\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

They'll keep you going for a while, mossman

The dogs did not lie in the USA or in Wales; neither did they lie in Jersey and they did not lie in Portugal either. In Portugal the "blood" dog signalled blood and blood was found. Blood which had not been found by the conventional means at the disposal of both Portuguese and British forensic investigators. The blood dog did not tell us whose blood it was, how could it? nonetheless the fact that blood was actually found which had previously been invisible, is proof enough that the dog reacted 100% correctly. The "cadaver" dog signalled cadaver odour but no cadaver was found. That doesn't mean that the cadaver dog made some kind of mistake, but that the cadaver responsible for the odour had been removed. But, one would have expected it to have been removed of course. So why question the dog's reliability when even the McCanns themselves accepted, at least initially, that the dog had been correct and attempted to explain away the presence of cadaver odour by putting out the story via the family that there had been professional contact with deceased patients in the days immediately preceding the holiday?

Gerry McCann has said that he is NOT disregarding the findings off the dogs.....it's EVIDENCE that they a looking for ....there is NO EVIDENCE that Madeleine died in apt 5a....that's what he has said.



In other words....no body....no evidence......he's goading.

kitti wrote:Gerry McCann has said that he is NOT disregarding the findings off the dogs.....it's EVIDENCE that they a looking for ....there is NO EVIDENCE that Madeleine died in apt 5a....that's what he has said.



In other words....no body....no evidence......he's goading.

Morning kitti, out of all of Madeleine's possessions in her bedroom , he brings one item, a pillowcase , which could have been taken from the Twins bedroom........think that was significant?

Panda wrote:

kitti wrote:Gerry McCann has said that he is NOT disregarding the findings off the dogs.....it's EVIDENCE that they a looking for ....there is NO EVIDENCE that Madeleine died in apt 5a....that's what he has said.



In other words....no body....no evidence......he's goading.

Morning kitti, out of all of Madeleine's possessions in her bedroom , he brings one item, a pillowcase , which could have been taken from the Twins bedroom........think that was significant?

IIRC the DNA extracted was consistent with being a natural child of the two parents and not the DNA of either twin.

Chris wrote:

Panda wrote:

kitti wrote:Gerry McCann has said that he is NOT disregarding the findings off the dogs.....it's EVIDENCE that they a looking for ....there is NO EVIDENCE that Madeleine died in apt 5a....that's what he has said.



In other words....no body....no evidence......he's goading.

Morning kitti, out of all of Madeleine's possessions in her bedroom , he brings one item, a pillowcase , which could have been taken from the Twins bedroom........think that was significant?

IIRC the DNA extracted was consistent with being a natural child of the two parents and not the DNA of either twin.

Hi chris, I know nothing about DNA, but wonder why the samples taken from the car could not identify Madeleine.?

could it not be possable that the reason for needing something to match the dna of the possable blood prick from when a child is born and done as reguler thing to do at birth wich i think that was available and was sent to those that needed it ,but to be sure it had to be matched to something of the childs currently,so it was supposed to be a test? to make sure of it being reliable match?Whether or not the pillowcase was from said home and bed ,if it matched the heel prick one ,there should be no doubt of the authenticity really.otherwise it would mean no one has the childs dna at all?hope i am saying this so some may understand ?joyce1938

Panda wrote:

kitti wrote:Gerry McCann has said that he is NOT disregarding the findings off the dogs.....it's EVIDENCE that they a looking for ....there is NO EVIDENCE that Madeleine died in apt 5a....that's what he has said.



In other words....no body....no evidence......he's goading.

Morning kitti, out of all of Madeleine's possessions in her bedroom , he brings one item, a pillowcase , which could have been taken from the Twins bedroom........think that was significant?

Good morning Panda

I don't believe Gerry McCann was sent home to get something that contained Madeleine's dna. However if I am wrong, I don't understand why Gerry would return to PDL with a pillowcase, when Madeleine's dna would have been on the pillowcase on her bed in the PDL apartment. As well as the bed sheet and the clothing she took off the previous evening.

The more I read about this case, the more I am convinced the McCanns were protected, before the GNR arrived at their apartment, to investigate Madeleine's disappearance. The GNR had enough evidence to arrest the McCanns, as soon as they discovered they lied about the shutter, they'd supposedly left their children unsupervised, when they were out and they never searched for Madeleine.

In my opinion, the GNR must have had prior warning not to arrest the McCanns. If I am wrong, then why were they not arrested? The GNR were quick to act on the accusations against Robert Murat, he was taken into custody and questioned, as soon as the reporter made the allegation against him, but the McCanns weren't.

The apartment that Robert Murat shared with his mother,was turned upside down more than once and the same goes with the garden. Robert Murat's personal property was taken away and held for some time, even though the police didn't have a shred of evidence, to show he was involved with Madeleine's disappearance.

While the PJ were busy with Robert Murat, the McCanns, who perpetrated Madeleine's disappearance, were busy flying, or driving in and out of Portugal.

In my opinion, the PJ have had to stand back and watch the McCanns blatently stick two fingers up at them, as well as listen while the McCanns badmouthed them. They've had to, because they've had orders from a higher authority to do so...in my opinion.

joyce1938 wrote:could it not be possable that the reason for needing something to match the dna of the possable blood prick from when a child is born and done as reguler thing to do at birth wich i think that was available and was sent to those that needed it ,but to be sure it had to be matched to something of the childs currently,so it was supposed to be a test? to make sure of it being reliable match?Whether or not the pillowcase was from said home and bed ,if it matched the heel prick one ,there should be no doubt of the authenticity really.otherwise it would mean no one has the childs dna at all?hope i am saying this so some may understand ?joyce1938

Hi Joyce,

I'm not sure Madeleine's heel prick would be available because I think she was born in Holland , certainly conceived there through IVF. Have a look at the link I posted yesterday to mossman about the FSS tests, there may be more detailed info there. I must admit I am not at all clued up about forensics , I seem to remember the samples from the car did not identify Madeleine's DNA, which must have been taken from her pillow.

The idea behind going to Rothley to get a sample was to have something they were certain was Madeleine's in order to be able to identify the samples they found in the apartment, car etc. So they could for example take a hair from Gerry McCann and know for certain it was his, compare it with the samples found in PDL and know what was his and what was not.

We do not know under what circumstances the pillow was retrieved by Gerry McCann. Did the policeman physically go into the bedroom with him or did he wait downstairs ? Was it a friendly, sympathetic visit by the policeman or was it an "official" visit ?

I was looking at two of my boys who share a bedroom this morning, they had swapped beds so were lying on each others pillows ! My other child takes the dog to his bedroom although this is against house rules, but I bet if we dna tested his pillow they would tell me I had given birth to a dog. So there is room for doubt about that sample, in my opinion. My last job before leaving the house for a holiday is always to change the bed clothes, so we return to nice clean beds. I know lots of people who do that or others who take all the clothes off and leave the beds "air" while they are away. The pillowcase retrieval would not work for any of us.

DNA

mossman wrote:The idea behind going to Rothley to get a sample was to have something they were certain was Madeleine's in order to be able to identify the samples they found in the apartment, car etc. So they could for example take a hair from Gerry McCann and know for certain it was his, compare it with the samples found in PDL and know what was his and what was not.

We do not know under what circumstances the pillow was retrieved by Gerry McCann. Did the policeman physically go into the bedroom with him or did he wait downstairs ? Was it a friendly, sympathetic visit by the policeman or was it an "official" visit ?

I was looking at two of my boys who share a bedroom this morning, they had swapped beds so were lying on each others pillows ! My other child takes the dog to his bedroom although this is against house rules, but I bet if we dna tested his pillow they would tell me I had given birth to a dog. So there is room for doubt about that sample, in my opinion. My last job before leaving the house for a holiday is always to change the bed clothes, so we return to nice clean beds. I know lots of people who do that or others who take all the clothes off and leave the beds "air" while they are away. The pillowcase retrieval would not work for any of us.

Good morning Mossman

DNA

Good morning Mossman

I can see your logic, regarding your boys swapping beds, but in Madeleine's case, this didn't happen, because she was in a bed and always assuming the twins were in the apartment, on the night Madeleine disappeared, they were in their cots.

If the police had searched the McCanns hire car and found dna, that they thought belonged to Madeleine, before Gerry returned to Rothley, to get something that contained Madeleine's dna, then they would have had no need to send him home. There was enough clothing and other items belonging to Madeleine, in their PDL apartment, that contained her dna.

