Was there serious police failings

platinum wrote:

matthew wrote:It states of these 19 markers 15 are present within the result of this item...then a full stop,then it goes on about 37 components as other family(mum dad) would have but out of the 19 FIFTEEN are present...thats what i read...am i wrong?

Whether the punctuation mark is clear or not it is clear from the next paragraph that Lowe is saying that no match to Madeleine McCann can be confirmed.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

And beyond all that there is also the problem that even if a match of this tiny amount of cellular material was found there is no way it could be shown to have been direct contact with the car or cross contamination from some clothing or hair fibres on clothes or some other source.

LJC wrote:

platinum wrote:

matthew wrote:It states of these 19 markers 15 are present within the result of this item...then a full stop,then it goes on about 37 components as other family(mum dad) would have but out of the 19 FIFTEEN are present...thats what i read...am i wrong?

Whether the punctuation mark is clear or not it is clear from the next paragraph that Lowe is saying that no match to Madeleine McCann can be confirmed.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

And beyond all that there is also the problem that even if a match of this tiny amount of cellular material was found there is no way it could be shown to have been direct contact with the car or cross contamination from some clothing or hair fibres on clothes or some other source.

It is also a fact that the FSS wished to amend their original report. It is also a fact that the original report from the FSS was highly damaging to the McCanns. How can they have two separate findings?

Iris wrote:

platinum wrote:

Iris wrote:

platinum wrote:

Iris wrote:The PJ wanted to do the reconstruction one year to the day, so that the weather conditions, lighting etc would be as close as possible to the original. Only the McCann's "friends" were too busy shopping, having their hair done and playing golf to go back and participate. Now if that had been my friends, I would have been dragging them back by the hair, whether it was freshly coiffeured or not.

You seem to forget that Goncalo Amaral tells us that they PJ themselves decided not to do a reconstruction when it mattered most of all. Just after the disappearance. They didn't want to spoil people's holidays and didn't want to close air space were reasons given.

As for the later reconstruction a year later then if you had tried to drag people by the hair you would have got yourself arrested in this country. There is no way you can force people to go abroad. The friends followed the legal advice from lawyers and UK police not to go back. Most people would do what their lawyers and the UK police advise them. I know I would take legal advice very seriously. Perhaps you would just ignore it.

Just like publicising my daughter's eye defect, against advice, as a good marketing ploy. Ghouls.

ETA I have not forgotton ANYTHING, and you can suppose about me whatever you like, doesn't make it true. I suppose you'll be trying to contact me to offer me "legal advice" now.

No legal advice from me. I am not a lawyer. But when I employ lawyers or get advised by UK cops to do something I tend to take that advice. Clearly you don't.

And its funny you seem to be avoiding the most important reconstruction which the PJ refused to do because it might damage a few holidays for people. Funny that.

How the hell would you know that? Have you been hacking my lawyers' emails or something? You know nothing about me at all, so you have no right to make such a statement. And I will tell you something else, I am not one of the Tapas 9 or any of the McCann's "friends", so why would I need to "avoid" a reconstruction?

platinum wrote:

pennylane wrote:

platinum wrote:

pennylane wrote:

platinum wrote:

Just a shame the Prosecutor didn't agree with you. And if every time an issue of fact is discussed you harp on about this then nobody will ever get to the actual facts. It is a fact that the Prosecutor dismissed the alleged abandoment.

It is also a fact that the PJ were the ones who refused to do the first reconstruction.

It is also a fact that it was the PJ who advertised the eye defect and yet people are blaming the McCanns.

Don't let the facts get in the way though.

Kate and Gerry McCann are responsible... FACT!

For everything? Really?
Interesting viewpoint.

If everyone treated tiny children with such careless abandonment, the emergency services would be overrun with devastating catastrophes.

If everyone ignored the decisions of legal authorities as you seem to be doing then the country would be in total chaos.


This is the legal decision of the man who had all the evidence in his hands.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

pennylane wrote:

platinum wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Kate and Gerry McCann are responsible... FACT!

