NETFLIX : Madeleine Mccann

Once you've giveñ the examples to back up your claims, I think it's about time I ask you a question.

What evidence is there that Madeline did not die in that apartment?

Why does SH post a c&p of some psychological explanation of conspiracy theorists, referencing 9/11 etc in the middle of a thread about the Mccanns

So people who doubt the solution to the mystery that has zero evidence to support it - abduction -  are nutters

Mar 18, 2019 -- 1:52AM, tobermory wrote:

Why does SH post a c&p of some psychological explanation of conspiracy theorists, referencing 9/11 etc in the middle of a thread about the Mccanns So people who doubt the solution to the mystery that has zero evidence to support it - abduction -  are nutters

i gave up reading his posts.
Apparently no body = no death. What a world we would love in if the law worked this way.

Apparently no body = no death

you've already been told nobody said this, the fact you're now bare faced lying further discredits anything you say. Unless you want to go and find the post where I said that, what I said was the nobody will ever know unless a body is found. These kind of knock and run tactics in a debate is childish but we've come to  expect it from you.

tober the psychological explanation is conspiracists is obviously relevant, because they are not just doubting an event, they are insisting something happend with zero conclusive evidence, they want to believe what they're sating.

Not  at all, and given what you and shrewd have come out with, believe me when i say that you saying I am discredited is ignored based on the crap you have written here.
Your BS unfounded allegations against Amaral, which was straight out of the Sun further confirms that you are a waste of time.

You have certainly implied that no body means she's unlikely to have died in that apartment, when all the evidence and the belief of the Portuguese police (who know much more than us) suggest that is what happened.

Believe me when I say the only person discredited here is you..and the very fact that you think her death is a conspiracy, when all the evidence supports this theory further discredits you.

Hopefully you can do some research away from the sun and actually find some evidence to support your beliefs.

Either way, you are a waste of time, and very very childish.

lol it's obvious that you are just a petty troll who is more interested in scoring cheap points and trying to get one over people rather than actually talking about the point in hand, you said that I said that if there was no body then there was no abduction and you said that twice, I never did say that and not only did I explain what I said you then repeated the lie, and still can't go and quote me where I said it, what is the point in debating with someone of your type when you do juvenile things like that, so who or what you discredit is completely irrelevant.

Goncarlo Amaral said that a body had been buried in a coffin and burnt yet he cannot prove it, why do you think he was thrown off of the case, he was damaging the investigation and the fact he made a lot of money from a missing child speaks volumns about the sort of character he is and what he is really interested in.

Again, disagree and I've had to respond alot to yourself and Shrewd, and feel I've done very well despite not being àn expert.

It's been explained to you the reason Amaral was taken off the case, for political reasons because he would not deviate away from the evidence!

You have certainly implied that no body means death is inconclusive despite all the evidence and absolutely 0 evidence of an abduction, and what I'm telling you that this is not only wrong, but it is not how the law works.

You seem to think that calling me childish, for trying to refute what you say is a good way forward. If I was you, I'd read the thread and see who is the childish one.

What makes you think that you know more than the Portuguese Police? What evidence have you supplied that she was abducted (seeing as death and abduction are the only plausible possibilities)?

What evidence do you have that Amaral theory that the body wasn't cremated? Given that the body has not been found, is incorrect?

My understanding is that the McCanns had access to a church, where a cremation took place, and given that there is no evidence of abduction and no body, he has tried to offer an explanation as to what happened to the body based on the evidence available to him.

The Portuguese Police have shelved the case due to involvement of the British Government/services, their belief is that she likely died in that apartment because that's what all the evidence says!

So it is quite amusing that you seem to think that it's a conspiracy that she died in the apartment, when the conspiracy theory is that she was abducted.

The reason why this is the conspiracy is because there is ZERO evidence she was abducted.

Amaral lost his job, his family because he wouldn't sell out, he was attacked by the British media for doing his job, and you think publishing a book to essentially share the evidence of the case which the McCanns spent alot trying to hide means he was out for money!!

Funny thing is the McCans have made many millions from donations and a book themselves!!, yet you seem to have no issue with this.

You are justify not worth it.

Firstly - let's look at how quickly you shift the goal posts

AllinR1
Apparently no body = no death

Then

AllinR1
You have certainly implied that no body means she's unlikely to have died in that apartment, when all the evidence and the belief of the Portuguese police (who know much more than us) suggest that is what happened.



