Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

What is a pro or an anti?

Page 6 of 15 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:04 pm

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

The dogs do not indicate 'evidence.' They alert to the odours they are trained to detect. A dog doesn't know what evidence is.

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

Oh dear! Pity the police chose FSS, which is being closed down. Quite a few police authorities started using other labs and FSS has been shown to miss vital evidence.

That is water under the bridge. If only they had gone soewhere else, the result might have been different, but that cannot now be remedied. I do not have any reason to believe that any other lab would have given a better answer-LCN DNA is a very difficult test to interpret.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Guest on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:05 pm

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:What is a pro or an anti?

Anyone? Any more ideas on the topic?

A Pro is someone convinced of the McCanns innocence without adequate evidence,
An Anti is someone convinced of the McCanns guilt without adequate evidence.


Maybe you are happy to boil it down to such a simplistic level, but I say again, these arbitrary generalisations are divisive. They actually mean nothing and are a tool of distraction.

Each issue on its merits - or demerits.

Please desist from trying to engage in mass pigeon-holing.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Oldartform on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:05 pm

[quote="jodelI agree that they are the major possibilities open to us (there are others but most too weird to consider). I can see no adequate evidence to make a decision one way or another.[/quote]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us what the other weird possibilities might be. I won`t push you for evidence ... promise.

Oldartform
Forum Addict
Forum Addict

Number of posts : 625
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:05 pm

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

Oh dear! Pity the police chose FSS, which is being closed down. Quite a few police authorities started using other labs and FSS has been shown to miss vital evidence.

That is water under the bridge. If only they had gone soewhere else, the result might have been different, but that cannot now be remedied. I do not have any reason to believe that any other lab would have given a better answer-LCN DNA is a very difficult test to interpret.

Not too difficult with a primary sample.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18458
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:05 pm

flower wrote:
jodel wrote:
flower wrote:
jodel wrote:
flower wrote:The indisputable fact is that there is a Missing Child. I can think of only 3 reasons why this child is missing:

a) Madeleine was abducted. b) Madeleine woke and wandered. c) Madeleine met with an untimely death that was covered up. IMO if (B) had occurred she would have been found. That leaves (in my mind) (A) & (C) - I have yet to be convinced that (A) happened and so long as that is the case then (C) must also be a credible alternative and at this moment in time there is more evidence for (C) than (A) so I would welcome comments that might convince me that (A) is the stronger option........................

I agree that they are the major possibilities open to us (there are others but most too weird to consider). I can see no adequate evidence to make a decision one way or another.

Thank you for your answer jodel. Can I ask if you could convince me that (A) happened as opposed to (C)....

I cannot convince myself of that. How then could I convince you?

I appreciate that - but any discussions regarding how the 'Abduction' could have occured I think would be welcome on this forum..............

I am not able to go beyond the very limited information that we have that could decide between homicide and abduction. I do believe both to be possible, but neither to be provable.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:06 pm

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

Oh dear! Pity the police chose FSS, which is being closed down. Quite a few police authorities started using other labs and FSS has been shown to miss vital evidence.

That is water under the bridge. If only they had gone soewhere else, the result might have been different, but that cannot now be remedied. I do not have any reason to believe that any other lab would have given a better answer-LCN DNA is a very difficult test to interpret.

Not too difficult with a primary sample.

Primary sample of what?

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:07 pm

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

Oh dear! Pity the police chose FSS, which is being closed down. Quite a few police authorities started using other labs and FSS has been shown to miss vital evidence.

That is water under the bridge. If only they had gone soewhere else, the result might have been different, but that cannot now be remedied. I do not have any reason to believe that any other lab would have given a better answer-LCN DNA is a very difficult test to interpret.

Not too difficult with a primary sample.

Primary sample of what?

Anything that could contain DNA

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18458
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Guest on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:08 pm

AnnaEsse wrote:

To me, those labels always sound as though they were made up by an adolescent somewhere. It's a bit like playground games, where people choose teams, or some playground argument where kids have to be on one side or the other. For me, most people who could be called 'anti,' are just folks who are looking for justice for Madeleine McCann. They're not 'anti,' anything. They're for justice and they come with a wide range of opinions on the subject.