For everything? Really?
Interesting viewpoint.

If everyone treated tiny children with such careless abandonment, the emergency services would be overrun with devastating catastrophes.

If everyone ignored the decisions of legal authorities as you seem to be doing then the country would be in total chaos.


This is the legal decision of the man who had all the evidence in his hands.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

The intent of the parent is totally irrelevant - It does not matter for the child’s well being what the intent was.

There are parents who have intent to neglect , and others who have no premeditated intent . However, the outcome is still failure in their parental duty to protect the child resulting in serious harm to the child.

platinum wrote:

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

pennylane wrote:

platinum wrote:

For everything? Really?
Interesting viewpoint.

If everyone treated tiny children with such careless abandonment, the emergency services would be overrun with devastating catastrophes.

If everyone ignored the decisions of legal authorities as you seem to be doing then the country would be in total chaos.


This is the legal decision of the man who had all the evidence in his hands.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

The intent of the parent is totally irrelevant - It does not matter for the child’s well being what the intent was.

There are parents who have intent to neglect , and others who have no premeditated intent . However, the outcome is still failure in their parental duty to protect the child resulting in serious harm to the child.

Just a shame the legal system did not agree with you. The Prosecutor was clear that there was no indication of abandonment or indeed of any crime by the McCanns.

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

pennylane wrote:

If everyone treated tiny children with such careless abandonment, the emergency services would be overrun with devastating catastrophes.

If everyone ignored the decisions of legal authorities as you seem to be doing then the country would be in total chaos.


This is the legal decision of the man who had all the evidence in his hands.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

The intent of the parent is totally irrelevant - It does not matter for the child’s well being what the intent was.

There are parents who have intent to neglect , and others who have no premeditated intent . However, the outcome is still failure in their parental duty to protect the child resulting in serious harm to the child.

Just a shame the legal system did not agree with you. The Prosecutor was clear that there was no indication of abandonment or indeed of any crime by the McCanns.

Yes because he believed there was no intent ! Totally wrong wasn't he.

platinum wrote:

Iris wrote:

Just like publicising my daughter's eye defect, against advice, as a good marketing ploy. Ghouls.

Are you aware who publicised the eye defect first? Or do you still think it was the McCanns?

The "Ghouls" seem to have been the PJ under Amaral who publicised the eye defect just one day after she went missing. I think you will find that was before the McCanns did so.

platinum wrote:

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

If everyone ignored the decisions of legal authorities as you seem to be doing then the country would be in total chaos.


This is the legal decision of the man who had all the evidence in his hands.




http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

The intent of the parent is totally irrelevant - It does not matter for the child’s well being what the intent was.

There are parents who have intent to neglect , and others who have no premeditated intent . However, the outcome is still failure in their parental duty to protect the child resulting in serious harm to the child.

Just a shame the legal system did not agree with you. The Prosecutor was clear that there was no indication of abandonment or indeed of any crime by the McCanns.

Yes because he believed there was no intent ! Totally wrong wasn't he.

i have no idea. But unlike you it seems I accept the judgement of the legal system until there is proof it is wrong.

platinum wrote:

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

If everyone ignored the decisions of legal authorities as you seem to be doing then the country would be in total chaos.


This is the legal decision of the man who had all the evidence in his hands.




http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

The intent of the parent is totally irrelevant - It does not matter for the child’s well being what the intent was.

There are parents who have intent to neglect , and others who have no premeditated intent . However, the outcome is still failure in their parental duty to protect the child resulting in serious harm to the child.

Just a shame the legal system did not agree with you. The Prosecutor was clear that there was no indication of abandonment or indeed of any crime by the McCanns.

