What is a pro or an anti?

What sort of length of time would be the minimum to establish the relevant scent?

Velvet wrote:

kitti wrote:......plus.....whose body does he or she think lay in apt 5a, the flowerbed and the car?

Morning kitty!

I have been thinking about the flower bed lately and thought since you brought it up I'd ask you. What is your opinion of why Madeleine would have been placed on the flower bed for x amount of time, enough for the dogs to pick to the scent? I genuinely can't think of a reason to be left out in the open for so long and thought it would be interesting to hear someone's point of view on it.

Well, some suspect that it was a certain individual that hid
the cadaver whilst being disturbed by Jeremy Wilkins walking
his buggy.

Velvet wrote:

kitti wrote:......plus.....whose body does he or she think lay in apt 5a, the flowerbed and the car?

Morning kitty!

I have been thinking about the flower bed lately and thought since you brought it up I'd ask you. What is your opinion of why Madeleine would have been placed on the flower bed for x amount of time, enough for the dogs to pick to the scent? I genuinely can't think of a reason to be left out in the open for so long and thought it would be interesting to hear someone's point of view on it.

Funny you should pop up today.

Before l came onto the internet l was reading papers and one of the papers (Express or Mail) said Gerry was seen that evening by Jez Wilkins 'by the shutters' and when Gerry saw Jez he came over to talk. This raised alarm bells with me as the Mcs claimed the shutters were jemmied when they clearly hadn't been.

So why was Gerry by the shutters? It seems entitely plausible that someones job was to tamper with the shutters before disposing of a blue tennis bag somewhere but once seen by Jez doing something with the shutters the bag may have been left in the flower bed for later disposal.

We know the alarm wasn't raised when Maddie was found missing for some time, perhaps that bag still had to go missing.

You might think papers lie, but the Leveson enquiry has been told that once the PJ files were released all stories did have basis in FACT.

So why was Gerry was by the shutters, since cadaver odour was found in that flower bed?

How is DNA analysis done? The complete DNA pattern for an individual is massive- a vast quantity of individual molecules linked together in adouble helix pattern. Many strands are identical from Human to Human and many strands are shared in structure with our non-human ancestors. These strands are no use for ID purposes but what do exist are certain areas that vary from person to person across a population.
The system used by FSS and most other laboratories looks at 20 specific sites of such chains of variable DNA. These are chosen because of their variability across any human population. I shall call these strands 'markers'. Each marker may have a different degree od variability- some having as few as 5 possible variations and some having as many as 19 variations.
In a simple case such as semen from an alleged rape, the DNA markers are collected from the sample and a profile is prepared that would be a 20 character long series of letters describing the chemical structure of the markers. If 14 or so markers are shown to match then the likelihood of misidentification begins to lift into the billions making it an excellent method of inclusion and exclusion of the sample as evidence. So for a 'clean' and uncontaminated sample, the likelihood is high that adefinite conclusion is reached.
If one has simple mixed samples where all markers can be found, it is still possible to make definite conclusions although the probabilities are a little lower. But when the samples are mixed and only some markers are found, then the probabilities reduce rapidly. Why is this?
Let us assume that we have five persons DNA in a sample which has 37 separate markers. We know there are at least three lots of DNA because we have three different markers in the same position and can suspect that there were no more than five donors. This is the position of the sample from the Scenic. Now as I have said above, each marker may have between 5 and 19 variations across a population; for simplicity let us assume that there are 9 variations for each marker. Then the probability is more than fifty per cent that any random marker will be there (five donors, nine variations.) Now the question is, how likely are there to be fifteen possible matches for Madeleine's DNA. First we must say that with 37 markers available out of what should be 100 (five people times 20 markers) there are likely to be blank columns- marker positions with no donor DNA from 'Madeleine' available. There will be further columns where Madeleine's DNA marker will be there by chance (of about 1 in 2- five donors, 10 marker results. This then involves the mathematics of permutations.
Much like the Birthdate paradox (any group of 25 people is likely to include a pair with the same birthdate)- perm any one date out of 25, reducing the odds from 366 to 1 to evens, the permutations involved lead to the conclusion that a random group of five Northern European donors of 37 partial DNA markers is about evens in chance.
Now let us consider familial contamination- the most likely people to donate this DNA. Children inherit these markers from their parents- their individual markers can only be either of their parents. As the McCann parents happen (by chance) to have one marker identical to their spouse, the whole family has only 38 possible markers. The statistics on this using the permutation above indicates that mixed DNA for any two of the McCann family is almost certain to show a fifteen marker identification. So if the sample included ANY DNA from the family, the identification of Meadeliene's pattern of DNA is almost certain at that level.
So the DNA neither excludes nor includes Madeleine being a donor, but the odds are such that either with or without family contamination, Madeliene's DNA pattern is quite likely to be identified as a potential match even if none of her DNA were actually present.
This causes problems for both sides- as the FSS said, it is not in any manner adequate to place before a court as evidence that Madeleine was there in the Scenic, but equally it is not proof that she was not there.
If you read the above and understand it, and then read the FSS letters, the letters then make quite clear sense.