A point I have made several times and just as many times has been solicitously ignored. I wonder why?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:09 pm

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

Oh dear! Pity the police chose FSS, which is being closed down. Quite a few police authorities started using other labs and FSS has been shown to miss vital evidence.

That is water under the bridge. If only they had gone soewhere else, the result might have been different, but that cannot now be remedied. I do not have any reason to believe that any other lab would have given a better answer-LCN DNA is a very difficult test to interpret.

Not too difficult with a primary sample.

Primary sample of what?

Anything that could contain DNA

Such as? I do not understand what you are getting at. Are you aware what LCN DNA ID requires and how it is carried out?

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  flower on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:11 pm

jodel wrote:
flower wrote:
jodel wrote:
flower wrote:
jodel wrote:

I agree that they are the major possibilities open to us (there are others but most too weird to consider). I can see no adequate evidence to make a decision one way or another.

Thank you for your answer jodel. Can I ask if you could convince me that (A) happened as opposed to (C)....

I cannot convince myself of that. How then could I convince you?

I appreciate that - but any discussions regarding how the 'Abduction' could have occured I think would be welcome on this forum..............

I am not able to go beyond the very limited information that we have that could decide between homicide and abduction. I do believe both to be possible, but neither to be provable.

That is my point though - I would welcome your thoughts on how an abduction could be possible - I can see hoe (C) is possible - but I have no thoughts on how an abduction could be possible - I only ask how an abduction could be possible in your mind..............

flower
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 678
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-02

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:11 pm

The End Is Nigh wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

To me, those labels always sound as though they were made up by an adolescent somewhere. It's a bit like playground games, where people choose teams, or some playground argument where kids have to be on one side or the other. For me, most people who could be called 'anti,' are just folks who are looking for justice for Madeleine McCann. They're not 'anti,' anything. They're for justice and they come with a wide range of opinions on the subject.

A point I have made several times and just as many times has been solicitously ignored. I wonder why?

I would tend to agree, but that was how the debate on this thread was stated. Maybe if we renamed them as McCann Believers and McCann Non-believers it would be different, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  AnnaEsse on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:11 pm

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:

That is water under the bridge. If only they had gone soewhere else, the result might have been different, but that cannot now be remedied. I do not have any reason to believe that any other lab would have given a better answer-LCN DNA is a very difficult test to interpret.

Not too difficult with a primary sample.

Primary sample of what?

Anything that could contain DNA

Such as? I do not understand what you are getting at. Are you aware what LCN DNA ID requires and how it is carried out?

Low copy number method is a refinement of the polymerase chain reaction method for which Kary Mullis won a Nobel Prize.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18458
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:13 pm

jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

the case of Attracta Harron 2004 springers to mind!

Undoubtedly the dogs found the position of the cadaver. Once the police had the cadaver, the dogs could do nothing to add to the case. Had they just reacted to a cadaver odour and no body had been found, their 'evidence' could not have been admitted in court.

If only dogs could talk, but they can't! so this is your argument. These highly trained
dogs can 'indicate' cadaver existence and occurence without actually finding a cadaver
which may have been destroyed beyond trace. So, dog's work can contribute to forming
evidence that can add to a case, and be admitted in court.
Of course, other substantive evidence would also be required in addition to the
contributary and insightful evidence from the dogs.

Ignoring the heavy sarcasm- Yes. The dog's reactions alone are inadmissible, anything their reactions reveal may be admissible.


The reliability and credibility of these dogs aren’t in question, neither is the fact that the analysis of the samples found as a result of the dogs detections could not conclusively rule out the possibility and probability that they came from Madeleine McCann. The DNA appears to be a partial match which can be used in court proceedings. Therefore it is admissable should this case ever get to court.

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:14 pm

ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

The dogs do not indicate 'evidence.' They alert to the odours they are trained to detect. A dog doesn't know what evidence is.

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

It was not up to the FSS to bring anything to court, they proved the evidence was exclusive and as stated what appears to be a partial DNA match which can be used in court proceedings as evidence. The person who could have brought the evidence to court decided in his wisdom that he didn't have a clue what happened to Madeleine and shelved the case.

