We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
NETFLIX : Madeleine Mccann
|
By:
What's a Lcfc outside of Leicester?
|
|
By:
Yeah, obviously he still tries to get the best prices on the birchmeisters sels the morning after.
|
|
By:
Do you mean lfc1971?
|
|
By:
He's quality he is, still taking some good fish on breadcrust when everyone else moved onto dog biscuits.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
He's yet to engage with this particular thread.
|
|
By:
As have I.
|
|
By:
Then I'll give you a heads up..engage with shrewd and scandanavian..especially if you like going round in circles.
|
|
By:
Tonite I have mostly been trying to decipher the art of Kit Williams.
|
|
By:
Anyway, I've gone on a strange tangent and now bid thee goodnight.
|
|
By:
Tommy just texted he said that Mahatma Gandh was a right ****...
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
This is a ridiculous tale of deception and they still keep on getting funded to go look for her ??? The mind boggles.
I refuse to get involved in any further debate about this matter as the poor girl is long gone from this world and should be allowed to rest in piece. There is without doubt a tragic tale to tell here but it is now most unlikely we will ever get a full disclosure of the truth |
|
By:
said it befoe, but if you laid out all the facts,tittle,tattle about this case,their friends, inner circle, and put it next to their theory of not a single shread of evidence, you,d have to be the thickest,dumbest.most stupid person ever to step foot on this earth if you didn't think the tapas 7 are in some form of conspiracy over her disappearance , END OF
|
|
By:
Tober, I'm not actually bothered about him turning off the comments. In fact he was allowing comments on each video, only to disable it after a couple of weeks.
oh that's all right then, as long you're not bothered that's ok  I think it clerly indicated he does not want to be challenged, so nieve people like you can swallow up everything he said lol. Given the fact that you cannot debate anything without throwing tantrums, I don't see why anyone should take you seriously, every single point I've made is countering the points you've made and done so with reasoning, to add some balance, if you don't like being challenged you shouldn't post. |
|
By:
*naive
|
|
By:
*clearly
|
|
By:
have Scotland Yard been allocated the funds yet? It's all gone quiet over there
|
|
By:
The reason this case attracts so much interest is twofold.
1) it's been kept in the press all these years 2) the many unanswered questions and holes in the official story. Just to say you don't need a body to prove a murder. That's a myth. My own theory which could well be utter nonsense is: It's not uncommon for people to drug their kids to make them sleep. K&G are medics so easier for them. The twins I believed cried the previous night and complained to K that she didn't come sooner. M may have died from an overdose or stumbled and hit her head. K&G decided to cover up the tragedy to stay out of jail, keep the twins together and maintain their careers. The more sinister theory is some sort of paedo ring operated in the area which K&G were party to. |
|
By:
Strange case. I have always struggled with how they could have got rid of the body. One thing for sure though from day one their main priority was to protect their own ar$es.
|
|
By:
the fact you think their covering their arris means getting rid of the body is only a problem if you believe the chain of events as given by those involved,all could have happened earlier
|
|
By:
1tp - as you most probably know, the first and main photo given to the press here and in Portugal was of M before the holiday.
The theory goes that she went missing/died earlier in the week, hence the lack of photos.. |
|
By:
I refuse to get involved in any further debate about this matter as the poor girl is long gone from this world and should be allowed to rest in piece.
speculating about dead kids is bad, however speculating about dead adults is good |
|
By:
MIDDLE class parents leave kids alone whilst going to a TAPAS Bar and there child goes missing..