Both sides?

Are there only two?

In real life, there are many positions in-between polarised extremes.

T4two wrote:I do not understand this discussion concerning body fluids found in the hire car and the relevant DNA analysis reports by the FSS? According to Kate McCann's recent testimony to the Leveson inquiry, no body fluids were found in the hire car. Is it possible that Kate McCann was not telling the truth?

Stuart Prior in his report said that a swab was received for analysis from that position. He states that it was not possible to determine whether it was from body fluids or not. Swabs are often taken by using damp sterile swabs- if they do not pick up cells for visual identification, then it is not possible to tell if they were from body fluids or from dry samples made damp by the swab or other irrigation.

tigger wrote:Anna Esse wrote: quoteThat study sounds fascinating, tigger. The mtDNA haplotypes are my particular area of interest, how those have helped trace the movements of people across the continents and how ancestral heritage can be traced through just 7 lines.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
unquote.

Yes, the seven daughters of Eve. The estimated human population 70.000 yrs ago is only about 10.000 after the explosion of the super volcano Toba.
Incidentally, the genome project is very much downplayed because it didn't supply enough genes to explain all life. Now we have epi genetics. Google Bruce Lipton on this, v. interesting. Also v. good BBC horizon documentary - it's on youtube.

To get back on topic: of course we also have the haplotypes mtDNA of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat in one location in Burgau, I believe. Now that is never enough to convict but is a pointer that they were acquainted.

It is not an indication that they were acquainted, it is an indication that somewhere in the dark European past they shared a maternal grandmother.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Well, being one of those who sleeps during the night-time hours, it took a heck of a long time to read the flood of Posts since about 22.30 yesterday.

Couldn't find any answers at all to any of my On Topic posts, but at least the debate about the dogs (Conclusion? Same old) appears to have been augmented by re-visiting the lack of anything (Evidential, circumstantial or even purely hypothetical) to support Abduction.

One thing I don't understand is why those who claim to be fence-sitters confine their contribution to repeating over and over and over again their view that (essentially) there is no Evidence of anything. I far prefer people to be open-minded (as most are here) and to actually chew things over.

Also, Forums don't make decisions (as I noted one person seems to think that is the aim) but do a democratically and morally necessary job of keeping the unexplained disappearance of Madeleine McCann in the public eye. I do get the impression that some would rather have the affair swept under the carpet and forgotten. Why, I cannot imagine.

I am totally open minded. I am one of the few posters to have said consistently that any outcome between murder by the parents to abduction by a stranger is a possibility. Pro forums say that Murder or other homicide by the parents is unthinkable and undebatable, Anti forums say that any possibility of abduction is unthinkable and undebatable. Neither position is open minded.

Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.


Nothing is undebatable and, in the specific case of abduction, a huge amount of debate has taken place and continues to do so.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

If it's at all necessary to form opinions of others then that is a matter of individual interpretation. For my own part, sometimes I agree with A.N.Other Member, sometimes I don't - and vice versa. That's what open-minded debate is about.