I don't understand what you are getting at. I didn't say that the FSS was required to 'bring anything to court'- those were your words not mine. Are you referring to the Portuguese Prosecutor?

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Guest on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:15 pm

jodel wrote:
The End Is Nigh wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

To me, those labels always sound as though they were made up by an adolescent somewhere. It's a bit like playground games, where people choose teams, or some playground argument where kids have to be on one side or the other. For me, most people who could be called 'anti,' are just folks who are looking for justice for Madeleine McCann. They're not 'anti,' anything. They're for justice and they come with a wide range of opinions on the subject.

A point I have made several times and just as many times has been solicitously ignored. I wonder why?

I would tend to agree, but that was how the debate on this thread was stated. Maybe if we renamed them as McCann Believers and McCann Non-believers it would be different, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

You make the mistake of assuming that Healy (For that is what we originally thought her name was) and McCann are de facto at the root of debate. I for one couldn't give two hoots about them, but am primarily concerned with the wrongs done to a defenceless young child.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:16 pm

jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

Exactly. The result of a dog's reaction- DNA from blood or other source, an actual cadaver and so on can be used as evidence. If the dog's reaction is not corroborated by revealed physical evidence, that may not be used as evidence.


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

It was not up to the FSS to bring anything to court, they proved the evidence was exclusive and as stated what appears to be a partial DNA match which can be used in court proceedings as evidence. The person who could have brought the evidence to court decided in his wisdom that he didn't have a clue what happened to Madeleine and shelved the case.

I don't understand what you are getting at. I didn't say that the FSS was required to 'bring anything to court'- those were your words not mine. Are you referring to the Portuguese Prosecutor?

Read my previous post / reply and yes jodel i was referring to the PP who clearly doesn't appear to have a clue what happened.

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:19 pm

ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:

the case of Attracta Harron 2004 springers to mind!

Undoubtedly the dogs found the position of the cadaver. Once the police had the cadaver, the dogs could do nothing to add to the case. Had they just reacted to a cadaver odour and no body had been found, their 'evidence' could not have been admitted in court.

If only dogs could talk, but they can't! so this is your argument. These highly trained
dogs can 'indicate' cadaver existence and occurence without actually finding a cadaver
which may have been destroyed beyond trace. So, dog's work can contribute to forming
evidence that can add to a case, and be admitted in court.
Of course, other substantive evidence would also be required in addition to the
contributary and insightful evidence from the dogs.

Ignoring the heavy sarcasm- Yes. The dog's reactions alone are inadmissible, anything their reactions reveal may be admissible.


The reliability and credibility of these dogs aren’t in question, neither is the fact that the analysis of the samples found as a result of the dogs detections could not conclusively rule out the possibility and probability that they came from Madeleine McCann. The DNA appears to be a partial match which can be used in court proceedings. Therefore it is admissable should this case ever get to court.

Whatever the reliability and credibility of the dogs, their reactions are not admissible as evidence in court.

The interpretation of the DNA in the Scenic by the FSS was that it was not indicative that it came from Madeleine:

"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion."

The lab says that the presence of these markers cannot be interpreted in a meaningful manner.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Oldartform on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:20 pm

The End Is Nigh wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

To me, those labels always sound as though they were made up by an adolescent somewhere. It's a bit like playground games, where people choose teams, or some playground argument where kids have to be on one side or the other. For me, most people who could be called 'anti,' are just folks who are looking for justice for Madeleine McCann. They're not 'anti,' anything. They're for justice and they come with a wide range of opinions on the subject.

A point I have made several times and just as many times has been solicitously ignored. I wonder why?

Could we say then that Antis are merely people who are appaulled by arrogant chancers making a fortune from their loss and calling in favours from the establishment? Whether guilty or not.

Oldartform
Forum Addict
Forum Addict

Number of posts : 625
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:22 pm

ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:


There have been convictions in the UK, convictions which would have never happened had the dogs not alerted to something. The detection of this evidence must have been made known during any court proceedings/ trial, or would the prosecution have just said the the evidence miraculously appeared, along with this evidence would have been any evidence that was needed to prove the reliability of the cannine team.

