Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[Dlk79]

There's been some talk recently about the DNA found in 5A and how significant this is/could be.

There can be a lot of misconception when people hear the word DNA because most people don't really understand the science behind it and assume the investigative process is massively encompassing in picking up what's happened within an enviroment. It is not.

In particular, the argument that CB must have been in and out within minutes doing a planned abduction (as opposed to being in there a longer period) else his DNA surely would have been found has no real basis.

Linked below are the results from the DNA analysis carried out by the PJ in the initial sweep (i.e. doesn't include the later dog blood findings etc).

P.J. POLICE FILES: PORTUGUESE FORENSIC INSTITUTE TESTS

These documents are a bit technical and convoluted but I will try to summarise what it is they actually found and tested. Across several locations, they tested 447 samples in all. Of these, 2 were objects found in a car boot, 1 was a saliva sample found in 5A and the other 444 were all hairs. So the first thing to note there, is despite all the other bodily fluid samples that would have undoubtedly been in 5A and elsewhere, only one sample was actually tested. Everything else analysed in 5A were just hairs. So, first thing that comes to mind, is that if CB was wearing a beanie type hat (as many burglars do) or something similar, he immediately has an advantage in avoiding leaving a DNA trace for PJ to find.

When doing DNA analysis on these hairs and 3 other samples found, they had 25 reference samples to compare against, i.e. 25 people had given their DNA sample to test against which would have included all of the Tapas group plus a number of OC staff and other people such as police officers known to have been in the apartment so as to rule their samples out as those of a potential intruder.

In all, there were 98 samples where they were unable to obtain a result (this included the saliva sample but after later expanding their reference samples they attributed this to a 2yr old former occupant of 5A) and a further 19 where only a partial result was found. 12 samples were found to be non-human. Of the 85 samples they found a match to within 5A, these are the results -

77 were attributed to the McCann family
3 were attributed to Vitor Manuel Martins (a GNR officer who responded to the crime)
2 were attributed to Russel O'Brien
1 was Matthew Oldfield
1 was David Payne
1 was Maria Irene Trovaro Ferro (who I think was also a responding officer)

So, despite this extensive DNA sweep, they were unable to find samples of several other people who we already know for a fact were in the apartment on the 3rd and the preceding days. Taking just one of those examples, Fiona Payne, her rogotary statement is here.

P.J. POLICE FILES: FIONA PAYNE ROGATORY

She claims to have stayed with Kate in the apartment for much of the night of the 3rd following MM's disappearance.

"for the most part on the night, as I said, I was just milling in the apartment and out on the balcony and just outside their front door, erm with, with Kate, erm I was there in the apartment when the first lot of Policemen arrived, which I think was around sort of between eleven, quarter past eleven. Er I was there when they did their initial search and we just followed them really..."

"'...I stayed in the apartment, erm I was aware later that the GNR were there as I say they were wandering round the front and the back and, and the time when I came out and met Robert MURAT, erm I'm assuming that was sort of after sort of midnight, "

So, here we have someone who was in the apartment for a couple of hours on the 3rd, moving around, with no hat on and not making any attempt to conceal shedding any DNA. And yet not one DNA sample of hers was found in 5A despite nobody having cleaned the scene before forensic samples were swept for.

Going back to the original point I was raising, the idea that someone like CB, who is clearly forensically aware, couldn't have been in the apartment for very long, else his DNA would 'surely' have been found, is just fanciful thinking. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[tedtink]

It doesn't say that German police will be closing the file because of lack of clues.

It says investigators want to return to the Algarve a final time to try to generate fresh leads. They believe witnesses in the area hold vital clues and they are just one witness away from justice. They want to find out more about CB's movements and actions in the days and weeks after Madeleine's disappearance.

I think they know that someone knows something about the crime and since CB won't cooperate, they need witness testimony as a final piece of the puzzle to prove their case.

Or a body.

 

[redplanet]

The word used in the BKA appeal german version is Ablageort.

