Apartment 5A – INML lab results for 4 May 2007

On 19 June 2007, the lab in Lisbon sent the first DNA results back to the investigating team.

The report covered two areas of interest – what was found by the Lisbon team that did a detailed search of 5A on 4th May 2007 – and what was found in Robert Murat’s house and car.

The forensics very quickly get very confusing indeed, therefore I will split things out to make the pieces simpler.

Since 5A was the first place to be searched, and it was a crime scene, my focus turns first to the results at this date from 5A only.

The Lisbon men had collected 6 packets of hairs, and a sample of cloth returning a weak positive for semen.

Let’s start with the semen. The INML repeated the semen test, and once again got a weak positive. At this point in time the stain was still being referred to as semen. Further down the line, the INML tested the stain for saliva and that test returned a strong positive. The stain would thereafter be referred to as saliva.

That stain becomes a bit problematic because it has the same DNA profile as a number of hairs found in 5A.

It has been suggested that these came from an earlier occupant of 5A, a child. I have difficulty with this one. I have no issue with a bed-cover with a non-visible (to the naked eye) saliva stain. Sheets and pillows would be changed between visitors, but I doubt the bed-cover was changed as frequently.

It’s those matching hairs that perplex me. Apartment 5A was deep cleaned on the Saturday ready for the McCanns to arrive. It was routinely cleaned on the Monday, according to Kate’s book. Both Kate and the cleaner agree 5A was cleaned again on Wednesday 2nd May. So those hairs survived at least 3 cleans, even if the child was in 5A immediately prior to the McCanns.

Then there is the small issue of how they got the child’s DNA and where it was tested. There is nothing on file about this. It might or might not have been done, but the evidence file shows nothing regarding this.

It’s time to move on to the hairs found in 5A on 4th May 2007. In addition to the ‘semen’ stain, the INML extracted DNA from 130 human hairs at this time. The report does not list how many human hairs were found in total. It does not say at this time how many dog hairs were found. It does not say how many human hairs could not be used for DNA analysis. Basically, it says the INML now has 130 hairs with a DNA profile, and the lab is going to continue to try to get more out of the samples.

The report is at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P7/07_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1827.jpg

That is in Portuguese and it is highly repetitive. Please bear in mind that I have stripped out the results from Robert Murat’s home and car.

The two guys from Lisbon did a reasonable graphic, showing the 7 areas where they picked up hairs and ‘semen’. Here is what was found, using those 7 areas. The format is Portuguese reference, number of hairs, where from, and who it matched to.

5A Interior cropped

B, 3, entrada 7, unknown.

B1, 1, entrada 7, unknown.

C, 13, sala 6, Kate.

C, 15, entrada 7, Kate.

C, 13, bedroom yellow strip 1, Kate.

C, 4, floor beside window bed 4, Kate.

C, 1, Madeleine’s bed 3, Kate.

C, 7, floor beside Madeleine’s bed 2, Kate.

D1, 1, sala 6, unknown.

D2, 1, bedroom yellow strip 1, unknown.

D3, 1, floor beside window bed 4, unknown.

F, 1, sala 6, unknown.

F, 2, entrada 7, unknown

G, 1, sala 6, Matthew Oldfield

I, 1, entrada 7, David Payne.

J, 1, floor beside window bed 4, unknown.

J, 1, entrada 7, unknown

J, 1, floor beside Madeleine’s bed 2, unknown.

(K Not relevant – not 5A.)

L, 1, bed-cover ‘semen’ stain 5, unknown.

L, 1, bedroom yellow strip 1, unknown.

L, 2, entrada 7, unknown.

L, 4, floor beside window bed 4, unknown.

(M Not relevant – not 5A.)

N, 2, sala 6, Gerry.

N, 11, entrada 7, Gerry.

N, 6, bedroom yellow strip 1, Gerry.

N, 3, floor beside window bed 4, Gerry.

N, 3, floor beside Madeleine’s bed 2, Gerry.

O, 1, sala 6, Russell O’Brien.

O, 1, entrada 7, Russell O’Brien.

Q, 1, entrada 7, unknown.

Q, 1, sala 6, unknown.

There were 19 other profiles that had been extracted from 5A that do not match the profiles above.

Please don’t ask me why there is no A, E, H etc. in the files, and why there is a B and B1, a D1 and a D2 and a D3. I could only guess, and that won’t help.

Now comes the interesting bit, which is interpreting these findings.

I believe the INML had sample DNA swabs from the Tapas 9 and Robert Murat at this time, but not samples from police officers who responded, people who waltzed through 5A on 3rd May, people who had rented 5A before, the owner of 5A, and people who had been in 5A during the McCann stay, namely the cleaners and the repair men.

So we are missing much more than we have got, but what have we got?

The biggest find must be that Robert Murat’s DNA, which had been sampled, was not found in 5A. At least, not by this stage.

Kate’s pattern is a little bit odd. Hairs everywhere you would expect to find them, apart from in the bed beside the window. That’s the bed she slept in on the night of 2nd May, so how do I explain the lack of Kate’s hair? She’s shedding everywhere else that sounds reasonable, so is the lack of hairs on that bed significant or just another red herring?

There is a conspiracy theory that the McCanns were part of one huge group of swingers that involved most of the Ocean Club and most of Luz. If that turns out to be the case, apartment 5A is remarkably devoid of evidence supporting this.