The physical evidence or DNA as you put it, was not proved to be exclusive and looks like a partial DNA sample which if fact can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

It was not up to the FSS to bring anything to court, they proved the evidence was exclusive and as stated what appears to be a partial DNA match which can be used in court proceedings as evidence. The person who could have brought the evidence to court decided in his wisdom that he didn't have a clue what happened to Madeleine and shelved the case.

I don't understand what you are getting at. I didn't say that the FSS was required to 'bring anything to court'- those were your words not mine. Are you referring to the Portuguese Prosecutor?

Read my previous post / reply and yes jodel i was referring to the PP who clearly doesn't appear to have a clue what happened.

Why do you doubt his decision. He was duly appointed by the Interior Ministry as the Prosecutor in the case; he considered all the evidence and decided there was no case to be made from that evidence. His decision was appealable by the police or any other interested party, but no such appeal was made in the courts.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:25 pm

jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:
jodel wrote:

Undoubtedly the dogs found the position of the cadaver. Once the police had the cadaver, the dogs could do nothing to add to the case. Had they just reacted to a cadaver odour and no body had been found, their 'evidence' could not have been admitted in court.

If only dogs could talk, but they can't! so this is your argument. These highly trained
dogs can 'indicate' cadaver existence and occurence without actually finding a cadaver
which may have been destroyed beyond trace. So, dog's work can contribute to forming
evidence that can add to a case, and be admitted in court.
Of course, other substantive evidence would also be required in addition to the
contributary and insightful evidence from the dogs.

Ignoring the heavy sarcasm- Yes. The dog's reactions alone are inadmissible, anything their reactions reveal may be admissible.


The reliability and credibility of these dogs aren’t in question, neither is the fact that the analysis of the samples found as a result of the dogs detections could not conclusively rule out the possibility and probability that they came from Madeleine McCann. The DNA appears to be a partial match which can be used in court proceedings. Therefore it is admissable should this case ever get to court.

Whatever the reliability and credibility of the dogs, their reactions are not admissible as evidence in court.

The interpretation of the DNA in the Scenic by the FSS was that it was not indicative that it came from Madeleine:

"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion."

The lab says that the presence of these markers cannot be interpreted in a meaningful manner.

Read the conclusion of the report which cleary states the evidence found ( which was a result of the dogs detections ) could neither rule out nor rule in the possibility of it being deposited by Madeleine McCann.

“ In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify WHETHER or NOT the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

In other words inconclusive which is by no stretch of the imagination an exclusion and is never absolute. - It looks like a partial match which can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:25 pm

Oldartform wrote:
The End Is Nigh wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

To me, those labels always sound as though they were made up by an adolescent somewhere. It's a bit like playground games, where people choose teams, or some playground argument where kids have to be on one side or the other. For me, most people who could be called 'anti,' are just folks who are looking for justice for Madeleine McCann. They're not 'anti,' anything. They're for justice and they come with a wide range of opinions on the subject.

A point I have made several times and just as many times has been solicitously ignored. I wonder why?

Could we say then that Antis are merely people who are appaulled by arrogant chancers making a fortune from their loss and calling in favours from the establishment? Whether guilty or not.

One could. One could also say that Antis are people who for whatever reason dislike the parents and the Pros are people who for whatever reason like the parents. I neither like nor dislike them and have no way of knowing what really happened.

jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:26 pm

jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

Agreed, but dog reactions cannot be admitted as evidence-only the resulting evidence discovered by their reaction.

If there had been admissible evidence of DNA or other discoverable evidence indicated by the dogs in this case, then that would be admissible. Unfortunately the FSS found no evidence sufficient to prove anything in court.

If the dogs had found clear indication of identifiable DNA, then of course that could have been admitted in court, but dog reactions alone cannot be admitted in the UK (I know that for certain) and I believe that they would be inadmissible in Portugal also.

It was not up to the FSS to bring anything to court, they proved the evidence was exclusive and as stated what appears to be a partial DNA match which can be used in court proceedings as evidence. The person who could have brought the evidence to court decided in his wisdom that he didn't have a clue what happened to Madeleine and shelved the case.

I don't understand what you are getting at. I didn't say that the FSS was required to 'bring anything to court'- those were your words not mine. Are you referring to the Portuguese Prosecutor?