So you've quickly went  from saying that I said there was no body so no death to that I implied that no body means she's unlikely to have died in that apartment



Let's look at what I actually said.

scandanavian_haven 17 Mar 19 00:26
The truth of the matter is this, until there is a body found, everything else will just be either circumstantial or inconclusive, there is no hard evidence whatsoever.

scandanavian_haven 17 Mar 19 16:24
I don't remember saying that she did not die there, I haven't got a clue whether she is dead or alive and if she is dead where she died, what I've said is that unless a body is found, nobody will ever really know what happened, there is nothing conclusive.

No mention whatsoever that I said conclusively there was no body no death OR that I said it was unlikely she died there because there was no body, there above you can clearly see I said nobody knows either way and I haven't called it either way.

Mar 18, 2019 -- 12:59PM, scandanavian_haven wrote:

Firstly - let's look at how quickly you shift the goal postsAllinR1Apparently no body = no deathThenAllinR1You have certainly implied that no body means she's unlikely to have died in that apartment, when all the evidence and the belief of the Portuguese police (who know much more than us) suggest that is what happened.So you've quickly went  from saying that I said there was no body so no death to that I implied that no body means she's unlikely to have died in that apartmentLet's look at what I actually said.scandanavian_haven 17 Mar 19 00:26 The truth of the matter is this, until there is a body found, everything else will just be either circumstantial or inconclusive, there is no hard evidence whatsoever.scandanavian_haven 17 Mar 19 16:24I don't remember saying that she did not die there, I haven't got a clue whether she is dead or alive and if she is dead where she died, what I've said is that unless a body is found, nobody will ever really know what happened, there is nothing conclusive.No mention whatsoever that I said conclusively there was no body no death OR that I said it was unlikely she died there because there was no body, there above you can clearly see I said nobody knows either way and I haven't called it either way.

I'm willing to accept that, however this goes back to the main point that if everyone took your opinion then nobody would ever be charged with murder! You have discredited Amaral and the Portuguese police, you have tried to discredit Martin Grimes and his 200/200 dogs

So please answer, how can anybody be charged with murder/manslaughter if the body isn't found? Correct me if I am wrong but you are essentially saying that as long as the body hasn't been found then no one can be found guilty of murder.

In this case there is plenty of evidence that she died in that apartment and ZERO evidence she didn't (correct me if I'm wrong)..

So you say that no body means she was unlikely to have died there? Really? And you are using this statement to defend yourself?

So you are claiming that it is LIKELY she didn't die in the apartment!! Despite the evidence!

Please provide evidence, apart from your opinion that it is unlikely she died in that apartment.

Please provide evidence that she may have been abducted, or is this just a conspiracy theory of yours?

Where did I say that nobody can be charged with murder/manslaughter if no body is found? we all know that people have been, what I said was, for umpteenth time, is that given the fact there is no body in this case, nobody will ever really know what happened, there is nothing conclusive to convict them beyond all doubt.

A dog barking can be used in court but it's not going to be enough, children bleed. The fact that it was a rented apartment with many having gone before them who could have had access to the flat using a cut key leaving no sign of a break in


So you say that no body means she was unlikely to have died there? Really? And you are using this statement to defend yourself?


Did you not read my last post where I literally just quoted myself, where I said nothing of the sort. So not only have you made something up, not only have you repeated it, not only have I disproved it, but you then repeat it again.

Have a day off

a month would be better

Lol I have not made anything up.. how often do you think people get away with murder/manslaughter when the body hasn't been found?

Again, you suggest that there is an alternative to her having died in that apartment, despite all the evidence suggesting she did.

I'll happily have a month off once you provide any evidence to any theory other than that she died in the apartment! Which I have asked for a few times!

Playing around with words doesn't detract away from the fact you have provided no evidence to support any other possibility!

Cool, so apart from saying Amaral is disgraced for doing his job, for claiming Grimes dogs could have smelled pigs, implying the smell of cadaver transferred from work clothes to holiday clothes,do you have any evidence?

I'm looking forward to this....

Scrap fist paragraph..meant to ask how do you think people get convicted without a body, as I'm sure you know, it happens.

Latest short video from Bogart:

https://youtu.be/M6LmowPPpUA

So Madeleine crept behind the sofa (must have had a serious wound that neither parent noticed/reported), and her blood dripped under the tiles behind this sofa (no blood found on it, so it either all dripped down! or someone cleaned the blood on the tiles behind the sofa). 19/19 markers, so 100% her blood. At this exact spot, Eddie detected cadaver (amazingly bad coincidence)

For Shrewd_dude. 15/19 markers of the DNA/Blood found in the boot of the hire car (after her disappearance) matched Madeleines, which to the USA/FBI would be a match.