CHANGE TWO WORDS TO THE ABOVE SENTENCE. WORKING class parents leave kids alone whilst going to a PUB and there child goes missing.... 1.01 That one of those families get sentenced for child neglect and has there kids taken into care.. Guess which one |
|
By:
F uckin lowlife trolls everywhere,burn baby burn
 |
|
By:
Million of kids go missing every year,many turn up but many don't,who knows where these poor young souls go? So why did Gordon Brown(then PM),the secret service of the UK and others get involved ? Different names but high powered people still involved today in the disappearance of one small girl yet nobody cares less about all the other missing kids, WHY?
|
|
By:
Pull the other one,its YouTube Google etc who disable the comments not people like Rich Hall
|
|
By:
I may have, but I couldn't quote it. Didn't I answer this earlier? Asking you to point me in the right direction. So let me get this right. You're not sure if you have read the DNA report but can say that Madeleines blood was found but that the people who did the DNA analysis of the blood found misrepresented the results? I think you've very much proven the tin foil hat wearers point. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
To the DNA report? I'm not wasting my time giving you a link to a source you are attempting to rely on.
The way it works is if you try to state something as a fact then you usually have a source. You don't then ask someone to provide a link to the source you are attempting to rely on unless you are someone who gets their information from Youtube videos. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Dude would you like to answer my question as to why from my 11.58 post?
|
|
By:
Quite clearly you have never read this report and you are not capable of using google to find it.
Presumably that's because if you did it wouldn't fit in with the youtube videos you have watched. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Dude would you like to answer my question as to why from my 11.58 post?
No. I don't think I can. I doubt anybody could. |
|
By:
Allin has insulted people, presented some youtube detective in a beany hat and dark sun glasses, failed to answer simple questions, thrown his toys out the pram when his opinions are countered, then finishes it off by telling you to be quiet lol - he likes nobody to be challenged, which is also why he is not bothered about a so called factual documentary not being allowed to be challenged.
You've offered nothing other than the same old peddled theories whilst throwing a strop, bring something new to the table. |
|
By:
Background
We all have 2 copies of every gene/stretch of DNA – 1 inherited maternally, the other paternally. At some genetic sites, there are short, repetitive motifs called markers. Each marker will contain a variable number of repeated motifs. In diagrammatic form, a marker pair at any one site, could be represented like this, where the letters, ACGT, are the 4 bases which make up DNA (AAGTC is an arbitrary motif); Maternally inherited marker AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC| 8 Paternally inherited marker AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC| 4 So, at this marker site, the repeat pair values would be read as 8,4 This would be shown as 2 peaks on a readout, at that site with relative heights on a compter-generated graph as 8 and 4. A second site could be represented as follows (where CCGTCTA is an arbitrary motif); Maternally inherited marker CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| 9 Paternally inherited marker CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| 5 So, at this second site, the computer readout would be 9,5 As you can see, the exact sequence of the DNA is irrelevant. It is just the number of motif repeats that is of significance. Therefore, any reference to a small chance of errors occurring during amplification of the DNA ie bulking up Low Copy Number (LCN) by copying a small amount of starting material, is irrelevant. The actual DNA code (ACGT) is of no interest, as long as the repeats of varying lengths, are present. Even if say a C is erroneously copied as an A, G or T (which is how errors can occur with individual letters) it does not affect the validity of this technique. It is akin to spelling the word “THERE” of 5 letters long and erroneously transcribing it as “THEIR”. The second spelling has a different meaning but all we are looking at here, is, how long is the word and how many times is it repeated? We don’t care about the meaning for this kind of analysis. Creating profiles using the technique Because the number of repeats each of us has at each of these sites is random, we can produce a unique profile, in terms of pairs of repeat values, over several sites. If we were to look at 10 sites, with 2 values at each site, we will have 20 values, in pairs and that is an important thing to bear in mind. The power of the technique in terms of producing UNIQUE profiles is that we are