What is a pro or an anti?

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

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.

No, I'm not saying there is a possibility of abduction, just paraphrasing what you said. Without any evidence that an abduction took place, does it remain a possibility? If so, how?

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:


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.

Forget homicide at the moment. Evidence for an abduction or not? And what might it be? Simple!

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

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.

No, I'm not saying there is a possibility of abduction, just paraphrasing what you said. Without any evidence that an abduction took place, does it remain a possibility? If so, how?

There is inadequate evidence to indicate either abduction or homicide.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

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.

No, I'm not saying there is a possibility of abduction, just paraphrasing what you said. Without any evidence that an abduction took place, does it remain a possibility? If so, how?

There is inadequate evidence to indicate either abduction or homicide.

So, 'inadequate,' evidence of abduction, which implies there is some. What might that be?

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

Forget homicide at the moment. Evidence for an abduction or not? And what might it be? Simple!

I have no idea. As I have no idea how homicide could be the answer. That is my whole point- we have inadequate evidence to make any trustworthy decision.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

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.

Forget homicide at the moment. Evidence for an abduction or not? And what might it be? Simple!

I have no idea. As I have no idea how homicide could be the answer. That is my whole point- we have inadequate evidence to make any trustworthy decision.

But if you're not ruling anything out, you must have reasons. So, what evidence is there that could be called 'inadequate.'? Inadequate is not none.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

No, I'm not saying there is a possibility of abduction, just paraphrasing what you said. Without any evidence that an abduction took place, does it remain a possibility? If so, how?

There is inadequate evidence to indicate either abduction or homicide.

So, 'inadequate,' evidence of abduction, which implies there is some. What might that be?

The possibility that Madeleine was left alone for several hours, the possibility that she wandered and was abducted, the possibility that she was taken from the room.

The same level of probability that she died from an accident or was a victim of manslaughter or murder.

Inadequate evidence to prove anything- as the Portuguese Prosecutor found.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

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

No, I'm not saying there is a possibility of abduction, just paraphrasing what you said. Without any evidence that an abduction took place, does it remain a possibility? If so, how?

There is inadequate evidence to indicate either abduction or homicide.

So, 'inadequate,' evidence of abduction, which implies there is some. What might that be?

The possibility that Madeleine was left alone for several hours, the possibility that she wandered and was abducted, the possibility that she was taken from the room.

The same level of probability that she died from an accident or was a victim of manslaughter or murder.

Inadequate evidence to prove anything- as the Portuguese Prosecutor found.

Right! One more time! What is the evidence for abduction which could be called 'inadequate.'?

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

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.

Forget homicide at the moment. Evidence for an abduction or not? And what might it be? Simple!

I have no idea. As I have no idea how homicide could be the answer. That is my whole point- we have inadequate evidence to make any trustworthy decision.

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that there is more evidence supporting a homicide than an abduction? If not what 'inadequate' evidence is there in supporting an abduction - I for one have never been given ANY evidence - inadequate or not....................

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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

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

Forget homicide at the moment. Evidence for an abduction or not? And what might it be? Simple!

I have no idea. As I have no idea how homicide could be the answer. That is my whole point- we have inadequate evidence to make any trustworthy decision.

But if you're not ruling anything out, you must have reasons. So, what evidence is there that could be called 'inadequate.'? Inadequate is not none.

As I have said, we have no evidence sufficient to prove or disprove anything that possibly happened to Madeleine.

I suspect the Portuguese Prosecutor is brighter and better educated than I am, and given that he had access to all the files and all the facts, I tend to trust his decision unless someone can show why it was accepted and not appealed.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

No, I'm not saying there is a possibility of abduction, just paraphrasing what you said. Without any evidence that an abduction took place, does it remain a possibility? If so, how?

There is inadequate evidence to indicate either abduction or homicide.

So, 'inadequate,' evidence of abduction, which implies there is some. What might that be?

