Re: What is a pro or an anti?

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 11:45

[quote="Chris"]

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

It is just interesting how the sites used by each camp have very similar methods of dealing with people who steer a middle way.

What's the middle way in this case? On the one hand there is a claim there was an abduction, on the other a claim something more untoward happened. What is in the middle that you believe?

That considering all the evidence it is impossible to make up ones mind about what did happen. That is what the Portuguese Prosecutor and the Portuguese legal system decided. We await the Met's answer.

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 11:45

kitti wrote:Jodel a poll was already done ....go Look for yourself.

Where, when?

chrissie Thu 19 Jan - 11:47

jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:Jodel a poll was already done ....go Look for yourself.

Where, when?

Why don't you search?

**kitti** Thu 19 Jan - 11:47

Where is the Evidence off abduction?

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 11:47

The End Is Nigh wrote:I just don't agree with you.

Simply repeating the rather meaningless words (in the context of rational debate) Pro and Anti does not somehow render such polarisation valid.

You claim to be neither Pro nor Anti, so why is nobody else allowed to hold that same superficially sensible view?

They are welcome to hold that view, and to express it in my suppressed poll. So far iy is 4 people either believing or tending to the McCanns as killers and me in the middle. More votes are more than welcome.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 19 Jan - 11:47

jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:Jodel a poll was already done ....go Look for yourself.

Where, when?

Fer feck sake go look! Try the search window at the top of the page.

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 11:47

kitti wrote:Where is the Evidence off abduction?

Where is the evidence of homicide?

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 11:48

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:Jodel a poll was already done ....go Look for yourself.

Where, when?

Fer feck sake go look! Try the search window at the top of the page.

There's rude again.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 19 Jan - 11:49

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:Jodel a poll was already done ....go Look for yourself.

Where, when?

Fer feck sake go look! Try the search window at the top of the page.

There's rude again.

Rude? You ain't seen nuffin' yet if you carry on with your victimhood and attention-seeking behaviour!

**malena stool** Thu 19 Jan - 11:52

jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:Where is the Evidence off abduction?

Where is the evidence of homicide?

Blood, Cadaverine, DNA in the back of the hire car, Parental reluctance to search, all potential indications don't you think?

**kitti** Thu 19 Jan - 11:54

Heshe is letting the pro cap slip ......

Heshe isn't s fence sitter.....no such thing now.....you either believe the mccanns...or you don't.

And I don't.

**margaret** Thu 19 Jan - 11:57

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:Jodel a poll was already done ....go Look for yourself.

Where, when?

Fer feck sake go look! Try the search window at the top of the page.

There's rude again.

It's either 'That's rude' or There's rudeness'

Learn some English ffs.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. What is a pro or an anti? - Page 14 258354

**kitti** Thu 19 Jan - 12:00

Good idea moving heshe to announcements ......heshe is waiting for replies lol

**Angelina** Thu 19 Jan - 12:00

What is the point of this thread? What is a pro or an anti? - Page 14 680495

amber Thu 19 Jan - 12:25

AnnaEsse wrote:What is a pro or an anti?

Anyone? Any more ideas on the topic?

I dont know what I am I just know I do not like liars.

The Monday after little Madeleine vanished I left my home to walk for the bus. I paced my steps and counted to 50, I doubt I actually measured a full 50 yards, I did this because Gerry said it was 50 yards and just like dining in your garden and I wanted to see how far it looked.
I turned round and I was amazed how far away my door was. I thought that man is a liar.

Later I saw the maps and the photographs showing the swimming pool and bushes and buildings between the flat where they stayed and the bar where they 'fine dined'. I also learnt that the babies bedroom was on the farside of the building I thought that man is a liar.

After learning the fiasco of the shutters I knew that man was a liar

If he could spend time making up lies instead of searching for his daughter I realised I couldn't believe a thing that man said

As I say I do not like liars and I have never believed a thing either of them have said since, I'm probably not a pro.

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 12:44

margaret wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
kitti wrote:Jodel a poll was already done ....go Look for yourself.

Where, when?

Fer feck sake go look! Try the search window at the top of the page.

There's rude again.

It's either 'That's rude' or There's rudeness'

Learn some English ffs.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

There's rude again.

Learn English as spoken in South Wales. Try and get out a bit more.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 19 Jan - 12:45

jodel wrote:
margaret wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:

Where, when?

Fer feck sake go look! Try the search window at the top of the page.

There's rude again.

