What is a pro or an anti?

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Try reading back over your own posts and you will see that NOTHING I have written is "unsubstantiated". You do not impress me with your big words and I now believe that every single poster on this board can see right through you. I am getting bored with you now so I am going to ignore you, you'd be better off trotting off back to the dark side to do your crowing over there. They might appreciate you, I don't.

Throwing mud and running away is a childish action.

Please reserve your value judgments for your friends elsewhere.

Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

Now you're not even just twisting what I said, you're inventing something. I made no comment about Iris.

Iris made the string of false allegations that this particular series of comments is about.

None of them are substantiated by what I have actually said- all are manufactured by her without any reference to things that I have actually said.

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

You commented about people posting a lot on the McCann case, and you've notched up a helluva lot of posts in one day, mostly on one thread. Why not have a read of a few others. Try telling us, for instance what you think of the billowing curtains? Or maybe just tell us if you think there is any evidence for abduction, since you haven't ruled that out, which implies that you think there is at least some evidence for it.

I am less interested in comments made in interviews (which are notoriously inaccurate in any case) than in matters that are at least decidable (DNA, Cadaver Odour, rules of evidence).

One possibility is that the checking timeline was a load of baloney invented to avoid being blamed for neglect and this blew up in their faces. Thus giving plenty of time for an abduction or woke and wandered.

All very reprehensible but probably never going to come to court.

Sorry to butt in but I presume this could also be an answer to my enquiry as to your thoughts as to how an abduction could have taken place........... I have yet to see/read a credible solution as to how an abduction could have occured - I guess I have to keep on thinking (C) is the preferred option - for me anyhow........... I am disappointed that a more reasoned answer could not have been given re the abduction......... surely someone out there can give me a reasonable answer as to how an abduction could have taken place............

I was mentioning it in passing really- one solution that does not involve wild behaviour changes or super quick abduction is the possibility that most of the checks were fiction.

Any explanation I have seen so far requires incredible actions to occur; the above explanation is mundane and believable.

I still have no idea what happened and doubt that we shall ever know for sure.

Sorry to sound stupid - but is that your reason for Abduction??

We might be getting somewhere now. So, without checks, an abduction could have taken place. Evidence for it? (Not asking you, flower, of course!)

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

Now you're not even just twisting what I said, you're inventing something. I made no comment about Iris.

Iris made the string of false allegations that this particular series of comments is about.

None of them are substantiated by what I have actually said- all are manufactured by her without any reference to things that I have actually said.

Iris does not tend to make things up. She is an established and well-respected member of this forum.

Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

Iris wrote:Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

I have not insulted all and sundry- I have debated politely as several posters have noted and for which I have thanked them. You may not agree with me but that does not excuse your false and malicious allegations that have no foundation in anything I have written.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

“ IF the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." – why state IF the profiles are equal ?
This principal should apply to all samples and therefore does not exclude Madeleine as a potential source of a particular sample / material, on the contrary, it is an inclusion.

Departing from the usual principal or procedure is generally only done in special circumstances to make a concession or exception and once again why say - “ IF the DNA with the scope of this result originated from more than one person “ ? IF is not definite.


Why were the results not given in terms of probabilities ? – 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. After all the chance of a random match between 2 unrelated people is on average 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 .
The FSS used 10 markers to match DNA samples. Using this system the chance of a random match (more than one profile matching a sample from a crime scene) is less than one in a billion.

Those are the probabilities ..... never mind 50 /50

pro sites
anti sites

Maybe it would be an idea to have a fence sitting site...just a thought

matthew wrote:pro sites
anti sites

Maybe it would be an idea to have a fence sitting site...just a thought

They tried that, it was called pro-fence-anti and we all know how that turned out!

matthew wrote:pro sites
anti sites

Maybe it would be an idea to have a fence sitting site...just a thought

If somebody sets one up, please let us know so that we can direct those who have been turning up recently!

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

I have not insulted all and sundry- I have debated politely as several posters have noted and for which I have thanked them. You may not agree with me but that does not excuse your false and malicious allegations that have no foundation in anything I have written.

Ok - I have to agree - so let's get back to basics - I ask you again - what makes you think an Abuction could be possible - what evidence is there that an Abduction could have taken place - and it is a serious question - I have asked several times and all I would like is another angle on which an Abduction could be a possibility.........

matthew wrote:pro sites
anti sites

Maybe it would be an idea to have a fence sitting site...just a thought

Would that be classified as a splinter group?

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

I have not insulted all and sundry- I have debated politely as several posters have noted and for which I have thanked them. You may not agree with me but that does not excuse your false and malicious allegations that have no foundation in anything I have written.

You are the one making allegations here. And it's not acceptable.

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

“ IF the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." – why state IF the profiles are equal ?
This principal should apply to all samples and therefore does not exclude Madeleine as a potential source of a particular sample / material, on the contrary, it is an inclusion.

Departing from the usual principal or procedure is generally only done in special circumstances to make a concession or exception and once again why say - “ IF the DNA with the scope of this result originated from more than one person “ ? IF is not definite.


