What is a pro or an anti?

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

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..............

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:


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 in court.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

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.

flower wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

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..............

Thanks jodel - I think my thoughts have been lost amongst other posts.......... at least you debate without sarcasm bullying............

marxman wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

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.

totally agree TEIN, jodel is boiling it down to very simplistic poles.
But as the old salvation army saying goes 'Its not the criminal I dislike
but the crime that they commit' So am I still an anti?

Oldartform wrote:[quote="jodel]I neither like nor dislike them and have no way of knowing what really happened.

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

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 in court.

Inconclusive means inconclusive. The result neither increase nor decrease the possibility that Madeleine McCann contributed to the sample from the Scenic.

This is the case because it is equally possible:

1/ That Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/ That Madeleine did not contributed to the sample

giving it am evidentiary value of zero.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

ELI wrote:

I can only quote what is laid down in the police standards which I presume is law as I haven't followed any other cases, however if I'm not mistaken the report by Martin Grimes does state cases where the dogs detections have led to crimminal convictions.

If those police standards state that something may become evidence, that is enough. There is no need then to find individual cases.

This is how myths and misunderstandings start- partial and biased interpretation. The statement above does not say that dog reactions can be used as evidence.

What it says exactly is:

"The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine team’s reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility."

It says that the evidence of the dogs' training and licensing may be produced in court to evidence their reliability in indicating evidence.

It does not say that a dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court. That has never happened and would not be legal.

What this says is that evidence of, say, the training and reliability of a drugs dog can be quoted in court to give credence to the subsequent discovery of drugs in a building etc.

I will accept that dog's direct indications of anything may be part of a trial in the UK if ANY such reference from a newspaper or other court report is produced showing that such dog evidence has ever been admitted into a UK court. Should be easy to find- if it exists!

You're sounding more and more like someone who has been here before. Eddie and Keela have over 200 successful missions to their credit. That is what matters. Since they cannot speak, their findings have to be backed up with forensic evidence, which of course is not always possible. Odours linger, even for us humans, long after their source has gone. And EVRD canines are trained to detect odour, just that. Cadaver odour can linger years after a body has been in a place and that's where those dogs come into their own.

Having said that, we do have new members, from time to time, who seem to home in on anything to do with those dogs. I'm not sure why.

I have not been 'here' before but I have read the files in some detail. I also know a little criminal law and Judges Rules do not allow canine indications to be used in evidence in British Courts.

I am willing to withdraw this assertion if anyone can produce Evidence of dog's reactions being admitted as evidence in UK courts- fair enough?

jodel wrote:

marxman wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

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.

totally agree TEIN, jodel is boiling it down to very simplistic poles.
But as the old salvation army saying goes 'Its not the criminal I dislike
but the crime that they commit' So am I still an anti?

It all depends on what crime was committed and by whom. And who decides that.

jodel wrote:



I have a totally open mind on the matter and this seems to annoy both camps, whatever we call them.

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

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 in court.

Inconclusive means inconclusive. The result neither increase nor decrease the possibility that Madeleine McCann contributed to the sample from the Scenic.

This is the case because it is equally possible:

1/ That Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/ That Madeleine did not contributed to the sample

giving it am evidentiary value of zero.

An inconclusive result does not rule anyone out, an exclusion does just as an inclusion conclusively rules someone in. If it is considered to be a partial DNA match, which it certainly looks like then it can be used as evidence, giving it a just a tad more value than zero.

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

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 in court.

Inconclusive means inconclusive. The result neither increase nor decrease the possibility that Madeleine McCann contributed to the sample from the Scenic.

This is the case because it is equally possible:

1/ That Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/ That Madeleine did not contributed to the sample

giving it am evidentiary value of zero.

An inconclusive result does not rule anyone out, an exclusion does just as an inclusion conclusively rules someone in. If it is considered to be a partial DNA match, which it certainly looks like then it can be used as evidence, giving it a just a tad more value than zero.

I think that you are wrong. For this result to be placed before a jury, it would have to be supported by an expert opinion on its evidentiary value. There are two possible cases-

1/Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/Madeleine did not contribute to the sample.

The expert witness would be asked to give the probability of each in turn. As either result is equally possible (which is what inconclusive means) the expert would have to state that to be the case and that would destroy it as evidence.

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

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..............

Thanks jodel - I think my thoughts have been lost amongst other posts.......... at least you debate without sarcasm bullying............

Thanks. It is pleasant to debate without abuse and other silly insults. I have been nothing but polite and rational here, yet several people seem to think that their case is advanced by using abuse and sarcasm which is a little sad.

I have a totally open mind on the matter and this seems to annoy both camps, whatever we call them.

jodel wrote:

marxman wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

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.

totally agree TEIN, jodel is boiling it down to very simplistic poles. But as the old salvation army saying goes 'Its not the criminal I dislike but the crime that they commit' So am I still an anti?

It all depends on what crime was committed and by whom. And who decides that.

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

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 in court.

Inconclusive means inconclusive. The result neither increase nor decrease the possibility that Madeleine McCann contributed to the sample from the Scenic.

This is the case because it is equally possible:

1/ That Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/ That Madeleine did not contributed to the sample

giving it am evidentiary value of zero.

An inconclusive result does not rule anyone out, an exclusion does just as an inclusion conclusively rules someone in. If it is considered to be a partial DNA match, which it certainly looks like then it can be used as evidence, giving it a just a tad more value than zero.

I think that you are wrong. For this result to be placed before a jury, it would have to be supported by an expert opinion on its evidentiary value. There are two possible cases-

1/Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/Madeleine did not contribute to the sample.

The expert witness would be asked to give the probability of each in turn. As either result is equally possible (which is what inconclusive means) the expert would have to state that to be the case and that would destroy it as evidence.

Lioned wrote:Could an Abduction have occured without neglect ?

Why did gerry claim the shutters had been 'jemied' ?

Where the doors open or locked ?

Where the 'sniffer' dogs high on glue or sensitive to blood and cadavarine ?

Did the parents mccann leave their three babies alone any other nights ?

Why after nearly five years are their 'posters' who frequent internet 'hate' sites who remain undecided whether or not the parents are decent people.

Pro or Anti ? Opinions were formed within hours of reports that these doctors had left their babies 'home alone' .There are no 'fence sitters',those who describe themselves as such inevitably end up defending the actions of the parents.

The mccanns are extraordinarily bad people.

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

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 in court.

Inconclusive means inconclusive. The result neither increase nor decrease the possibility that Madeleine McCann contributed to the sample from the Scenic.

This is the case because it is equally possible:

1/ That Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/ That Madeleine did not contributed to the sample

giving it am evidentiary value of zero.

An inconclusive result does not rule anyone out, an exclusion does just as an inclusion conclusively rules someone in. If it is considered to be a partial DNA match, which it certainly looks like then it can be used as evidence, giving it a just a tad more value than zero.

I think that you are wrong. For this result to be placed before a jury, it would have to be supported by an expert opinion on its evidentiary value. There are two possible cases-

1/Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/Madeleine did not contribute to the sample.

The expert witness would be asked to give the probability of each in turn. As either result is equally possible (which is what inconclusive means) the expert would have to state that to be the case and that would destroy it as evidence.

We've had an expert ' opinion' ;

“ 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.”

Opinions vary considerably and in any case such as this any forensic results should have been given in terms of probabilities - Failure to exclude a "match" is not absolute, when a person is not excluded as being the source of an evidentiary DNA profile , the strength of the evidence should be given in terms of probabilities and in relation to other evidence.

That we have yet to see don't we.

must go , pleasure chatting

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

By whom though, have they been misguided in their moral choice?