FSS destroyed all samples?

Have seen claims to say all samples sent to the Fss were destroyed


Return of samples.

Cross-reference to Lowe(final) and Palmer reports:
Delivery 286: 24 items listed
- All referenced in Lowe(final);
- Items 1-20 all NON-perishable; No record found of their having been returned to PT;
- Items 21-24 perishable - profiles obtained from 3; bush unfruitful.
Delivery 286A: 33 items listed
- All referenced in Lowe(final);
- Items 1-15 A&B (30 items) all perishable;
- Items 16 (2 pieces) and 16B (curtains) not perishable; No record found of their having been returned to PT.
- Item 16 (one blue curtain) and 16B (white curtain) not tested.
Delivery 286B: 1 item listed
- Referenced in Lowe(final);
- (curtain section) not perishable and not tested. No record found of it having been returned to PT.
Delivery 286C: 34 items listed
- Items 1D, 2E, 10, 12 and 14 (profile) referenced in Lowe(final);
- Items 1-9, 11 (all hairs and fibres) referenced in Palmer report;
- Items 13 and 15 not referenced in either report;
- Item 14 perishable;
- Items 1-13 and 15 non-perishable: and record found of their return to PT.

Overall Summary:
- 92 items listed;
- 90 items referenced in the two reports;
- 35 items perishable, presumed consumed, stored or destroyed per FSS rules;
- 33 non-perishable items: record found of their return;
- 24 non-perishable items: no record found of their return;
- 3 items not tested;
- 2 items not referenced in either report (286C: 13 and 15).

Question: Are there other return records for deliveries 286 (20 items), 286A (3 items) and 286B



A - Perishable Samples

Certain samples constitute a potential health risk. With the concurrence of the Home Office, it has been decided that such samples
will not be submitted to the Courts unless specifically requested by the Defence (This is an extension of the procedures for the
disposal of blood samples previously agreed by the Lord Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate.)

The Laboratory has examined one or more of the samples listed below. They will not be returned to you but will be destroyed
in due course unless we are requested by the Defence to preserve them. You should notify the Defence Solicitors in accordance
with Home Office Circulars 40/73 and 74/82, which allow a period of 21 days in which notice in writing must be given,
by the defendant or his legal representative, to the laboratory to prevent the samples being destroyed.

- Blood samples
- Saliva samples
- Swabs from body orifices
- Other swabs bearing potentially hazardous material
- Vomit, faeces, urine, etc

The above list includes perishable personal samples, the destruction of which is required by Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, (1984).


B - Non-Perishable Personal Samples

The destruction of other, non-perishable, personal samples is required by Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, (1984). These include:

- Control head hair samples
- Control pubic hair samples
- Finger nail samples
- Casts, e.g. of teeth or feet

Except as below these non-perishable, personal samples are returned to you as parts of exhibits for production at court etc. The laboratory is not responsible for their destruction.

The part of these samples, which were removed for examination, will be retained by the laboratory for the period of time as specified in the 'Memorandum of Understanding for Retained Materials' (3, 7 or 30 years) from the date of this notice to allow access to other legitimate parties. After this period, in the absence of written instruction to the contrary, the retained samples will be destroyed and a record made of their destruction.

Also seen this which was a shock to me...

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.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm#p10p2642-2652

i am not at all shocked, it is something which has been discusessed in many forums, was the pillowcase G McC brought back from his visit to Rothley actually Madeleine's, as it seemed there was no dna of her in the Portugal apartment, so what was used to match this sample against. jimo. it was my understanding that some samples which i thought were blood related had been destroyed. could be wrong tho.

It was spoken about by mr amarel that a blood sample on a card in package he said was o k ,had arrived ,some of us said about the heel prick blood sample that used to be taken from every newborn in england and kept was this it . could be used as sample to check pillow case with ?there was not a confirmation to public if this was used i dont think .mr amarel spoke about it ,in his book maybe ?joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:It was spoken about by mr amarel that a blood sample on a card in package he said was o k ,had arrived ,some of us said about the heel prick blood sample that used to be taken from every newborn in england and kept was this it . could be used as sample to check pillow case with ?there was not a confirmation to public if this was used i dont think .mr amarel spoke about it ,in his book maybe ?joyce1938

Hi joyce1938, - from the files ; -

"Lesley Ann Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 18 July 2007
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."


Also - JRB/1 - which was the Blood sample received on 12 October 2007. The FSS report was released in Sept. so all the tests had been completed by then.
"From this sample was obtained a DNA reference sample that was different from those of her immediate family, described above. This DNA profile was the same as that obtained from possible spots of saliva existing on the pillowcase (SJM/1)."

Good spot Marthew, ever been pointed out before (I've certainly never seen it mentioned). IMO the samples were not destroyed, whoever heard of that happening when the samples are from people suspected of homicide?

Ah yes...Thankyou Eli,i remember seeing Lowe say the sample was Madeleines after Amelie was cross referenced

Thanks Margaret...had a dig last night after reading the latest Blacksmith,wondering about the...all samples destroyed myth,so new forensic techniques could still crack this case..

Thanks ELI, so yes threr are samples somewhere still ,and good to recolect between us ,its amazing what slight memories we do keep in reserve and not realize till we hear it again ..aazing they did not find some in the apartement of maddie ,i guess they didnt look for it and so many people had been in and confused any samples of many that went into apt. that night.joyce1938

After all these years it still surprises me that no DNA of Madeleine was found in 5A .Someone did an excellent cleaning job , how else could no DNA be explained .

Only two possible explanations:

1. Forensically aware deep-cleaning (which would need to be meticulous and would take considerable time)

2. There wasn't any in the first place ...........................

Obviously madeleines stay was very short.

[quote="kitti"]Obviously madeleines stay was very short.
[/quote

Very short IMO :

It's a mystery alright, given that in missing persons cases there is or was at the time protocols for the gathering of forensic evidence left behind at the scene of a crime which include in the cases of missing persons (particularly people classified as high risk & vulnerable), capturing physical evidence which might assist in the identification and recovery of bodies or future inquiries into homicide.

When they collect trace evidence (biological material, hairs etc.) of course it doesn't come with a name tag so they don't know who the samples came from, so we can't blame the forensic team who collected the trace evidence.

Madeleine's DNA should have been present on just about everything the family had with them in PDL, particularly her clothing, bedding and toys and so on and there should have been ample places and items from their Rothley home. Puzzling then why they only seemed to have found the one sample on the pillow case and even more puzzling that later relatives or friends managed to recover samples which the police forensics couldn't - ie hairs to give to a psychic.