 

[redplanet]

Sorry accidentally deleted own post.
BKA appeal says there is reason to assume others know the course of events and possibly where the body was put.
But seperately BKA say CB acted alone and had no accomplice.
Can both statements be true?

 

[Loobyloo]

Sorry accidentally deleted own post.
BKA appeal says there is reason to assume others know the course of events and possibly where the body was put.
But seperately BKA say CB acted alone and had no accomplice.
Can both statements be true?

Perhaps they think CB took her from the apartment alone, but they have photographic/video material that shows more than one person with the body at an unspecified later time? That would fit both statements.

 

[Victoria Chambers]

I honestly believe that the answers to solving this crime lie in information being withheld by at least 1, possibly more, OC emplyees.
I know we are all familiar with the staff statements but I will mention another bizarre one just for the record. It was given by the Chef named AMG... Has been employed for 2 months although has spent 1 month in hospital. On the night of the incident, he can't be sure of the exact time, but he finished work and left the restaurant between 9 and 10pm. He got into his dark blue Volkswagen Golf, but he can't remember the registration number, which was parked by Reception. He drove down that road and turned left towards Odiaxere. When he arrived, he done what he usually does, visited the cafe whose name he cannot remember! Come on people, them statements are a joke! Everybody should be spoken to again imo X

 

[Sharkbite]

Could he be the one who left the note outside the apartment?? Because someone did or hayley?

According to Shining in Luz it was the British gardener/handyman that PJ interviewed on the 12 May 2007 that found the note on the 03 May 2008.
I don't think its allowed to link the blog, so check the articles from the 16 and 26th Nov 2014 for further info.

Apparently there is no official record of LE having received the actual note.

 

[misty48]

Sorry accidentally deleted own post.
BKA appeal says there is reason to assume others know the course of events and possibly where the body was put.
But seperately BKA say CB acted alone and had no accomplice.
Can both statements be true?

IMO yes, both statements could be true.
Hypothetically, CB was told to steal a child - that's abduction. He then transferred the child to another person who was going to be an accessory to a separate crime. When the second crime had been committed, CB was instructed to then remove the child from the crime scene & kill her. Anyone involved in the second crime would, either at the time or during the following days, have known about the course of events & possibly where the body had been taken.
If I have confused the role of an accomplice with that of an accessory, then I stand to be corrected.
All imo.

 

[Lyndaloo]

According to Shining in Luz it was the British gardener/handyman that PJ interviewed on the 12 May 2007 that found the note on the 03 May 2008.
I don't think its allowed to link the blog, so check the articles from the 16 and 26th Nov 2014 for further info.

Apparently there is no official record of LE having received the actual note.

Maddie cops 'ignored letter which claimed she was dumped in lake'

Madeleine McCann investigators quiz British gardener for second time but he vows: 'I didn't see her'

So do you think it was the British Gardener quizzed again by LE in 2017 was the one who apparently found the note back in 2008?

 

[Newthoughts]

Sorry accidentally deleted own post.
BKA appeal says there is reason to assume others know the course of events and possibly where the body was put.
But seperately BKA say CB acted alone and had no accomplice.
Can both statements be true?

If something has been recorded then that's possible I guess.

 

[mrjitty]

There's been some talk recently about the DNA found in 5A and how significant this is/could be.

There can be a lot of misconception when people hear the word DNA because most people don't really understand the science behind it and assume the investigative process is massively encompassing in picking up what's happened within an enviroment. It is not.

In particular, the argument that CB must have been in and out within minutes doing a planned abduction (as opposed to being in there a longer period) else his DNA surely would have been found has no real basis.

Linked below are the results from the DNA analysis carried out by the PJ in the initial sweep (i.e. doesn't include the later dog blood findings etc).