I feel sure that you can form your own views, should you wish - but it would be nice if the polarisation into Pro and Anti can be set aside. It is irrelevant. Well, irrelevant to me anyway - I should have thought all open-minded people would think something similar.

im not a anti or a pro about gerry or kate im pro maddie!! she is what matters not them they are adults she wasa innocent chilld!!!

The DNA was contaminated because cleaning fluid was used therefore, as mr amaral has stated, but they STILL managed to get a partial match..


If I remember luminol was used on the floor and wall and there is a picture somewhere at just how much blood there was...splatters over the wall.



Still no answer on my....who's body lay in apt 5a and how did KM get cadaver scent on her clothes and also the red t shirt....

kitti wrote:The DNA was contaminated because cleaning fluid was used therefore, as mr amaral has stated, but they STILL managed to get a partial match..


If I remember luminol was used on the floor and wall and there is a picture somewhere at just how much blood there was...splatters over the wall.



Still no answer on my....who's body lay in apt 5a and how did KM get cadaver scent on her clothes and also the red t shirt....

Not my explanation above about what the 'partial match' means in reality. I was not aware that cleaning fluid was used in the Scenic- where did you get that information?

kitti wrote:The DNA was contaminated because cleaning fluid was used therefore, as mr amaral has stated, but they STILL managed to get a partial match..


If I remember luminol was used on the floor and wall and there is a picture somewhere at just how much blood there was...splatters over the wall.



Still no answer on my....who's body lay in apt 5a and how did KM get cadaver scent on her clothes and also the red t shirt....

I have no idea who's body (if any) lay in Apt 5a or how the dogs indicated cadaver scent on Kate McCann's clothes. Such problems (along with the DNA problem above) explain why the case is remaining intractable. It will be interesting to see the Met Police findings!

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

In what way, exactly, is this "abuse"?

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

That's not abuse. How would any of us be able to point out those posters? Even if we could, I for one, would not want to. You could ask the question for people to tell you themselves whether they believe Madeleine was abducted by strangers or not. Between abduction by strangers and homicide, there is probably a very wide spectrum of opinion amongst our members.

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

In what way, exactly, is this "abuse"?

Sarcasm- "I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed."

All I have said is that I visit sites like this and find them lacking in people that give credence to an abduction and I visit sites that claim to support the McCann family but they deny credence to a homicide. Not pigeon holing- just observing the truth of the matter- the sites split into pro and anti, any site that tried to take a middle path died through rudeness and inability of each side to accept the arguments of the other side.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

That's not abuse. How would any of us be able to point out those posters? Even if we could, I for one, would not want to. You could ask the question for people to tell you themselves whether they believe Madeleine was abducted by strangers or not. Between abduction by strangers and homicide, there is probably a very wide spectrum of opinion amongst our members.

Thank you for the suggestion. I will do that.

good morning jodel, just got one question
for you if you would like to provide your
insight?
What store do you hold with the use of
highly circumstancial evidence when bringing
together a case before the courts?
I'm alluding to such things as behaviours,
statements, friendly witnesses, dogs, etc;

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

In what way, exactly, is this "abuse"?

Sarcasm- "I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed."

All I have said is that I visit sites like this and find them lacking in people that give credence to an abduction and I visit sites that claim to support the McCann family but they deny credence to a homicide. Not pigeon holing- just observing the truth of the matter- the sites split into pro and anti, any site that tried to take a middle path died through rudeness and inability of each side to accept the arguments of the other side.

And your point is? You have joined this forum to tell us that? I'd give some credence to an abduction having taken place if just one person came along and gave me some good reasons how it could have been done, without there being any evidence left behind.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

In what way, exactly, is this "abuse"?

Sarcasm- "I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed."

All I have said is that I visit sites like this and find them lacking in people that give credence to an abduction and I visit sites that claim to support the McCann family but they deny credence to a homicide. Not pigeon holing- just observing the truth of the matter- the sites split into pro and anti, any site that tried to take a middle path died through rudeness and inability of each side to accept the arguments of the other side.

I find it to be a regular occurrence that most who 'visit' sites like this tend to support the McCann family and generally seem hell bent on causing disruptions on posts

The met will come to the conclusion They are told to come to.....