Anyway it isn't just about Madeleine's dna, that I'm making my point, it is the fact that the McCanns behaviour including their lies, that made the GNR and the PJ suspect them of being more involved with Madeleine's disappearance than neglect. Whether Madeleine disappeared or not, they perpetrated her disappearance, they broke the Portuguese law and they were free to go anywhere they liked, to any country they liked.

The police had openly said there was no evidence to show Robert Murat played any part in Madeleine's disappearance, but they wouldn't release him from his arguido status, even though he had requested the status himself. Or so his lawyer said. He had to stay put in PDL, he had to surrender his passport.

There is only one reason why the McCanns could do as they liked and that is because they were immune from prosecution. Why?

kathybelle wrote:

Panda wrote:

kitti wrote:Gerry McCann has said that he is NOT disregarding the findings off the dogs.....it's EVIDENCE that they a looking for ....there is NO EVIDENCE that Madeleine died in apt 5a....that's what he has said.



In other words....no body....no evidence......he's goading.

Morning kitti, out of all of Madeleine's possessions in her bedroom , he brings one item, a pillowcase , which could have been taken from the Twins bedroom........think that was significant?

Good morning Panda

I don't believe Gerry McCann was sent home to get something that contained Madeleine's dna. However if I am wrong, I don't understand why Gerry would return to PDL with a pillowcase, when Madeleine's dna would have been on the pillowcase on her bed in the PDL apartment. As well as the bed sheet and the clothing she took off the previous evening.

The more I read about this case, the more I am convinced the McCanns were protected, before the GNR arrived at their apartment, to investigate Madeleine's disappearance. The GNR had enough evidence to arrest the McCanns, as soon as they discovered they lied about the shutter, they'd supposedly left their children unsupervised, when they were out and they never searched for Madeleine.

In my opinion, the GNR must have had prior warning not to arrest the McCanns. If I am wrong, then why were they not arrested? The GNR were quick to act on the accusations against Robert Murat, he was taken into custody and questioned, as soon as the reporter made the allegation against him, but the McCanns weren't.

The apartment that Robert Murat shared with his mother,was turned upside down more than once and the same goes with the garden. Robert Murat's personal property was taken away and held for some time, even though the police didn't have a shred of evidence, to show he was involved with Madeleine's disappearance.

While the PJ were busy with Robert Murat, the McCanns, who perpetrated Madeleine's disappearance, were busy flying, or driving in and out of Portugal.

In my opinion, the PJ have had to stand back and watch the McCanns blatently stick two fingers up at them, as well as listen while the McCanns badmouthed them. They've had to, because they've had orders from a higher authority to do so...in my opinion.

Morning kathybelle,

As I said to Joyce, I know nothing about DNA etc, but Gerry was going to the U.K. for some reason, probably to instruct Carter Ruck to sue someone and was asked to collect a sample of Madeleine's DNA from Rothley, hence the pillowcase. He was supposedly accompanied by a LP Officer. Now, for me this is the important bit...how come Kate can give some of Madeleine.s hair to that South African Guy with the gizmo who was going to search for her. Also, when Jon Corner made the Video , Kate gave him a box of Madeleine's clothes etc to take back to the U.K. . The sandals turned up in Rothley because Amelie mentioned it, those sandals would have contained Madeleine's DNA so why weren't they used.???

There was NO hair matching madeleines hair colour or supposedly going by her pictures matching her in the apt.


Madeleine was born in the UK.

mossman wrote:The idea behind going to Rothley to get a sample was to have something they were certain was Madeleine's in order to be able to identify the samples they found in the apartment, car etc. So they could for example take a hair from Gerry McCann and know for certain it was his, compare it with the samples found in PDL and know what was his and what was not.

We do not know under what circumstances the pillow was retrieved by Gerry McCann. Did the policeman physically go into the bedroom with him or did he wait downstairs ? Was it a friendly, sympathetic visit by the policeman or was it an "official" visit ?