P.J. POLICE FILES: PORTUGUESE FORENSIC INSTITUTE TESTS

These documents are a bit technical and convoluted but I will try to summarise what it is they actually found and tested. Across several locations, they tested 447 samples in all. Of these, 2 were objects found in a car boot, 1 was a saliva sample found in 5A and the other 444 were all hairs. So the first thing to note there, is despite all the other bodily fluid samples that would have undoubtedly been in 5A and elsewhere, only one sample was actually tested. Everything else analysed in 5A were just hairs. So, first thing that comes to mind, is that if CB was wearing a beanie type hat (as many burglars do) or something similar, he immediately has an advantage in avoiding leaving a DNA trace for PJ to find.

When doing DNA analysis on these hairs and 3 other samples found, they had 25 reference samples to compare against, i.e. 25 people had given their DNA sample to test against which would have included all of the Tapas group plus a number of OC staff and other people such as police officers known to have been in the apartment so as to rule their samples out as those of a potential intruder.

In all, there were 98 samples where they were unable to obtain a result (this included the saliva sample but after later expanding their reference samples they attributed this to a 2yr old former occupant of 5A) and a further 19 where only a partial result was found. 12 samples were found to be non-human. Of the 85 samples they found a match to within 5A, these are the results -

77 were attributed to the McCann family
3 were attributed to Vitor Manuel Martins (a GNR officer who responded to the crime)
2 were attributed to Russel O'Brien
1 was Matthew Oldfield
1 was David Payne
1 was Maria Irene Trovaro Ferro (who I think was also a responding officer)

So, despite this extensive DNA sweep, they were unable to find samples of several other people who we already know for a fact were in the apartment on the 3rd and the preceding days. Taking just one of those examples, Fiona Payne, her rogotary statement is here.

P.J. POLICE FILES: FIONA PAYNE ROGATORY

She claims to have stayed with Kate in the apartment for much of the night of the 3rd following MM's disappearance.

"for the most part on the night, as I said, I was just milling in the apartment and out on the balcony and just outside their front door, erm with, with Kate, erm I was there in the apartment when the first lot of Policemen arrived, which I think was around sort of between eleven, quarter past eleven. Er I was there when they did their initial search and we just followed them really..."

"'...I stayed in the apartment, erm I was aware later that the GNR were there as I say they were wandering round the front and the back and, and the time when I came out and met Robert MURAT, erm I'm assuming that was sort of after sort of midnight, "

So, here we have someone who was in the apartment for a couple of hours on the 3rd, moving around, with no hat on and not making any attempt to conceal shedding any DNA. And yet not one DNA sample of hers was found in 5A despite nobody having cleaned the scene before forensic samples were swept for.

Going back to the original point I was raising, the idea that someone like CB, who is clearly forensically aware, couldn't have been in the apartment for very long, else his DNA would 'surely' have been found, is just fanciful thinking. It doesn’t work that way.

This is a great post.

I recall also from other cases that there is frequently a misconception that forensic sweeps of rooms are exhaustive.

But from a practical point of view, attention tends to be focussed on things an individual might have touched - as well as hairs/fibres etc that can be more easily located.

So like in your FP example, you might be able to find some DNA of hers if you looked exhaustively enough - but it would be pointless as you already know she was there and it proves nothing.

I can also think of multiple cases off the top of my head in the US and UK where detailed forensics on the crime scenes were not conducted until later - so it's simply not the case that crime scenes are perfectly preserved. That tends to be more the case where the crime is obvious - e.g. body on the floor.

 

[mrjitty]

Sorry accidentally deleted own post.
BKA appeal says there is reason to assume others know the course of events and possibly where the body was put.
But seperately BKA say CB acted alone and had no accomplice.
Can both statements be true?

I think what they mean is that after the crime was committed, others will have noticed or learned of suspicious actions. This might be the case with a girlfriend for example who lived with the accused, or acquaintances who were with him in the following days.

