Madeleine McCann: Swab The Paedos
MADELEINE McCann: the media react to news that Raymond Hewlett has been swabbed for DNA by the McCanns’ private detectives…
The Sun: ‘Maddie’ perv has DNA test”
Note the subtle inverted commas as the Sun concedes in a grammatical whisper that though Hewlett is a convicted paedophile there is no proof - at least none offered up to police nor we armchair detectives - that he had anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Daily Mirror: “MADELEINE QUIZ PAEDO GIVES COPS DNA SAMPLE”
The convicted child molester reportedly gave the saliva sample voluntarily to cops in Aachen, Germany, where he is in hospital for cancer.
Daily Star: “MADDIE PERV SUSPECT GIVES DNA TO POLICE”
McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night: “We welcome the news Mr Hewlett has surrendered his DNA. Anything he does to help investigators eliminate him from their inquiries is welcome.”
Well, yes. Anything that helps the child’s parents find their child - and the child to be found - is helpful. But should every paedo be swabbed?
Madeleine McCann: Exclusive Interview With New Paedo Suspect
Madeleine McCann: The Third Summer of Maddy
Madeleine McCann: Three New British Suspects
Madeleine McCann: McCanns Want Hewlett To Co-operate
Pictures Of All The Madeleine McCann Suspects
Madeleine McCann: The Story In Pictures
Posted: 29th, May 2009 | In: Madeleine McCann, Media Comments (30) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- coolandcalm on Flexetarians Are Meat-Eating Vegetarians
- Peter Loxley on True Blood Porn, Oral Sex And Vampire Orgies, In Pictures
- Cheryl on Fort Hood Shootings Latest News: US Soldier Nidal Hasan Shoots 12 Dead
- dairy on Shaddap You Face: John & Edward Fight To Bring Back The Novelty Christmas Song
- Kalambong on Fort Hood Shootings Latest News: US Soldier Nidal Hasan Shoots 12 Dead
May 31st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Good afternoon Maria. I haven’t read his book nor will lower myself to but you mention his film says body stuffed in wardrobe or hidden on beach? Doesn’t that sound familiar to you? Why back when some of the ‘great minds” (as they were referred) of Europe were wannabe sleuths those were some of their theories being spouted as places her body was hidden. Did he mention a refrigerator - that seemed to be a favourite. Curious, how much else in his film or possibly book would be familiar when reading? Far beit from me to even hint to the the word plagarism or even mention maybe royalties should be being shared on all the blog sites for a work of fiction?
May 31st, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Chatelaine
Bonjour! How are you?
Are you saying there was none of Madeleine’s DNA available in the apartment, on her clothes, towels, sheets, cuddle cat etc. etc?? Mmmmmm…almost as if the child had never existed. (Wonder how Stevo is, by the way?!!)
Or are you saying the police didn’t bother looking for any? Weellll…..they knew who had done it anyway, didn’t they? Why not just do without evidence?
Anyway, one of those policemen has just been convicted of tampering with evidence, one way or another. Doesn’t seem to have a lot of respect for evidence, maybe. Why bother with collecting DNA?
Have you seem his film, by the way? Hilarious, if it wasn’t about such a tragic case. Says the body was stuffed in the wardrobe or hidden on the beach….handy rock pool, maybe? Almost an admission that his men didn’t bother searching at all, never mind collecting DNA!
May 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Totje, over here we do have a database of DNA and when a crime is commited the perpetrator’s DNA is run through that national database for a potential match. That is how many times even after 20 years or more a person picked up for one crime can found to be that serial killer, rapist or paedophile responsible for those crimes that went unsolved all those many prior years.
However, DNA can be manipulated or tainted by unscrupulous police, medical examiner labs or through just sloppy police or lab work. Remember the infamous OJ Simpson murder case? One of the issues brought up by the Defense was the blood collected at the scene and strict rules governing the handling of evidence was not followed by the police. That gave justifiable doubt for the jury if OJ committed those murders along with some other justifiable doubts.
.
May 30th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Mods, see you don’t deny the Quiztime TV though
Moderator - Countdown
May 30th, 2009 at 10:03 am
It would appear there’s only one moderator and she can only sit here whilst not attending those pesky mutts.
I think what she actually meant was; ‘what utter dogs bollocks’ ………. of course, and the odd bitch!
Moderator - pesky mutts? too many cats
May 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Cherly, you have put my mind at rest now..seeing the apartment has been thoroughly cleaned and gone over, and been rented out many times. So that will rule out any DNA drops. Yes, Hewlett is off the list we see.