I was looking at two of my boys who share a bedroom this morning, they had swapped beds so were lying on each others pillows ! My other child takes the dog to his bedroom although this is against house rules, but I bet if we dna tested his pillow they would tell me I had given birth to a dog. So there is room for doubt about that sample, in my opinion. My last job before leaving the house for a holiday is always to change the bed clothes, so we return to nice clean beds. I know lots of people who do that or others who take all the clothes off and leave the beds "air" while they are away. The pillowcase retrieval would not work for any of us.

DNA

Morning mossman, you will have read my reply to kathybelle and I think before we speculate any further we need to introduce a ]timeline of events.:

1. What date was the Car found to have blood in the wheelbase

2.. What date did Gerry go to London and collect the Pillowcase

3. What date did Jon Corner finish making his video and have his equipment to the U.K at a cost of £1,800 to the fund , which included Madeleine's clothes .

4. What date did Kate give the Guy with the gizmo some of Madeleiene,s hair

Right, off you go folks, Iv'e done my bit and you all know I'm no good at finding stuff.

kathybelle wrote:

mossman wrote:The idea behind going to Rothley to get a sample was to have something they were certain was Madeleine's in order to be able to identify the samples they found in the apartment, car etc. So they could for example take a hair from Gerry McCann and know for certain it was his, compare it with the samples found in PDL and know what was his and what was not.

We do not know under what circumstances the pillow was retrieved by Gerry McCann. Did the policeman physically go into the bedroom with him or did he wait downstairs ? Was it a friendly, sympathetic visit by the policeman or was it an "official" visit ?

I was looking at two of my boys who share a bedroom this morning, they had swapped beds so were lying on each others pillows ! My other child takes the dog to his bedroom although this is against house rules, but I bet if we dna tested his pillow they would tell me I had given birth to a dog. So there is room for doubt about that sample, in my opinion. My last job before leaving the house for a holiday is always to change the bed clothes, so we return to nice clean beds. I know lots of people who do that or others who take all the clothes off and leave the beds "air" while they are away. The pillowcase retrieval would not work for any of us.

Good morning Mossman

DNA

Good morning Mossman

I can see your logic, regarding your boys swapping beds, but in Madeleine's case, this didn't happen, because she was in a bed and always assuming the twins were in the apartment, on the night Madeleine disappeared, they were in their cots.

If the police had searched the McCanns hire car and found dna, that they thought belonged to Madeleine, before Gerry returned to Rothley, to get something that contained Madeleine's dna, then they would have had no need to send him home. There was enough clothing and other items belonging to Madeleine, in their PDL apartment, that contained her dna.

Anyway it isn't just about Madeleine's dna, that I'm making my point, it is the fact that the McCanns behaviour including their lies, that made the GNR and the PJ suspect them of being more involved with Madeleine's disappearance than neglect. Whether Madeleine disappeared or not, they perpetrated her disappearance, they broke the Portuguese law and they were free to go anywhere they liked, to any country they liked.

The police had openly said there was no evidence to show Robert Murat played any part in Madeleine's disappearance, but they wouldn't release him from his arguido status, even though he had requested the status himself. Or so his lawyer said. He had to stay put in PDL, he had to surrender his passport.

There is only one reason why the McCanns could do as they liked and that is because they were immune from prosecution. Why?

Hi Kathybelle, I understand your point. However, in the same way I think there is a "grey" area with the pillowcase from Rothley, I think there would also be a certain "grey" area with any belongings from PDL. I assume there is a risk of cross contamination, can you get DNA from sandals, I don't know ? Dirty clothes are mixed with other clothes in a wash bag, it is a I guess but I feel they wanted to have something that could be almost certainly Madeleine's. A toothbrush would be a usual item. Generally, it is something nobody would like to share, therefore I again assume it is a useful tool for dna collection in normal circumstances. We are told there was not one for Madeleine, which really is strange. By four my children were brushing morning and evening on their own, with just visual supervision from me. At two years old, I was doing it for them, with small tiny toothbrushes.

The point you make about not arresting them is an interesting and valid one. The only thing I wonder about in that regard is why did they go so far as to make them Arguidos then ? Surely the ideal was to pack them up lock, stock and barrell and get them out of PDL and back to the UK as soon as possible.

Panda, with regard to Danny Krugel, why is there something right at the back of my brain telling me I have read the sample he got came from the hood of a jacket belonging to Madeleine. I will search for this information, I wonder if it is in her book ?

