team).

After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.

Beginning to follow the track using Rex, from the door of apartment 5 A (the place where the girl had been sleeping) he would always head in the direction of Block 4, leaving block 5 the dog would turn to the left, pass by a metal access door to a path existing between the apartments blocks to the leisure area (restaurant, pool and playground). Immediately another attempt at reconstruction was made using the dog Zarus, who, in general terms, ended up following the same route as Rex and having the same behaviour.

It is important to state that this tracking work was carried out in an urban area and more than 24 hours after the girl’s disappearance and numerous persons had passed along the path the dogs were tracking. It should also be stated that the path the dogs followed within the resort was practically totally surrounded by walls and the concentration of odours was stronger as they were protected from the wind. The searches finished at about 01.30”

“ On 7th May the same searches were continued, being extended to to the entire northern part of Almadena to the site of Espojeiro and the verges of the EN125 until the Boi valley.

“At about 19.. the undersigned officer, accompanied by the Commander, Officer Silva, took part in a meetings with the PJ Directorate, being asked by the PJ about the viability of giving the girl’s clothes to the dogs for the dogs to sniff again, and if by means of the odour inhaled, they would be able to mark an identical odour in one of the resort’s apartments even though its door was closed.

With regard to this task, Officer Silva referred to the fact that the time that had passed would be a crucial condition for the dogs’ work in obtaining results and that the entirety of the human odours existing in the apartments and access paths could make the dogs’ searches very difficult. However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.

In this concrete situation, the objective would be for the dogs to carry out a discontinuous search, in other words, to sniff the girl’s clothes and immediately search near to the apartments, checking to see if there was any change in the behaviour of the dogs.”


“At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl’s clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.”

“ On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.

All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.

After entering the apartment, it was observed that the odour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.

During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs.”

“As you know, yesterday, 8 May 2007 at 23h45, the undersigned joined a search effected by the GNR dog team which targeted Blocks 5 and 4 of the Ocean Club resort and adjacent areas, with the objective of trying to reconstruct the possible route taken by the missing child on 3 May 2007.”
The GNR team performing the search had in its possession, packed in a plastic bag, a towel supposedly used to clean the missing youngster - Madeleine McCann - furnished by her parents.
- After the conditions for the search are met, the two GNR officers - the leader and the dog handler - gave the scent towel to one of the dogs to smell and led it into Block 5.

“It is true to say that the dogs effectively showed interest in the above-mentioned apartments, without giving an indication needed to their handler that they had [found] the presence of the trail of the missing child. It is also certain that the course that they made to the car park next to Block 6 was done without hesitation and in a most convincing manner.

- To better understand the routes taken by the dogs, there are attached four images/maps of the area of the Ocean Club resort, the route taken by the dogs from Block 5 to the car park being marked in red and yellow.

- Further, in an informal conversation with the GNR team, they advised that on the 4 May they had done the same work, with no control over the direction taken by the dogs, i.e. they were not directed into the buildings, it being certain that they took the same route described above, with the same attitude, losing the trail next to the car park of Block 6.”


-= Whether relevant or not , there is a phenomena that has been noted by many trainers / dog handlers, some dogs will follow a persons scent trail, often many days old, but fail to close in on that person if the subjects has died.

They may register the scent change but whether from fear, difference in odour, or some other reason may not approach the body, appear confused and display different behaviour.. In reality the dog is showing an aversion to the scent emitted by the dead body (cadaver).

Though the dogs change in behaviour was put down to waist foodstuffs, the S&R Dogs are trained scent discrimination dogs, but they are not trained to locate the scent of a cadaver.
“ the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there”

“Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.”