The possibility that Madeleine was left alone for several hours, the possibility that she wandered and was abducted, the possibility that she was taken from the room.

The same level of probability that she died from an accident or was a victim of manslaughter or murder.

Inadequate evidence to prove anything- as the Portuguese Prosecutor found.

Right! One more time! What is the evidence for abduction which could be called 'inadequate.'?

The evidence available for homicide and abduction is minimal. Both are possible and that is about as good as the available evidence suggests.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

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

Forget homicide at the moment. Evidence for an abduction or not? And what might it be? Simple!

I have no idea. As I have no idea how homicide could be the answer. That is my whole point- we have inadequate evidence to make any trustworthy decision.

But if you're not ruling anything out, you must have reasons. So, what evidence is there that could be called 'inadequate.'? Inadequate is not none.

As I have said, we have no evidence sufficient to prove or disprove anything that possibly happened to Madeleine.

I suspect the Portuguese Prosecutor is brighter and better educated than I am, and given that he had access to all the files and all the facts, I tend to trust his decision unless someone can show why it was accepted and not appealed.

OK then, tell us why you used the word 'inadequate.' Or since you are referring to the Prosecutor, tell us what evidence he quoted, which he thought to be inadequate for abduction?

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

There is inadequate evidence to indicate either abduction or homicide.

So, 'inadequate,' evidence of abduction, which implies there is some. What might that be?

The possibility that Madeleine was left alone for several hours, the possibility that she wandered and was abducted, the possibility that she was taken from the room.

The same level of probability that she died from an accident or was a victim of manslaughter or murder.

Inadequate evidence to prove anything- as the Portuguese Prosecutor found.

Right! One more time! What is the evidence for abduction which could be called 'inadequate.'?

The evidence available for homicide and abduction is minimal. Both are possible and that is about as good as the available evidence suggests.

OK, what is the available evidence for abduction?

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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

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

Forget homicide at the moment. Evidence for an abduction or not? And what might it be? Simple!

I have no idea. As I have no idea how homicide could be the answer. That is my whole point- we have inadequate evidence to make any trustworthy decision.

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that there is more evidence supporting a homicide than an abduction? If not what 'inadequate' evidence is there in supporting an abduction - I for one have never been given ANY evidence - inadequate or not....................

Similarly there is no evidence to support a charge of homicide. Both are speculative at best.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

So, 'inadequate,' evidence of abduction, which implies there is some. What might that be?

The possibility that Madeleine was left alone for several hours, the possibility that she wandered and was abducted, the possibility that she was taken from the room.

The same level of probability that she died from an accident or was a victim of manslaughter or murder.

Inadequate evidence to prove anything- as the Portuguese Prosecutor found.

Right! One more time! What is the evidence for abduction which could be called 'inadequate.'?

The evidence available for homicide and abduction is minimal. Both are possible and that is about as good as the available evidence suggests.

OK, what is the available evidence for abduction?

The same as for homicide- speculative and inadequate for a prosecution. Both are possible; there is no real test for which is more probable.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

The possibility that Madeleine was left alone for several hours, the possibility that she wandered and was abducted, the possibility that she was taken from the room.

The same level of probability that she died from an accident or was a victim of manslaughter or murder.

Inadequate evidence to prove anything- as the Portuguese Prosecutor found.

Right! One more time! What is the evidence for abduction which could be called 'inadequate.'?

The evidence available for homicide and abduction is minimal. Both are possible and that is about as good as the available evidence suggests.

OK, what is the available evidence for abduction?

The same as for homicide- speculative and inadequate for a prosecution. Both are possible; there is no real test for which is more probable.

OK, what is being speculated as evidence for abduction?

ETA: I am beginning to think that you haven't properly thought through any of these theories, because you're not willing to say why you think any of them is possible, in terms of evidence.

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

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

Forget homicide at the moment. Evidence for an abduction or not? And what might it be? Simple!

I have no idea. As I have no idea how homicide could be the answer. That is my whole point- we have inadequate evidence to make any trustworthy decision.

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that there is more evidence supporting a homicide than an abduction? If not what 'inadequate' evidence is there in supporting an abduction - I for one have never been given ANY evidence - inadequate or not....................

Similarly there is no evidence to support a charge of homicide. Both are speculative at best.

Oh Boy - that's good.................. the plus points for homicide are the Dogs, lies, confusion and downright lies (IMO) which support homicide....................... what are the 'plus' points for 'Abduction'?............

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Right! One more time! What is the evidence for abduction which could be called 'inadequate.'?

The evidence available for homicide and abduction is minimal. Both are possible and that is about as good as the available evidence suggests.

OK, what is the available evidence for abduction?

The same as for homicide- speculative and inadequate for a prosecution. Both are possible; there is no real test for which is more probable.

OK, what is being speculated as evidence for abduction?

Your repeated posts are bordering on harassment and Spam.

I see no substantive evidence for any particular outcome and little chance of the case ever coming to court, sad though that might be.

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?

One does not use the word ' IF ' in forensic reports unles one is uncertain.

let’s cut to the chase here ;

In forensic terminology the word ‘ Match ‘ means that elements contained within the reference sample ‘ match ‘ elements in the evidentiary sample and the components that should matter are not the common components that 99% of us share.

Approximately 1 person in every x number of million people chosen at random would possess the same DNA genotype as that found in a questioned sample. – now what a coincidence that 1 person who possess the exact same DNA as M. just by chance happened to have been in that particular newly hired vehicle … sorry, unbelievably it was it more than one person wasn’t it.

In order to state that there were enough components for someone to identify an individual, those components had to ‘match’ that particular individuals reference sample. In other words enough components or markers to distinguish who’s DNA it was. This was done regardless of the fact that there appeared to other components contained within that particular sample.

'IF' this was brought into a court setting those are the ' odds' as you call them or probabilities that a court would use / consider.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

The evidence available for homicide and abduction is minimal. Both are possible and that is about as good as the available evidence suggests.

OK, what is the available evidence for abduction?

The same as for homicide- speculative and inadequate for a prosecution. Both are possible; there is no real test for which is more probable.

OK, what is being speculated as evidence for abduction?

Your repeated posts are bordering on harassment and Spam.

I see no substantive evidence for any particular outcome and little chance of the case ever coming to court, sad though that might be.

You have got some cheek! A moderator asking you to clarify what you are saying is not spamming! Now, if you truly have thought through all the theories and you see no 'substantive,' evidence, that means you see some evidence. So what?

So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

I would have thought it was a reasonable question to be honest. I can't find any evidence of an abduction at all.

There is evidence that the McCanns and their friends were circumspect with the truth though and if they were innocent why do that?

Why get their friends to say that the shutters were damaged/jemmied when they were not?

There are many inconsistencies in their stories. How did Matthew Oldfield NOT see Madeleine but saw the twins breathing when they were further into a darkened room than she was.

Why were the only fingerprints on the window Kate's own and consistent with opening it?

I could go on.

I must say that it's worth burning the midnight oil for this topic!

Iris wrote:So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

Me too! It hasn't been this entertaining since whats'er name. Ah yes, Platinum! And lifeisforliving was quite entertaining too in her way! And this one is telling a moderator she's spamming!

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:So now you're running the forum, as well as your talents in social work, criminal law, English grammar instruction and writing academic papers? I'm glad I stuck around now!

Me too! It hasn't been this entertaining since whats'er name. Ah yes, Platinum! And lifeisforliving was quite entertaining too in her way! And this one is telling a moderator she's spamming!

Yes, I also seem to remember Platinum telling us how to run the forum, and what threads we were allowed or not, and they had only been here for five minutes as well. And IIRC, they didn't last for long after that, neither.