Panda wrote:

mossman wrote:The idea behind going to Rothley to get a sample was to have something they were certain was Madeleine's in order to be able to identify the samples they found in the apartment, car etc. So they could for example take a hair from Gerry McCann and know for certain it was his, compare it with the samples found in PDL and know what was his and what was not.

We do not know under what circumstances the pillow was retrieved by Gerry McCann. Did the policeman physically go into the bedroom with him or did he wait downstairs ? Was it a friendly, sympathetic visit by the policeman or was it an "official" visit ?

I was looking at two of my boys who share a bedroom this morning, they had swapped beds so were lying on each others pillows ! My other child takes the dog to his bedroom although this is against house rules, but I bet if we dna tested his pillow they would tell me I had given birth to a dog. So there is room for doubt about that sample, in my opinion. My last job before leaving the house for a holiday is always to change the bed clothes, so we return to nice clean beds. I know lots of people who do that or others who take all the clothes off and leave the beds "air" while they are away. The pillowcase retrieval would not work for any of us.

DNA

Morning mossman, you will have read my reply to kathybelle and I think before we speculate any further we need to introduce a ]timeline of events.:

1. What date was the Car found to have blood in the wheelbase

2.. What date did Gerry go to London and collect the Pillowcase

3. What date did Jon Corner finish making his video and have his equipment to the U.K at a cost of £1,800 to the fund , which included Madeleine's clothes .

4. What date did Kate give the Guy with the gizmo some of Madeleiene,s hair

Right, off you go folks, Iv'e done my bit and you all know I'm no good at finding stuff.

Sorry Panda, I did not see your last post.

He collected the pillowcase during his "first trip home" if I recall correctly, so this was 20/21 May or thereabouts.
The dogs searched the vehicles on 6th August
Krugel did his "thing" in July
Corner went home on 4th August, after the Huelva trip on 3rd August.

Over to you now Panda......

mossman, the sample was from Madeleine's hairbrush I think . We are all making normal assumptions on how we would act or what we would do in any given circumstance , but the McCanns, although they are Doctors show behaviour we find odd to say the least. They also commanded help from day one, how many Parents could command attention from the British Prime Minister no less, phoning the British Ambassador to Portugal to hotfoot it to PDL to help the McCanns.They hardly saw their children during the holiday because they were either in the creche until 5.30pm having been fed, bathed, milk and biscuits and in bed and asleep by 7.30pm according to Gerry ....but we know different thanks to Mrs Fenn.[flash][/flash]

Thanks for the info, so:-

1.Obviously Gerry's trip to the U.K. was meant to find a match with the blood spots behind the settee in 5a , nothing to do with the Car. ]

2. So Corner sent his equipment with the boxes of clothes 2 days before the car was checked out., interesting.!

3. This would explain why there was nothing of Madeleine's available when the dogs were used by Martin Grimes, I think in September.

There's more twists and turns on this saga than on a rollercoaster, who knows where it will all end. Will there be a sudden turn of events when we least expect it , leaving us exhilerated that our doubts have been well founded, or a quiet departure by the Mcanns after Kate's book is published in April.

There are and were in 2007 standard protocals for the gathering of forensic evidence left behind at the scene of a crime and the proceedures in the cases of missing vulnerable people were in place. This included gathering forensic evidence / genetic material which might assist the police in the identification and recovery of bodies for future enquiries into homicide, for this to happen the victim has to be considered the subject - This means collecting biological material such as DNA including hair samples etc. left behind by the victim.

You have to also consider that there was not only the Portuguese Police involved, within the first 48 to 72 hrs SY, LP , and even specialists such as a National Search Adviser for Missing persons Searches, Homicides and Natural Disasters were later on the ground in Portugal.

Recovering a ' genuine ' DNA / biological sample from someones home isn't unusual, but why they didn't or couldn't capture a sample from places and items in Portugal is puzzling. Either proceedures weren't adhered to or there is a cover up..... or both!

ELI wrote:There are and were in 2007 standard protocals for the gathering of forensic evidence left behind at the scene of a crime and the proceedures in the cases of missing vulnerable people were in place. This including gathering forensic evidence / genetic material which might assist the police in the identification and recovery of bodies or future enquiries into homicide, for this to happen the victim has to be considered the subject - This means collecting biological material such as DNA including hair samples etc. left behind by the victim.

You have to also consider that there was not only the Portuguese Police involved, within the first 48hrs SY, LP , and even specialists such as a National Search Adviser for Missing persons Searches, Homicides and Natural Disasters were on the ground in Portugal.

Recovering a ' genuine ' DNA / biological sample from someones home isn't unusual, but why they didn't or couldn't capture a sample from places and items in Portugal is puzzling.

Good post ELI.

Below is a link regarding Gerry's trip home to Rothley, to get something that contained Madeleine's dna.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

Once again, I've been proved wrong, I didn't believe this happened.

kathybelle wrote:

ELI wrote:There are and were in 2007 standard protocals for the gathering of forensic evidence left behind at the scene of a crime and the proceedures in the cases of missing vulnerable people were in place. This including gathering forensic evidence / genetic material which might assist the police in the identification and recovery of bodies or future enquiries into homicide, for this to happen the victim has to be considered the subject - This means collecting biological material such as DNA including hair samples etc. left behind by the victim.

You have to also consider that there was not only the Portuguese Police involved, within the first 48hrs SY, LP , and even specialists such as a National Search Adviser for Missing persons Searches, Homicides and Natural Disasters were on the ground in Portugal.

Recovering a ' genuine ' DNA / biological sample from someones home isn't unusual, but why they didn't or couldn't capture a sample from places and items in Portugal is puzzling.

Good post ELI.

Below is a link regarding Gerry's trip home to Rothley, to get something that contained Madeleine's dna.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

Once again, I've been proved wrong, I didn't believe this happened.

Thanks kathybelle, I've made a slight edit to the post as it was later that a National Search Adviser for Missing persons Searches, Homicides etc. went out to Portugal, never the less protocals were in place when she went missing.

Panda wrote:Please note: I understand that the McCANN's have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those described above."

They couldn't positively identify the sample as Madeleiene's either in the car or the pillowcase so what was Stuart Prior on about 15 of 19 Markers being sufficient to try a case in any U.K. Court?

Panda, I'm sure that somewhere in the files there is a report that says the DNA from the object from Rothley was said to have been that of a female child of Kate and Gerry who was not Amelie.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:Please note: I understand that the McCANN's have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those described above."

They couldn't positively identify the sample as Madeleiene's either in the car or the pillowcase so what was Stuart Prior on about 15 of 19 Markers being sufficient to try a case in any U.K. Court?

Panda, I'm sure that somewhere in the files there is a report that says the DNA from the object from Rothley was said to have been that of a female child of Kate and Gerry who was not Amelie.

There is, an extract from the report below: (thanks to the Mccannpjfiles.co.uk)

A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).

In this case, all of the bands present in the profiles of both Amelie McCANN and Sean McCANN are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.

Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile.

I have definatly read somewhere that a sample was available it arrived andwas blood sample like the ones taken in hospital and i think came from a validated source not sure police or hospital? joyce1938 she was born in england ,went to holland as a baby .

joyce1938 wrote:I have definatly read somewhere that a sample was available it arrived andwas blood sample like the ones taken in hospital and i think came from a validated source not sure police or hospital? joyce1938 she was born in england ,went to holland as a baby .

Yes this turned up in October I think, after all the analysis / tests and reports were completed.


DNA / genetic material found at the scene of the crime is used to create genetic profiles in order to identify individuals.

This is called trace evidence comparison. - ie, if I was known to have been in the apartment a sample of my DNA & or a hair sample may be needed from me in order to compare to anything that was found in the apartment.

This applies where ever possible to anyone who was known to have had access to the apartment; otherwise there would likely be a batch of unidentified DNA samples.

In the case of missing persons it is important to have a genetic profile of the missing person otherwise any of the missing persons DNA which was gathered at the apartment would be unidentifiable.

In fact in all cases the effective use of DNA as evidence requires the collection and analysis of samples to determine the exact source of the DNA.


There’s two points to consider;

1, It appears that they didn’t (for whatever reason) create a genetic profile of the victim from any biological material from Portugal.

2, It appears that they couldn’t conclude whether or not any biological material found at the crime scenes in Portugal came from the victim.

Hmmm I can’t help thinking something doesn’t add up here ………