Read my previous post / reply and yes jodel i was referring to the PP who clearly doesn't appear to have a clue what happened.

Why do you doubt his decision. He was duly appointed by the Interior Ministry as the Prosecutor in the case; he considered all the evidence and decided there was no case to be made from that evidence. His decision was appealable by the police or any other interested party, but no such appeal was made in the courts.

Bcause the FSS report does not rule out the possibility or probability of the evidence having originated from Madeleine Mc.- that simple .

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Guest on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:27 pm

jodel wrote:

One could. One could also say that Antis are people who for whatever reason dislike the parents and the Pros are people who for whatever reason like the parents.

Absolute nonsense . More generalisation and tarring people with the same brush. Deplorable.


You are repeatedly and overtly trying to make out that everyone's view is polarised - apart from your own. What rot.


Last edited by The End Is Nigh on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  jodel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:28 pm

ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
marxman wrote:

If only dogs could talk, but they can't! so this is your argument. These highly trained
dogs can 'indicate' cadaver existence and occurence without actually finding a cadaver
which may have been destroyed beyond trace. So, dog's work can contribute to forming
evidence that can add to a case, and be admitted in court.
Of course, other substantive evidence would also be required in addition to the
contributary and insightful evidence from the dogs.

Ignoring the heavy sarcasm- Yes. The dog's reactions alone are inadmissible, anything their reactions reveal may be admissible.


The reliability and credibility of these dogs aren’t in question, neither is the fact that the analysis of the samples found as a result of the dogs detections could not conclusively rule out the possibility and probability that they came from Madeleine McCann. The DNA appears to be a partial match which can be used in court proceedings. Therefore it is admissable should this case ever get to court.

Whatever the reliability and credibility of the dogs, their reactions are not admissible as evidence in court.

The interpretation of the DNA in the Scenic by the FSS was that it was not indicative that it came from Madeleine:

"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion."

The lab says that the presence of these markers cannot be interpreted in a meaningful manner.

Read the conclusion of the report which cleary states the evidence found ( which was a result of the dogs detections ) could neither rule out nor rule in the possibility of it being deposited by Madeleine McCann.

“ In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify WHETHER or NOT the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

In other words inconclusive which is by no stretch of the imagination an exclusion and is never absolute. - It looks like a partial match which can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Totally agree. The results were inconclusive. To the annoyance of the Pros this does not excuse the McCanns , to the annoyance of the Antis it does not convict the McCanns. To me it is just another insufficient inconclusive result- along with many others.


jodel
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 140
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  ELI on Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:31 pm

jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:
ELI wrote:
jodel wrote:

Ignoring the heavy sarcasm- Yes. The dog's reactions alone are inadmissible, anything their reactions reveal may be admissible.


The reliability and credibility of these dogs aren’t in question, neither is the fact that the analysis of the samples found as a result of the dogs detections could not conclusively rule out the possibility and probability that they came from Madeleine McCann. The DNA appears to be a partial match which can be used in court proceedings. Therefore it is admissable should this case ever get to court.

Whatever the reliability and credibility of the dogs, their reactions are not admissible as evidence in court.

The interpretation of the DNA in the Scenic by the FSS was that it was not indicative that it came from Madeleine:

"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion."

The lab says that the presence of these markers cannot be interpreted in a meaningful manner.

Read the conclusion of the report which cleary states the evidence found ( which was a result of the dogs detections ) could neither rule out nor rule in the possibility of it being deposited by Madeleine McCann.

“ In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify WHETHER or NOT the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

In other words inconclusive which is by no stretch of the imagination an exclusion and is never absolute. - It looks like a partial match which can be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Totally agree. The results were inconclusive. To the annoyance of the Pros this does not excuse the McCanns , to the annoyance of the Antis it does not convict the McCanns. To me it is just another insufficient inconclusive result- along with many others.


In other words inconclusive which is by no stretch of the imagination an exclusion and is never absolute. - It looks like a partial match which can be used as evidence in court proceedings, much to the annoyance of the pro's who do not want to see the McCann's in court.

ELI
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 337
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: What is a pro or an anti?

Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:49 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 15 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum