According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[misty]

The cite I have provided explains the DNA position in Portugal very  well

The problem is there was no DNA database in Portugal until 2008. In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/Countries/PT.html

[Vertigo Swirl]

If you actually want a better explanation, it appeared on ShiningInLuz.wordpress.com quite some time ago.

Better IMO, of course.   

I've had a look but it's quite hard to find things on your site.  What was the blog entry post called and when did it appear?

[Mr Gray]

The problem is there was no DNA database in Portugal until 2008. In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/Countries/PT.html

But any sample collected, from the crime scene could be kept to compare to a suspect arrested, in the, future

[Robittybob1]

But any sample collected, from the crime scene could be kept to compare to a suspect arrested, in the, future

One would hope so.

[ShiningInLuz]

The problem is there was no DNA database in Portugal until 2008. In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/Countries/PT.html

Obviously I need to re-read my own article on this, but from memory, there was no database in 2008.  Your link is to the implementation of the law, which established that a DB should be set up, and roughly what it could contain.  It made the INML the keeper.  But there was no practical implementation of such a DB until later.

"In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case."  I may have misunderstood you on this but ... that is what the PJ did and the documentation is in the PJ Files.  However, that DNA was ring-fenced i.e. it was not cross-checked against other live cases, AFAIK.  If my understanding is correct, this is important as DNA from the sex assaults on the Algarve would not have been run against the Madeleine case.

[ShiningInLuz]

I've had a look but it's quite hard to find things on your site.  What was the blog entry post called and when did it appear?

I'm busy this morning, but I'll dig it out when I get some spare time.

[Mr Gray]

Obviously I need to re-read my own article on this, but from memory, there was no database in 2008.  Your link is to the implementation of the law, which established that a DB should be set up, and roughly what it could contain.  It made the INML the keeper.  But there was no practical implementation of such a DB until later.

"In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case."  I may have misunderstood you on this but ... that is what the PJ did and the documentation is in the PJ Files.  However, that DNA was ring-fenced i.e. it was not cross-checked against other live cases, AFAIK.  If my understanding is correct, this is important as DNA from the sex assaults on the Algarve would not have been run against the Madeleine case.

If they had dna from the break ins in the algarve and they were able to match it to 5a that would be more than signiglficant..... If they hadn't tried... That would be a disgrace

[ShiningInLuz]

If they had dna from the break ins in the algarve and they were able to match it to 5a that would be more than signiglficant..... If they hadn't tried... That would be a disgrace

Portuguese law in 2007 did not match up with UK law in 2007.  The same was true in 2014.  There is no point in applying UK concepts as the incident did not occur in the UK.

I can't remember who from or when OG went to Coimbra, but I assume that was to discuss what had been kept and what could be done with it.

[Robittybob1]

If they had dna from the break ins in the algarve and they were able to match it to 5a that would be more than signiglficant..... If they hadn't tried... That would be a disgrace

Look what happened in this case.  https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/golden-state-killer-suspect-arrested-in-california/ar-AAwlbFy?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=UP97DHP

[Mr Gray]

Portuguese law in 2007 did not match up with UK law in 2007.  The same was true in 2014.  There is no point in applying UK concepts as the incident did not occur in the UK.

I can't remember who from or when OG went to Coimbra, but I assume that was to discuss what had been kept and what could be done with it.

I'm not applying UK concepts I'm applying common  sense concepts.... Not cross checking DNA with known samples is basic ignorance... IMO and I would think in most peoples opinion

[misty]

Obviously I need to re-read my own article on this, but from memory, there was no database in 2008.  Your link is to the implementation of the law, which established that a DB should be set up, and roughly what it could contain.  It made the INML the keeper.  But there was no practical implementation of such a DB until later.

"In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case."  I may have misunderstood you on this but ... that is what the PJ did and the documentation is in the PJ Files.  However, that DNA was ring-fenced i.e. it was not cross-checked against other live cases, AFAIK.  If my understanding is correct, this is important as DNA from the sex assaults on the Algarve would not have been run against the Madeleine case.

My bad. I should have written "only had reason to try to obtain....". The PJ had no database against which to check the non-eliminated DNA present at the crime scene.

[Robittybob1]

My bad. I should have written "only had reason to try to obtain....". The PJ had no database against which to check the non-eliminated DNA present at the crime scene.

But all police organisations would have been in that position to begin with.  It takes time to build up a database.

[misty]

But all police organisations would have been in that position to begin with.  It takes time to build up a database.

Quote from SIL blog (the news article was in the Portugal Resident a few years ago)

"A news report dated Nov 2009 said the database was completely empty, without a single entry, while the INML had received just 23 requests to provide matches.".

Additionally -

"Further, unlike the UK, it is not once on, always on. Criminal records in Portugal get expunged after specific periods of time, and whenever a criminal record was expunged, it was mandatory to remove the related DNA entry from the INML database.

By mid-Feb 2012, the national database stood at precisely 395 entries in total (criminal in the main, but also volunteer and civil). This was the date at which a major Portuguese news source reported the first successful use of the database in a criminal case. An offender was tracked via DNA in a theft case.

This case was then used by the police and related authorities to ‘advertise’ to judges the benefits of ordering DNA samples in cases of convictions for 3 years or more.

By the end of March 2015, the database had grown to 5,393 entries."

[Mr Gray]

iIhope sil can now see why his cite to search his site was not acceptable when he appears to be having difficulty finding the information himself

[ShiningInLuz]

https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/madeleine-by-helena-machado-filipe-santos/

https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/madeleine-dna-in-portugal/

Most or all of the underlying cites are in my files.  I repeat, I have no intention of wasting my time digging them out.