Yes because he believed there was no intent ! Totally wrong wasn't he.

i have no idea. But unlike you it seems I accept the judgement of the legal system until there is proof it is wrong.

gillyspot wrote:platinum why do you think the McCanns let the case be shelved if they were so keen to "find Madeleine" ? Wasn't it just (like their running back to UK when made arguidos) self preservation and no thought of their daughter? I would be interested in your response if you support these actions bearing in mind they have before and since raised £millions in donations for a search for her yet they don't share how much is spent on actually searching etc (nor keep donors informed of some of the work the investigators are doing - I accept they would need to be general in this info - but WHAT information are they sharing?)

platinum wrote:

ELI wrote:

platinum wrote:

pennylane wrote:

platinum wrote:

For everything? Really?
Interesting viewpoint.

If everyone treated tiny children with such careless abandonment, the emergency services would be overrun with devastating catastrophes.

If everyone ignored the decisions of legal authorities as you seem to be doing then the country would be in total chaos.


This is the legal decision of the man who had all the evidence in his hands.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

The intent of the parent is totally irrelevant - It does not matter for the child’s well being what the intent was.

There are parents who have intent to neglect , and others who have no premeditated intent . However, the outcome is still failure in their parental duty to protect the child resulting in serious harm to the child.

Just a shame the legal system did not agree with you. The Prosecutor was clear that there was no indication of abandonment or indeed of any crime by the McCanns.

ELI wrote:

gillyspot wrote:platinum why do you think the McCanns let the case be shelved if they were so keen to "find Madeleine" ? Wasn't it just (like their running back to UK when made arguidos) self preservation and no thought of their daughter? I would be interested in your response if you support these actions bearing in mind they have before and since raised £millions in donations for a search for her yet they don't share how much is spent on actually searching etc (nor keep donors informed of some of the work the investigators are doing - I accept they would need to be general in this info - but WHAT information are they sharing?)

And then this couple have the guile to go live on television and claim that no police force is actively looking for their daughter, when it was they that failed to appeal against the decision to shelve the case ... unbelievable !

platinum wrote:

LJC wrote:

platinum wrote:

matthew wrote:It states of these 19 markers 15 are present within the result of this item...then a full stop,then it goes on about 37 components as other family(mum dad) would have but out of the 19 FIFTEEN are present...thats what i read...am i wrong?

Whether the punctuation mark is clear or not it is clear from the next paragraph that Lowe is saying that no match to Madeleine McCann can be confirmed.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

And beyond all that there is also the problem that even if a match of this tiny amount of cellular material was found there is no way it could be shown to have been direct contact with the car or cross contamination from some clothing or hair fibres on clothes or some other source.

It is also a fact that the FSS wished to amend their original report. It is also a fact that the original report from the FSS was highly damaging to the McCanns. How can they have two separate findings?

Can you give me a link please to these damaging claims in the initial report and to the evidence that the FSS wanted to change their claims?

To: Criminal Investigation Coordinator, Lic. Gonçalo Amaral
From: Ricardo Paiva, Inspector

Subject: Laboratorial exams – Forensics Report

During the course of the ongoing investigation within the abovementioned inquiry, which investigates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the Forensics Laboratory of Birmingham, in England, has carried out DNA profile analyses on samples that were collected by this Police force.

The partial results of said forensics analyses have been communicated to this police throughout the course of the investigation by Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, a liaison officer for the Leicestershire Police, through emails from that laboratory and a partial Forensics Report that is dated August 7, 2007.

Nevertheless, it was verified that due to a lapse from that laboratory, the cited Forensics Report contained inconsistencies with what had previously been reported by a forensics expert in the emails that were received by Superintendent Stuart Prior, this being the reason why the English authorities suggested that we await the laboratory’s Final Report, which will be delivered to this Police Force when the lab forensics analyses, which are still being carried out, are concluded.

Therefore, I send you the cited Forensics Report in English language, with the corresponding translation, for whichever purpose you may find convenient.