Why were the results not given in terms of probabilities ? – 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. After all the chance of a random match between 2 unrelated people is on average 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 .
The FSS used 10 markers to match DNA samples. Using this system the chance of a random match (more than one profile matching a sample from a crime scene) is less than one in a billion.

Those are the probabilities ..... never mind 50 /50

Using the terminology 'IF..' is part of the passive voice and subjunctive mood preferred for academic papers.

Are you interested in trying to understand what the FSS actually meant or do you want to keep to what you currently believe.

If the police had a sample that with a several million to one chance indicated that Madeleine had been in the car rented weeks after her death, do you not think that the Portuguese Prosecutor would have been impressed! I can explain my reasoning for why the odds are even rather than millions to one; but are you open minded enough to listen?

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

I have not insulted all and sundry- I have debated politely as several posters have noted and for which I have thanked them. You may not agree with me but that does not excuse your false and malicious allegations that have no foundation in anything I have written.

You are the one making allegations here. And it's not acceptable.

Iris made a list of accusations that she cannot defend- I have not been rude to anyone.

What allegations against individuals do you think I have made?

AnnaEsse wrote:

matthew wrote:pro sites
anti sites

Maybe it would be an idea to have a fence sitting site...just a thought

If somebody sets one up, please let us know so that we can direct those who have been turning up recently!

theres plenty of interest...they just cant decide what to call it

almostgothic wrote:

matthew wrote:pro sites
anti sites

Maybe it would be an idea to have a fence sitting site...just a thought

Would that be classified as a splinter group?

thats too good

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

“ IF the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." – why state IF the profiles are equal ?
This principal should apply to all samples and therefore does not exclude Madeleine as a potential source of a particular sample / material, on the contrary, it is an inclusion.

Departing from the usual principal or procedure is generally only done in special circumstances to make a concession or exception and once again why say - “ IF the DNA with the scope of this result originated from more than one person “ ? IF is not definite.


Why were the results not given in terms of probabilities ? – 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. After all the chance of a random match between 2 unrelated people is on average 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 .
The FSS used 10 markers to match DNA samples. Using this system the chance of a random match (more than one profile matching a sample from a crime scene) is less than one in a billion.

Those are the probabilities ..... never mind 50 /50

Using the terminology 'IF..' is part of the passive voice and subjunctive mood preferred for academic papers.

Are you interested in trying to understand what the FSS actually meant or do you want to keep to what you currently believe.

If the police had a sample that with a several million to one chance indicated that Madeleine had been in the car rented weeks after her death, do you not think that the Portuguese Prosecutor would have been impressed! I can explain my reasoning for why the odds are even rather than millions to one; but are you open minded enough to listen?

If is conditional and takes the subjunctive.

Now what is the evidence for an abduction? if there were no checks, which could have made an abduction possible, what evidence is there to support an abduction?

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

I have not insulted all and sundry- I have debated politely as several posters have noted and for which I have thanked them. You may not agree with me but that does not excuse your false and malicious allegations that have no foundation in anything I have written.

Ok - I have to agree - so let's get back to basics - I ask you again - what makes you think an Abuction could be possible - what evidence is there that an Abduction could have taken place - and it is a serious question - I have asked several times and all I would like is another angle on which an Abduction could be a possibility.........

If the checking rota was a tissue of lies to avoid being charged with neglect (it was offered when it must have seemed likely that Madeleine would be found) then that opens up a period of time during which an abduction could easily have taken place. As it became more likely that Madeleine was not just wandering, the Tapas 9 were no longer in a position to withdraw their timeline of checks and were committed irrevocably to it.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

“ IF the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." – why state IF the profiles are equal ?
This principal should apply to all samples and therefore does not exclude Madeleine as a potential source of a particular sample / material, on the contrary, it is an inclusion.

Departing from the usual principal or procedure is generally only done in special circumstances to make a concession or exception and once again why say - “ IF the DNA with the scope of this result originated from more than one person “ ? IF is not definite.


Why were the results not given in terms of probabilities ? – 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. After all the chance of a random match between 2 unrelated people is on average 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 .
The FSS used 10 markers to match DNA samples. Using this system the chance of a random match (more than one profile matching a sample from a crime scene) is less than one in a billion.

Those are the probabilities ..... never mind 50 /50

Using the terminology 'IF..' is part of the passive voice and subjunctive mood preferred for academic papers.

Are you interested in trying to understand what the FSS actually meant or do you want to keep to what you currently believe.

If the police had a sample that with a several million to one chance indicated that Madeleine had been in the car rented weeks after her death, do you not think that the Portuguese Prosecutor would have been impressed! I can explain my reasoning for why the odds are even rather than millions to one; but are you open minded enough to listen?

If is conditional and takes the subjunctive.

Now what is the evidence for an abduction? if there were no checks, which could have made an abduction possible, what evidence is there to support an abduction?

There is as much solid evidence for an abduction as there is for a homicide- none at all. That is what the Prosecutor found and what I believe. I suspect that the Met Police will come to the same conclusion.