The ‘contamination’ of 5A from the Tapas 7 is minor.

Later on the police respondents would be tested, and translator Silvia Batista would be added. However, child-carer Amy Tierney stated that she went through all of 5A that night, and it appears she was re-located to Greece without DNA tests. I wonder how many people went through 5A and did not have DNA tests at all.

The final puzzle is Madeleine and the twins. Kate had 53 hairs spread over the sample sites. Gerry had 25, also well spread. I would have expected large numbers of hairs from the children, spread throughout. And if Madeleine slept twice on that bed since the flat was last cleaned then surely she should have left hairs on it. Perhaps some of the hairs attributed to the parents will later get re-attributed to the children.

According to Kate’s book “Madeleine”, she sat with the twins on Madeleine’s bed for a final story before the twins were moved to their cots for the night. At this point in time, only a single hair had been identified from that bed, and it belonged to Kate.

Perhaps subsequent analyses will resolve some of these issues, but unfortunately, the lab tends to lump all samples together, including 5A, Murat’s house, every car that was searched and a flat that was searched in Burgau. Splitting them out again is not straight-forward.

Current newspaper reports of 432 human hairs relate to all of the sites and cars searched, not just 5A. The focus of media reports is 98 hairs that could not be analysed at the time, rather than the fairly large number of hairs for which DNA was extracted, but were not matched to anyone.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Apartment 5A – INML lab results for 4 May 2007

  1. Great piece!

    So, no hairs attributed to the McCanns’ children at all? That’s pretty odd. Kate slept on the spare bed on the Tuesday.However, the sheets would have been changed on the Wednesday when the cleaner was in, no? So not all that surprising.

    Contemporary reports suggested Murat marched in and out of the flat and bedroom, crossing police tape at will. The implication being he was doing that to cover his tracks and have a reason for his DNA being in 5A. If that is true, he didn’t manage to leave any DNA trace at all?

    The ‘swingers theory’ was just the Portuguese seeking to discredit the McCanns with a pretty vile smear. It’s probably on page 2 of the policeman’s handbook.

    I’ve a few questions for you, EC. DNA is pertinent, because it’s fairly likely, given the abductor was in 5A for a while. While it would certainly have been possible to be in and out with MBM in 60 seconds or less, I would be leaning towards the former because of the door/shutters/GM’s instinct.

    Also, reports had the twins both sleeping in a very odd position in their cots… both as if they had been placed slumped forward and prone. That fits with the idea of sedation. As did their somnolence after.

    So, where could an abductor have hidden while GM was in 5A?

    And if chloroform had been used, do you think that points towards or away from ‘Smithman’?

    • Few of the statements I have read place Murat on the scene. The bulk of the evidence (at least so far) does not place Murat on the scene.

      Where could an abductor have hidden while Gerry was in 5A? Sod the wardrobes, how about the parent’s room? There is no DNA from the parent’s room because it was not tested. Zero, zilch, zappowey.

      Chloroform I am less crazy about. The Lisbon lads checked for funny smells Nothing around 15 hours later.

      Reality check. Isn’t it just easier to go through the patio doors, pick up Madeleine, and walk out again?

  2. On the scene and on the scene on 3/5/07 are two different things. When I counted there were 7 statements for the former. The latter is really just reports of people watching what was going on in the chaos from 4/5/07 on. Those mainly come in the media.

    Chloroform: Just how much does that smell linger? 15 hours? or not even 15 minutes? Remember, from second 1 you have open shutters and window and a through-draught.

    Apparently it can be made easily with readily available chemicals. But that requires planning and foresight. Hence my question about ‘Smithman’.

    Chloroforming the abductee for the kidnapper is far easier than waking the child and trying to carry her kicking and screaming through the complex. And do you really think a strange man taking her out of her bed and into the cold night air would not have woken her?

    And there’s also the possibility that the abductor had made a previous attempt which highlighted to him the need for such measures.

    As per the route… the easiest route is patio doors in and front door out. Don’t forget, the patio doors were closed. Would a kidnapper making off with a child in his arms stop to close both patio doors and gate carefully behind him?

    • Look up Paul and June Wright in the statements. At the time they ran the Duque of Holanda, and both helped on the night, visiting the vicinity of 5A several times. Both knew who Murat was. Neither saw him that night.

      I, personally, would think that chloroform on a child as young as 4 (Madeleine) or just over 2 (the twins) was risky in the extreme. I could be facing a triple-murder charge. Mind you, it probably the likeliest explanation for the open window that I’ve heard.

      Both the patio door route and the front door route are problematic in an abduction. If it was the patio door route, I would expects to see doors open and gates open. From memory, Kate does not mention these in her two statements. In her book she makes them closed. David Payne in his second statement says Kate said that they were closed, while most of the T9 first dashed to 5A. That is a pity, because in and out the rear, as evidenced by open gates and open doors, would increase greatly the likelihood of abduction.

      I’m not keen on a run the previous night and Madeleine waking up. The risk of being caught on a repeat seems very high indeed.

      Patio doors in and front door out is one definite possibility, as long as the front door was not locked, when it becomes a tougher nut to crack. But suppose you could do front door in and front door out, whether the door was locked or not?

      I’m working on the keys at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s