not looking at 20 random sites giving 20 random values, but 10 pairs of values at 10 sites. As touched on earlier, the computers that produce the data, do so by giving “peak heights” according to the length of the repeat. So a repeat length of 2, has a peak height of 2 units, a repeat value of 3, a peak height of 3 units etc., etc. These are the peaks referred to by Lowe. The table below shows the way a unique profile of a child would be inherited from a given set of parental markers. The full set of 20 markers, in terms of 10 pairs of 2 values can be called the inherited genotype or genetic profile. In the table below, the values I’ve listed at line “possible inherited marker sets at each site (child)”, are derived by combining each maternal value and with each paternal value in turn, resulting in 4 possible combinations. I have used arbitrary numbers for illustrative purposes. NB at marker site no.8, I’ve shown how, if both parents possess the same number of repeats at a given site, there will be a 1 in 4 chance that a child could inherit the same number twice. A child inheriting the same number of repeats from both parents, in this case 9, will produce a profile that appears with only one peak at that site and in this example, it will have a height of 9 units. Cf the Lowe report where he explains that the DNA from the Rothley pillowcase (Madeleine’s control sample) yielded an apparent complete profile of 19 markers, not 20, because at one site, there was an inheritance of the same number of repeats from both Kate and Gerry. In fact, there would have been 2 peaks, superimposed on each other so appear as 1. Therefore, when Lowe says there were 19 markers this should strictly be described as 20 but 19 in terms of peaks. Marker Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maternal repeat lengths (Maternal genotype) 8,4 5,9 6,8 3,7 5,6 8,4 4,7 9,4 3,8 5,4 Paternal repeat lengths (paternal genotype) 7,9 4,3 9,3 6,4 8,9 5,5 3,8 9,3 7,6 3,7 Possible inherited marker sets at each site (child) 8,7 8,9 4,7 4,9 5,4 5,3 9,4 9,3 6,9 6,3 8,9 8,3 3,6 3,4 7,6 7,4 5,8 5,9 6,8 6,9 8,5 8,5 4,5 4,5 4,3 4,8 7,3 7,8 9,9 9,3 4,9 4,3 3,7 3,6 8,7 6,8 5,3 5,7 4,3 4,7 Looking at the above, to produce a unique genetic profile for an offspring during reproduction, we randomly take 1 set of marker values (of the 4 we have to choose from) at each site. I’ve randomly taken one marker set at each site to produce an example of a profile shown below. It can then be seen that if we were to analyse these marker sets, we would get 2 peaks at each site on a readout, except site no. 8 in my example below, because of the inheritance pattern explained earlier. The probability of inheriting any one marker pair from a possibility of 4 options shown in the table above, is 1 in 4 or 0.25 Randomly inherited profile 4,7 9,3 6,9 3,4 6,8 4,5 4,8 9,9 8,6 5,7 Probability of inheriting that particular marker pair 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 What is the probability that the crime scene DNA described as having a 15/19 marker match did or did not come from Madeleine? The probability of inheritance of any single full genotype at all 10 sites, from one set of parents = 0.25 multiplied by 0.25, 10 times, so (0.25)10 = 0.00000095 which is just over 1 million to 1. Therefore, there are just over 1 million permutations of inheritance of 10 pairs of markers from any 2 parents. It’s a very powerful technique because we look at marker PAIR values. Lowe says that we all share these repeats and if you were to look at any one person’s DNA, you would find a selection of these numbers. That is true, but the chances of any value represented along with its paired value at any single site is not at all likely. As you can see, even inheriting the same pair values at one site among siblings is a 1 in 4 chance. Looking at the population as a whole, variation in repeat values at each site is much larger. According to Lowe, the profile of the crime scene DNA yielded 15 markers that were identical to that of Madeleine’s pillowcase DNA. He says 15/19 because 4 markers were missing due to the DNA being degraded. Because the analysis is done as pair values at each site and you can’t have half a site nor half a pair value, it should be 16/20. The pillowcase DNA did have 20 markers which looked like only 19 as described above. If you look along the profile in the table above, reading from site 1 to 8, you will see that in fact, by column 8, you have 16 markers even though 2 are identical. In this case, the probability of inheriting those same 8 pairs of markers at those sites from the same parents is (0.25)8= 0.000015 or 66.66 thousand to 1 chance. What is the probability that a random stranger, not related to Madeleine, deposited DNA with those exact same 16 marker pairs over the 8 sites with a complete match to Madeleine? Many million to 1. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Well that's fair enough,we will never know the truth,the whole thing is a cover up.
|