It's either 'That's rude' or There's rudeness'

Learn some English ffs.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

There's rude again.

Learn English as spoken in South Wales. Try and get out a bit more.

Who's in South Wales?

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 12:49

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
margaret wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

Fer feck sake go look! Try the search window at the top of the page.

There's rude again.

It's either 'That's rude' or There's rudeness'

Learn some English ffs.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

There's rude again.

Learn English as spoken in South Wales. Try and get out a bit more.

Who's in South Wales?

Many Welsh people. Some of us travel you know- broaden horizons etc..

**AnnaEsse** Thu 19 Jan - 12:51

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
margaret wrote:
jodel wrote:

There's rude again.

It's either 'That's rude' or There's rudeness'

Learn some English ffs.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

There's rude again.

Learn English as spoken in South Wales. Try and get out a bit more.

Who's in South Wales?

Many Welsh people. Some of us travel you know- broaden horizons etc..

Well, I know where your IP address places you.

ELI Thu 19 Jan - 12:52

jodel wrote: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.

“Now the question is, how likely are there to be fifteen possible matches for Madeleine's DNA.”

Answer – it’s impossible.

“ 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.”

It’s misleading to suggest that there is 50/50 chance of anyone else from the N European community having the same genetic profile as a known contributor to that sample.

It’s misleading to suggest that someone could have contributed to that sample when that someone was known not to have been in the hired vehicle.

It’s also misleading to suggest someone could have contributed to that sample when their DNA profiles are on a data base specifically for the purpose of eliminating them as contributors.

bbl

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 12:53

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
margaret wrote:

It's either 'That's rude' or There's rudeness'

Learn some English ffs.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

There's rude again.

Learn English as spoken in South Wales. Try and get out a bit more.

Who's in South Wales?

Many Welsh people. Some of us travel you know- broaden horizons etc..

Well, I know where your IP address places you.

I know that, but you cannot hear an accent on the internet.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 19 Jan - 12:55

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:

There's rude again.

Learn English as spoken in South Wales. Try and get out a bit more.

Who's in South Wales?

Many Welsh people. Some of us travel you know- broaden horizons etc..

Well, I know where your IP address places you.

I know that, but you cannot hear an accent on the internet.

Ah wiz brung up in a far northern flung bit, but speak ordinary English on notice boards, jist tae make sure Ah dinnae git labelled a right scunner.

ETA: and 'there's rude,' is not accent!

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 13:00

[quote="ELI"]

jodel wrote:

“Now the question is, how likely are there to be fifteen possible matches for Madeleine's DNA.”

You are perming 15 out of between 37 and 100 depending on the model

Answer – it’s impossible.

“ 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.”

It’s misleading to suggest that there is 50/50 chance of anyone else from the N European community having the same genetic profile as a known contributor to that sample.

It’s misleading to suggest that someone could have contributed to that sample when that someone was known not to have been in the hired vehicle.

Agreed, but components of their DNA could be insofar as it was shared with others in their kin group (northern Europeans) or their family.

It’s also misleading to suggest someone could have contributed to that sample when their DNA profiles are on a data base specifically for the purpose of eliminating them as contributors.

But if the family did contribute, a match for LCN is almost certain- remember LCN does not identify a whole marker but only sub-strands that match- the whole family only have 2 possible markers in each position

bbl

If you understand what I have posted, everything the FSS said falls into place.

jodel Thu 19 Jan - 13:02

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

Who's in South Wales?

Many Welsh people. Some of us travel you know- broaden horizons etc..

Well, I know where your IP address places you.

I know that, but you cannot hear an accent on the internet.

Ah wiz brung up in a far northern flung bit, but speak ordinary English on notice boards, jist tae make sure Ah dinnae git labelled a right scunner.

ETA: and 'there's rude,' is not accent!

It is dialect and when said in a Welsh accent sounds natural- see Gavin and Stacy and Stella.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 19 Jan - 13:03

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:

Many Welsh people. Some of us travel you know- broaden horizons etc..

Well, I know where your IP address places you.

I know that, but you cannot hear an accent on the internet.

Ah wiz brung up in a far northern flung bit, but speak ordinary English on notice boards, jist tae make sure Ah dinnae git labelled a right scunner.

ETA: and 'there's rude,' is not accent!

It is dialect and when said in a Welsh accent sounds natural- see Gavin and Stacy and Stella.

Of course it's bleedin' dialect! That's pretty obvious!

Have you heard that the Pope's a Catholic?

Sponsored content