The Inspector,

(Ricardo Paiva)

GA: The reports from the English labs… the English reports arrive shortly before the questionings that were scheduled. And it contained certain conclusions, if they thought they were inconclusive they shouldn't have mentioned it, the question of the 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl, stating that they match Madeleine McCann, but they also say that it could have been a construction let's say from various donors, from other persons, a contamination could have produced Madeleine McCann's profile by coincidence. But there are no excuses for saying that it is not from Madeleine McCann because they held the profiles of the father, the mother, the siblings, therefore there are no doubts that at least within that family they only matched Madeleine McCann's

gillyspot wrote:Again a McCann tactic - Change the question so change the answer. Perhaps we ought to "ask the dogs"

gillyspot wrote:Again a McCann tactic - Change the question so change the answer. Perhaps we ought to "ask the dogs"

Lioned wrote:A reconstruction would have nailed it.The mccans were prime suspects i would say very early in the investigation.That should of taken place in the first few weeks.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

gillyspot wrote:Again a McCann tactic - Change the question so change the answer. Perhaps we ought to "ask the dogs"

Yes, that was one of the most disingenuous and farcical utterances from Gerald McCann.

I should have thought his`intellect would have produced something better than a kindergarten challenge.

Absolutely conkers.

platinum wrote:
i have no idea. But unlike you it seems I accept the judgement of the legal system until there is proof it is wrong.

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:
i have no idea. But unlike you it seems I accept the judgement of the legal system until there is proof it is wrong.

Platinum; you operate under some misguided logic that the legal system is infallible and as such shouldn't be questioned.
Day in, day out in every country in the world there are many miscarriages of justice. A famous one, the Stephen Lawrence case was reported the other day and if people had just 'accepted' what judges said, justice would never have been served. It is only through the media and public keeping inconsistencies and injustice alive that change is ever made. This website as part of the new media has taken over from where newspapers can no longer go.

With regard to the 'neglect' issue, I would hope that as an intelligent person you or anyone else would think that abandoning your children to go on a piss up, leaving them distressed, when one of them was suffering from sickness also... so much so that the neighbours heard them crying... constitutes neglect. You don't have to be a lawyer to add that one up. Each and every one of us as a member of this country is expected to understand each and every law and to weigh up the decisions we take based upon what might happen if we break one of those laws. Ignorance is no defence, therefore you as a member of the public that elects people to amend these laws which in turn instruct the judges what to do are entitled to take a position. Once you have taken this decision you can then weigh up the efficacy of the law once injustices are done and then use the materials you have at hand to put your opinion across to the people who can amend the laws.

To reiterate, judges arn't the be all and end all of justice; they are mere stooges instructed by our government that we elect. We have the power and if enough of us draw attention to things that are not right we can instigate change. we have the power you can use yours --> www.writetothem.com

NoStone wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:
i have no idea. But unlike you it seems I accept the judgement of the legal system until there is proof it is wrong.

Platinum; you operate under some misguided logic that the legal system is infallible and as such shouldn't be questioned.
Day in, day out in every country in the world there are many miscarriages of justice. A famous one, the Stephen Lawrence case was reported the other day and if people had just 'accepted' what judges said, justice would never have been served. It is only through the media and public keeping inconsistencies and injustice alive that change is ever made. This website as part of the new media has taken over from where newspapers can no longer go.

With regard to the 'neglect' issue, I would hope that as an intelligent person you or anyone else would think that abandoning your children to go on a piss up, leaving them distressed, when one of them was suffering from sickness also... so much so that the neighbours heard them crying... constitutes neglect. You don't have to be a lawyer to add that one up. Each and every one of us as a member of this country is expected to understand each and every law and to weigh up the decisions we take based upon what might happen if we break one of those laws. Ignorance is no defence, therefore you as a member of the public that elects people to amend these laws which in turn instruct the judges what to do are entitled to take a position. Once you have taken this decision you can then weigh up the efficacy of the law once injustices are done and then use the materials you have at hand to put your opinion across to the people who can amend the laws.

To reiterate, judges arn't the be all and end all of justice; they are mere stooges instructed by our government that we elect. We have the power and if enough of us draw attention to things that are not right we can instigate change. we have the power you can use yours --> www.writetothem.com

Great post Loopdaloop