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

I have not insulted all and sundry- I have debated politely as several posters have noted and for which I have thanked them. You may not agree with me but that does not excuse your false and malicious allegations that have no foundation in anything I have written.

Ok - I have to agree - so let's get back to basics - I ask you again - what makes you think an Abuction could be possible - what evidence is there that an Abduction could have taken place - and it is a serious question - I have asked several times and all I would like is another angle on which an Abduction could be a possibility.........

If the checking rota was a tissue of lies to avoid being charged with neglect (it was offered when it must have seemed likely that Madeleine would be found) then that opens up a period of time during which an abduction could easily have taken place. As it became more likely that Madeleine was not just wandering, the Tapas 9 were no longer in a position to withdraw their timeline of checks and were committed irrevocably to it.

OK, so an abduction could have been possible with no checks. But what evidence is there? A possibility of something happening is not evidence that it did.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

“ IF the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." – why state IF the profiles are equal ?
This principal should apply to all samples and therefore does not exclude Madeleine as a potential source of a particular sample / material, on the contrary, it is an inclusion.

Departing from the usual principal or procedure is generally only done in special circumstances to make a concession or exception and once again why say - “ IF the DNA with the scope of this result originated from more than one person “ ? IF is not definite.


Why were the results not given in terms of probabilities ? – 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. After all the chance of a random match between 2 unrelated people is on average 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 .
The FSS used 10 markers to match DNA samples. Using this system the chance of a random match (more than one profile matching a sample from a crime scene) is less than one in a billion.

Those are the probabilities ..... never mind 50 /50

Using the terminology 'IF..' is part of the passive voice and subjunctive mood preferred for academic papers.

Are you interested in trying to understand what the FSS actually meant or do you want to keep to what you currently believe.

If the police had a sample that with a several million to one chance indicated that Madeleine had been in the car rented weeks after her death, do you not think that the Portuguese Prosecutor would have been impressed! I can explain my reasoning for why the odds are even rather than millions to one; but are you open minded enough to listen?

If is conditional and takes the subjunctive.

Now what is the evidence for an abduction? if there were no checks, which could have made an abduction possible, what evidence is there to support an abduction?

There is as much solid evidence for an abduction as there is for a homicide- none at all. That is what the Prosecutor found and what I believe. I suspect that the Met Police will come to the same conclusion.

So, no evidence of an abduction? Is that your answer?

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Wading in and insulting all and sundry around you is an ignorant action. I would rather be childish than ignorant.

I have not insulted all and sundry- I have debated politely as several posters have noted and for which I have thanked them. You may not agree with me but that does not excuse your false and malicious allegations that have no foundation in anything I have written.

Ok - I have to agree - so let's get back to basics - I ask you again - what makes you think an Abuction could be possible - what evidence is there that an Abduction could have taken place - and it is a serious question - I have asked several times and all I would like is another angle on which an Abduction could be a possibility.........

If the checking rota was a tissue of lies to avoid being charged with neglect (it was offered when it must have seemed likely that Madeleine would be found) then that opens up a period of time during which an abduction could easily have taken place. As it became more likely that Madeleine was not just wandering, the Tapas 9 were no longer in a position to withdraw their timeline of checks and were committed irrevocably to it.

OK, so an abduction could have been possible with no checks. But what evidence is there? A possibility of something happening is not evidence that it did.

Exactly. There is a possibility of abduction, there is a possibility of a homicide. Neither can be proven by the available evidence.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:


“ IF the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." – why state IF the profiles are equal ?
This principal should apply to all samples and therefore does not exclude Madeleine as a potential source of a particular sample / material, on the contrary, it is an inclusion.

Departing from the usual principal or procedure is generally only done in special circumstances to make a concession or exception and once again why say - “ IF the DNA with the scope of this result originated from more than one person “ ? IF is not definite.


Why were the results not given in terms of probabilities ? – 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. After all the chance of a random match between 2 unrelated people is on average 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 .
The FSS used 10 markers to match DNA samples. Using this system the chance of a random match (more than one profile matching a sample from a crime scene) is less than one in a billion.

Those are the probabilities ..... never mind 50 /50

Using the terminology 'IF..' is part of the passive voice and subjunctive mood preferred for academic papers.

Are you interested in trying to understand what the FSS actually meant or do you want to keep to what you currently believe.

If the police had a sample that with a several million to one chance indicated that Madeleine had been in the car rented weeks after her death, do you not think that the Portuguese Prosecutor would have been impressed! I can explain my reasoning for why the odds are even rather than millions to one; but are you open minded enough to listen?

If is conditional and takes the subjunctive.

Now what is the evidence for an abduction? if there were no checks, which could have made an abduction possible, what evidence is there to support an abduction?

There is as much solid evidence for an abduction as there is for a homicide- none at all. That is what the Prosecutor found and what I believe. I suspect that the Met Police will come to the same conclusion.

So, no evidence of an abduction? Is that your answer?

No evidence to prove abduction; no evidence to prove homicide.