May 30th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I see naw. This cursed ‘glitch’ will be the death of goodnight john boy. I reckon Anorka only pays his new mods for 5 minutes every hour so they rush in for 5 minutes every now and then, do as many as they can and then put their feet up with the tea and biccies and watch Quiztime TV
Moderator - What utter bollocks! its water and stale crusts
May 30th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Yo Yampster, looks like you’ve got a special treatment though.
Your post [no 22] shows while mine [20&21] still are stuck in moderation.
Must be your youth and good looks that does the trick
May 30th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Totje, Old posters indeed. What are you suggesting? I am still in my prime but currently in moderation on the BGT thread.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:49 am
[swearing] glitch!
Night John Boy, Sue Ellen etc.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Thanks Mod, whomever you are.
Think it’s about the States though. It doesn’t say when a DNA Database was set up in the UK.
“States have different laws concerning DNA tests. Some accept all forms of the tests (there are other methods besides the RFLP and PCR, but they aren’t as precise or accurate) while others, like California, will accept only the RFLP test because of its greater accuracy. Some states allow DNA test evidence to be admitted freely; others take a more cautious approach and examine the benefits of a test during each trial.
tabIn 1994, President Clinton signed the DNA Identification Act which has many benefits. Under the new law, the Federal government has issued grants to various states to develop new forensic research laboratories (crime labs where DNA tests are given and studied). The act also initiated a national DNA index in which all states have access. The index is run by the FBI who established the Forensic Science Research and Training Center several years ago. A DNA standards advisory board was created to establish certain guidelines forensics laboratories must follow, as well. “
May 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Lyn, no way! Two years down the road, too late to ‘drop’ evidence by anyone. Apartment was already been gone over from floor to ceilings to walls; Rebelo also would have gone over it with a fine tooth comb; it has been cleaned many, many times and re-rented many times over the ensuing years.
Please remember they were not ‘after’ Hewlett, they made it plain he was one of several ‘persons of interest’ only and they wanted to talk with him to rule him out or in. The only persons ‘after’ Hewlett are the disgraceful UK newspapers.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
I’m not an expert in the law, but I do remember crims being required to give DNA samples something like 10 or 12 years ago. Usually I guess this would be done in a Police Station, but I do remember some being taken in Prison some time after conviction. If “Mr” Hewitt (Offenders must now be addressed as “Mr” in HMP by staff, you make your own minds up on that one) has not been in the UK for some time or served time over here, this would account for there not being a sample of his DNA.
I like the wording that he has “surrended” his DNA. Has he got none left now then?
May 29th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Hello hello, sounds like a reunion. Hi Cheryl, Whoops & Châtelaine
Maria CuddleCat wasn’t washed till after 7 (SEVEN!) weeks. Yes, plenty of time to investigate the thing if they’d wanted to. And even though one of the dogs (Eddie) barked at it, they didn’t take it to the Forensics Institute to test it.
Cheryl I was in a generous mood when I posted. Of course it’s a disgrace they didn’t swap the apartment right away thoroughly looking for DNA. It’s a miracle they’ve found anything at all after the time that elapsed between the McCann rental and the search. Remember it was cleaned and also re-rented three or four times,.
I think it’s only the papers (UK papers that is) speculating about Hewletts DNA getting tested to the unknown DNA found in the apartment. The German authorities never said anything of the kind. It’s related to the old cold case in the ’70’s.
Châtelaine, if you say so
Did they take DNA in the 70’s? Or on the last time he got convicted and went to jail?
When did they set up a DNA database in the UK?
Best to be sure about that before assuming they’ve already got his DNA.
In fact I very much doubt that, because if they’ve got it, they could have eliminated him regarding the old case (or be sure he’s the one they are looking for).
PS wanna bet there’s plenty more ‘old’ posters who sometimes have a look over here? :hi:
Moderator - a bit of a read :
http://library.thinkquest.org/28599/courtroom.htm
May 29th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Being allowed to take DNA from Hewlett! The sample could be used now against the man. All the DTs have to do is plant a bit on something from the apartment, in the apartment, and anywhere where they please, and there it will be - Hewlett’s DNA in the apartment, after all this time.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Chatelaine - you made me curious over your statement about whether DNA samples are taken from convicted Paedophiles in the UK. Haven’t found the answer in the law yet. However, here is a ’scary’ story that appeared in the papers over there in December, I believe. Does anyone know where that issue stands over there?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3852658/Rapists-can-seek-to-be-taken-off-sex-offenders-register-to-protect-human-rights.htm
May 29th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I may be stupid [IMO and allegedly - good evening Totje] but the UK police surely must have DNA samples of a convicted peado?
And, yes, Peter there was something completely wrong with providing DNA samples for Madeleine: nothing to be found in Praia da Luz.