I watched all of this Netflix thing now and it is shyte

I've googled the nextflix series Toner,and it just sounds like it would be painful to watch (unless you knew nothing about the case).

Surely there are some facts/information worth knowing?

*tober

For Shrewd_dude. 15/19 markers of the DNA/Blood found in the boot of the hire car (after her disappearance) matched Madeleines, which to the USA/FBI would be a match.

So if I get a mixture of a 1000's people's blood and 15 components within that are the same as 15 of the components in your blood then you think the FBI would conclude it is your blood?

John Lowe said
"In my opinion ... this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation or inclusion."

What would he know though? He's only the DNA expert who carried out the DNA analysis.

Mar 22, 2019 -- 10:29PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

For Shrewd_dude. 15/19 markers of the DNA/Blood found in the boot of the hire car (after her disappearance) matched Madeleines, which to the USA/FBI would be a match. So if I get a mixture of a 1000's people's blood and 15 components within that are the same as 15 of the components in your blood then you think the FBI would conclude it is your blood? John Lowe said"In my opinion ... this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation or inclusion."What would he know though? He's only the DNA expert who carried out the DNA analysis.

I'm far from an expert, but I don't think it works that way. I'd be quite confident in saying that it is millions to one that it isn't McCann blood. We also need to take into account that Eddie detected cadaver in the boot too.

In your example you are talking of 1000 people blood. Why on earth would there be (anywhere near) that amount of different peoples blood in a car boot? Especially when it is specs we are talking about.

I only found out today about the Netflix series and wondered why the CCDA never discussed this. Then it hit me. The thread with the Netflix title that I always ignored. Jesus. I may have to watch this stupid series at some point next week. Not because I like documentaries. But only so I can read and understand the CCDA investigations and opinions on this thread.

Far from an expert? Quite clearly. Not an expert in something then why not rely on the opinion of the actual DNA expert who did the analysis.

I'm clearly not saying saying their was a 1000 people's blood there. But the DNA found was a dna mixture which means it came from more than one person. So they can't even say whether all 15 components come from the same contributer. That's why they were unable to draw a meaningful conclusion that it was actually her blood.

You on the other hand are saying that if a sample has 15 of 19 components from a particular person regardless of how many contributors there are that the FBI would consider that as conclusive proof that it was from that person.

Mar 22, 2019 -- 10:44PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Far from an expert? Quite clearly. Not an expert in something then why not rely on the opinion of the actual DNA expert who did the analysis.I'm clearly not saying saying their was a 1000 people's blood there. But the DNA found was a dna mixture which means it came from more than one person. So they can't even say whether all 15 components come from the same contributer. That's why they were unable to draw a meaningful conclusion that it was actually her blood. You on the other hand are saying that if a sample has 15 of 19 components from a particular person regardless of how many contributors there are that the FBI would consider that as conclusive proof that it was from that person.

Shrewd I am not an expert and clearly, neither are you.

If I recall, the blood matches DNA from the McCanns. If you could supply me with a source that says the blood (in the boot) was or was partially from anyone else, then I can educate myself.

At risk of sounding silly (without a source), my understanding was that the DNA partially matched Gerry and Kate (Madeleine's DNA is 50% of each so makes sense), which was why your expert stated it could come from more than one person (ie all five of the McCanns).

If you can educate me that the blood could be non McCann, then it will give me food for thought.

He cant

Read the DNA report ffs.

If you could supply me with a source that says the blood (in the boot) was or was partially from anyone else, then I can educate myself.

I never said this. Again this is a complete misunderstanding of DNA. They may have taken the sample from blood but in a DNA mixture that doesn't mean all contributions are from blood. It could be sweat, skin particles, Semen etc.

you can educate me that the blood could be non McCann, then it will give me food for thought.

Well the expert that I quoted said some of his colleagues would also be matches so I think that sums it up. Not suprising that it may also partially match their parents as well.

Mar 22, 2019 -- 11:16PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Read the DNA report ffs. If you could supply me with a source that says the blood (in the boot) was or was partially from anyone else, then I can educate myself.I never said this. Again this is a complete misunderstanding of DNA. They may have taken the sample from blood but in a DNA mixture that doesn't mean all contributions are from blood. It could be sweat, skin particles, Semen etc. you can educate me that the blood could be non McCann, then it will give me food for thought. Well the expert that I quoted said some of his colleagues would also be matches so I think that sums it up. Not suprising that it may also partially match their parents as well.