It could be as simple as someone knowing where he visited those days

 

[Sharkbite]

Maddie cops 'ignored letter which claimed she was dumped in lake'

Madeleine McCann investigators quiz British gardener for second time but he vows: 'I didn't see her'

So do you think it was the British Gardener quizzed again by LE in 2017 was the one who apparently found the note back in 2008?

Yes, I believe it is the same person.

 

[enjy15]

Sorry accidentally deleted own post.
BKA appeal says there is reason to assume others know the course of events and possibly where the body was put.
But seperately BKA say CB acted alone and had no accomplice.
Can both statements be true?

Maybe a rumour of a video/photograph that CB took of MM and shared to a local paedophile ring that he could have links to.

 

[Newthoughts]

I think what they mean is that after the crime was committed, others will have noticed or learned of suspicious actions. This might be the case with a girlfriend for example who lived with the accused, or acquaintances who were with him in the following days.

It could be as simple as someone knowing where he visited those days

Surely they'd have been far better off just asking people for any information on his behaviour and movements the following days? They've said - may have knowledge of the events. If you'd just seen him going to the beach that's not knowledge and you might not bother passing it on

 

[Dlk79]

BKA appeal says there is reason to assume others know the course of events and possibly where the body was put.
But seperately BKA say CB acted alone and had no accomplice.
Can both statements be true?

Yes. For one thing, we already know at least one other person who has 'some' knowledge of the events, HB. It could be reasonable for BKA to assume that CB may have well blabbed to others based on that other confession alone.

But they may know more than that too, perhaps CB even mentioned another person to HB. Not someone directly involved, but someone who's house/car he used etc. There are also the paedo web chat transcripts, a conversation between CB and some anonymous user may speak of a detail that police know relates to MM, implying the other person already knows the story. Those are just some options but really it could be many things really that lead LE to think this.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Yes. For one thing, we already know at least one other person who has 'some' knowledge of the events, HB. It could be reasonable for BKA to assume that CB may have well blabbed to others based on that other confession alone.

But they may know more than that too, perhaps CB even mentioned another person to HB. Not someone directly involved, but someone who's house/car he used etc. There are also the paedo web chat transcripts, a conversation between CB and some anonymous user may speak of a detail that police know relates to MM, implying the other person already knows the story. Those are just some options but really it could be many things really that lead LE to think this.

Is there a time difference between the two statements? Looking at your points above, it could be that they have received new information after the initial “acted alone” statement which either suggests that other people may have been involved in the abduction (I feel this is less likely) or that someone else has been informed afterwards.

 

[mrjitty]

Surely they'd have been far better off just asking people for any information on his behaviour and movements the following days? They've said - may have knowledge of the events. If you'd just seen him going to the beach that's not knowledge and you might not bother passing it on

The fact that they are using media suggests they need to reach a person or persons not directly known to them.

I don't know precisely what they are looking for but an example could be that CB visited a drug associate in the region on the 4th, and maybe the girlfriend of that person might remember seeing CB.

Just as an example

 

[Dlk79]

Is there a time difference between the two statements? Looking at your points above, it could be that they have received new information after the initial “acted alone” statement which either suggests that other people may have been involved in the abduction (I feel this is less likely) or that someone else has been informed afterwards.

No, it's the other way around. The statement about other people possibly having knowledge of the crime came out in the initial BKA Appeal, linked here -

BKA - Fahndung nach Personen - Verschwinden der Madeleine McCANN am 03.05.2007 in Praia da Luz / Portugal – Zeugen gesucht
Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other people besides the perpetrator who have specific knowledge of the possible course of events and, if applicable, the location of the corpse. We expressly ask these people to get in touch and share their knowledge.

The comments about believing CB acted alone came during subsequent interviews HCW made when probed about possible accomplices.

 

[Victoria Chambers]

I do believe that when HB went public with this story, he did mention to a Tabloid that CB had a friend, an older guy. I remember there was talk here amongst the group of it possibly being AB. But I have always thought that HB was 'hinting' towards that older guy rather than just passing comment on him. X