As they say in my circles: “my foot!”.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Moderator - you are correct there have been no arrests yet. And there may never be on that old case. In my opinion, what is going on is another ‘witch hunt’ (pardon my using that expression anyone) has started brought on by the many newspapers irresponsible, sloppy and disgraceful reportings with no known true proven facts to base 99.9% of what they report on.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Totje, you are being rather kind but frankly there is no room for kindness in how that case was handled the first four month, imo. People who make ’sloppy mistakes and stupid decisions’ don’t give a damn about the job they are doing and thus don’t do it properly. How many Corporations, Companies, Law Firms, etc. would put up with such incompetence and keep an employee for long? How many good Police Departments do you think keep cops who don’t cut the muster or don’t know how to perform their jobs properly? Granted with all the Police Unions these days to protect even an unsuitable policeman it is not all that easy to actually throw one out right away. However, they usually remove them from the public eye and give them a desk job where they can’t do much damage.
Truthfully, I feel sorry for the Portugese Police as a whole as this case is going to forever leave a ‘mark’ on them. But yet the hierarchy didn’t step in to make a change when they should have!
May 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Maria-you are back-where have you been?
May 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Maria, yes the UK Police are looking at him for other unsolved cases in the UK. As for why the DNA from him is wanted in Maddie’s case - it is to compare it to the DNA found in the apartment that did not match anyone elses at the time. Remember there was DNA found in the apartment that belonged to an unknown . Heaven forbid that should have been an hint to Amoral and his group that best they get looking than his sitting on his arse at long lunches speaking in a loud voice trying to throw the blame on the parents. Granted looking for a possible perpetrator would have taken time away from long lunches and taxed their limited intelligence on how police are expected to perform their jobs.
Maria, no room for doubt they do have Maddie’s DNA. But if you’ll recall with so many different and asundry he say/she says on the blog sites and passed as bible and the newspapers printing every rumour, lead, innuendo not based on facts nor truth none of us truly know as real fact how they got the DNA - cuddle cat, clothes, towels, etc. Or was it up to Rebelo when doing the investigation properly to get it? Push came to shove all they had to do was go into her room at her home in the UK and they’d get her DNA there, which the UK Police would have done, no doubt, if needed to.
Moderator - Its understood West Yorkshire Police wish to interview him relating to case from the 1970’s. Whether they have or not remains to be seen, but no arrest so far?
May 29th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Probem with the glitch still not solved, I see.
Moderator - We have new software. But you are not blocked. Just glitched
May 29th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Maria her samples were taken, but it happened weeks or even months after she’s disappeared. The police didn’t collect the clothes she’s been wearing on May 3rd, didn’t collect her bed linen in PdL., nothing. So it wasn’t tested either. They did test the bed cloth of the other bed (as there was a stain on it) which later turned out to belong to a former occupant, a child even, of the apartment.
I’m convinced most of the policemen did their best to try to find Madeleine, though they made very unprofessional mistakes by not clearing and sealing off the crime scene and swapping it thoroughly.
The most terrible mistake was made when someone appointed a ‘leader’ who’s clearly having a tunnel vision, a bias against women, who’s may be even a bit xenophobic (imo and alledgedly as Chatta would say), as well as what seems to me a lack of coördinating skills, organisitional (?) talents.. Persons like that make sloppy mistakes and stupid decisions, even if it’s unintentional.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Thought it was the police who asked for Hewlett’s DNA sample, not the Mcs’ investigators? Aren’t the cops interested in him for some earlier case? Whether or not they share this with the Mcs’ investigators is another matter.
How could there possibly have been any difficulty in getting DNA from Madeleine? The PJ had only to ask for it. Her clothes, towels etc. etc. were all there. My memory is that when they bothered to ask for it, they were given the towel she’d been dried with? The police must have selected that as the best option. Knowing nothing about DNA, I don’t know why, but I presume they had good reason for their choice.
Reports were that they also took the cuddle cat away for a time (long before it was washed), which gave them plenty of time for them to get DNA samples of anyone else who’d touched it. I remember someone on an early programme about the case saying that. (Dispatches, maybe.)
But, if they did NOT ask for the cuddle cat, they should have done. The bed clothes etc. should all have been properly tested. The police were in charge from day one. They could have taken away anything they wanted to test for anything! Maybe they did? In any case, it’s ludicrous to suggest that the Mcs either did, or could have, prevented Madeleine’s DNA samples being taken.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:28 am
what exactly is his DNA to be compared to? i may be behind on all this but i dont think his DNA can be of much use can it?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Oh looks like I forgot how to do the bold/underlined stuff. :oops::
May 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am
“There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she [u][b]ever had any DNA[/u][/b]”
Are you suggesting she’s an alien?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:02 am
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she ever had any DNA…
May 29th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Wasn’t there something about a delay in providing possible DNA sources from Madeleine and the twins ?
Or have I got that wrong.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:47 am
tfirs?