Source please. Not he said she said

The source is the Forensic DNA analysis report and associated documents authored by John Lowe CBiol MSB.

Mar 22, 2019 -- 11:30PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

The source is the Forensic DNA analysis report and associated documents authored by John Lowe CBiol MSB.

Look forward to the link, and not just what you've told us his colleagues said.

Then we can take it from there, and then we can try and work out why Eddie also detected cadaver where these specs of blood were found in a boot of a hire car.

That's not what his colleagues said it's what he said.

Ahh, so when you ask for a source you don't mean a source you mean a link to the source.

As I've said before I'm not providing you with that. You are the one relying on this DNA report to substantiate your conclusion. Yet you haven't read it and want me to provide you with the link to it when I've told you what is in it.

You do realise all the evidence the Portuguese police accumulated has been put on one website? I can't believe someone would come to their conclusion based solely on youtube videos and not ever have visited that site?

Mar 22, 2019 -- 11:44PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

That's not what his colleagues said it's what he said. Ahh, so when you ask for a source you don't mean a source you mean a link to the source. As I've said before I'm not providing you with that. You are the one relying on this DNA report to substantiate your conclusion. Yet you haven't read it and want me to provide you with the link to it when I've told you what is in it. You do realise all the evidence the Portuguese police accumulated has been put on one website? I can't believe someone would come to their conclusion based solely on youtube videos and not ever have visited that site?

Lol nice try...

So in other words you don't have a link to back up what you are saying?

You either have a source to back up your claims or you don't.

Nice try???

I have given you a source.

You do realise how stupid you sound don't you? You have said her DNA was found in the car to substantiate your arguement. The source of which must be the DNA analysis carried out by John Lowe. I have then told you what is in the report to dispute your argument. You then say that because I am not giving a link to this source I have nothing to back up my claim. You admit you haven't read it and don't know where it is and are now implying it may not exist.

You are the one seeking to rely primarily on this report to reach your conclusion that her DNA was found in the boot. If anyone should be providing a source it's you otherwise even your opening argument is completely ****g redundant.

Mar 23, 2019 -- 12:01AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Nice try???I have given you a source.You do realise how stupid you sound don't you? You have said her DNA was found in the car to substantiate your arguement. The source of which must be the DNA analysis carried out by John Lowe. I have then told you what is in the report to dispute your argument. You then say that because I am not giving a link to this source I have nothing to back up my claim. You admit you haven't read it and don't know where it is and are now implying it may not exist. You are the one seeking to rely primarily on this report to reach your conclusion that her DNA was found in the boot. If anyone should be providing a source it's you otherwise even your opening argument is completely ****g redundant.

Nice try again,

I have certainly read the PJ files, but if you want me to claim I have read and memorised all 30,000+ pages then I won't.

If you thought for a second, what do you think would come up if I type in John Lowe Madeleine McCann into Google?

Err. Maybe look in the mirror to see who is stupid?

I have told you that my understanding is that it is McCann blood (even if more than one). You are suggesting there is more to it, Bogart tells me it matches 15/19 markers of a person who wasn't around, and who do you think I'll believe?

Come on shrewd.. prove your point and don't make yourself look sillier!!

I have told you that my understanding is that it is McCann blood

Okay, what's your source? Is Bogart someone on youtube?

Mar 23, 2019 -- 12:18AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

I have told you that my understanding is that it is McCann bloodOkay, what's your source? Is Bogart someone on youtube?

No source, it's just my understanding and I am waiting for an expert to correct me As I said earlier, you can help educate me.

(Off the record, I may have done the Google search above and read said document,but am to silly to relate it to what you claimed above, So a quick copy and paste and you cannot only confirm what you are claiming but educate us also!!)

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why - ...

Well lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -

When was the DNA deposited -
How was the DNA deposited -
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from -
Was a crime committed -

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Thank you!! Apart from confirming what I thought (DNA from up to all five McCanns), I don't see what this clarifies.

I must have missed the suggestion/evidence that the DNA was at least partially non McCann.

Possibly my stupidity Shrewd, but could you copy and paste the key findings as you suggested above?

Seriously where do you get from that that any of the DNA is from the Mccann's? The guy is categorically saying he can't say whether it is her DNA never mind any other Mccann.

Wow then I am misreading because he says that 15 of the markers match to her. He says some of his colleagues share elements of Madelines profile, but doesn't say how many markers they share..1? 2? 19?

He says it's not possible to separate the DNA into 3 in order to match individual DNA.

He has been very careful with his words (something I should do more often), but, unless I've misread, he offers no actual evidence that the DNA is non McCann.

I believe in the UK and Portugal 19/19 markers are needed to be used as evidence (odds of billions to one rather than millions for 15 markers), so I guess he is entitled to say this, but he does not suggest the presence of anyone elses DNA.

You are genuinely remarkable.
You have continually said her blood was found in the car. When presented with evidence that the Forensic DNA expert says he can not conclude it is her DNA you then say


he offers no actual evidence that the DNA is non McCann.

At one point you say there is evidence her blood was found in the car. Now when presented with quotes from the person who carried out the DNA analysis you say he doesn't provide any evidence it wasn't her DNA. This is looneytoon stuff now.


I believe in the UK and Portugal 19/19 markers are needed to be used as evidence (odds of billions to one rather than millions for 15 markers), so I guess he is entitled to say this, but he does not suggest the presence of anyone elses DNA.

This is bullshit.

You are either not reading things right or you are confused. 15/19 markers matched Madeleine!! Millions to one it isn't a McCann!! The FBI would use this as if it were 100%!

We are not in the USA so the bar is higher!! You are not wanting to accept the strength that 15 markers has in determining who's DNA it is.

The 3 people DNA he is talking about is Gerry and Kate (possibly the twins) that is why he is saying it comes from more than one person . His words were carefully chosen not to suggest that anyone elses DNA was in the mix.

15/19 makes it millions to one it wasn't McCann blood.

He says that he can't conclude whether it is a genuine match or a chance match(with Madeline) and the reason for that is because it is probably mixed with any 2 of the other 4 McCanns DNA) and therefore not accepted as evidence.

Unless I've missed right there is no suggestion that anyone other than McCann DNA as found, but he didn't want to tell anyone this!

His words were carefully chosen not to suggest that anyone elses DNA was in the mix

Make no mistake 15 markers is huge.

I'm not sure whether you are now trolling or you are just a complete idiot.

You have admitted you have no idea how DNA works but are still trying to draw conclusions from a DNA analysis which a DNA forensic expert has categorically said are not the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

I still await your source (it doesn't have to be a link as I am able to find sources) about the law on the admissability of DNA evidence in USA, UK and Portugal. It seems to be a particular expertise of yours.

I'm beginning to think you are on some other forum/Youtube comment section in between our replies trying to find responses as your replies don't seem to address what has been said.

Mar 23, 2019 -- 1:40AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

I'm not sure whether you are now trolling or you are just a complete idiot. You have admitted you have no idea how DNA works but are still trying to draw conclusions from a DNA analysis which a DNA forensic expert has categorically said are not the conclusions that can be drawn from it.I still await your source (it doesn't have to be a link as I am able to find sources) about the law on the admissability of DNA evidence in USA, UK and Portugal. It seems to be a particular expertise of yours. I'm beginning to think you are on some other forum/Youtube comment section in between our replies trying to find responses as your replies don't seem to address what has been said.

Dude, you really need to read that report again because you are clearly confused and embarrassing yourself! He has said 15 out of the 19 markers match her. What part of this do you not understand?
So you are saying that he's saying it's not her DNA?

Dumbo, he said the markers match but cannot be conclusive (in his opinion) because the DNA came from more than 1 person, and this cannot be separated and analysed!! And so is incomplete!!

Read between the lines!

There is no suggestion that the blood/DNA came from a non McCann, which is what you inferred!

No source needed to find out about DNA admissibility! that's what Google's there for.

Hopefully someone else comments on what you are trying to argue here, because it just doesn't make any sense to me.

So you are saying that he's saying it's not her DNA?

He has categorically said he can't tell whether it is her DNA. You are the one saying her blood was found in the car. I have said the DNA expert never reached that conclusion conitnually over numerous posts. I have now provided his quotes that he cannot say it is her DNA. Yet you are still saying his quotes are proof it is her DNA because FBI says it is, USA,blah, blah portuguese law, etc. whilst never providing any source.

In conclusion your point seems to be you seek to rely on the parts of the DNA report which support your argument and completely ignore the parts (e.g the conclusion) which don't whilst continually saying "because the FBI said so" and not providing anything the FBI actually said.

This is like talking to a brick wall Do your own research into the markers and how significant 15 is. (The FBI part is for comparison).

Read between the lines!! He is saying the blood (which was known to be detected by Keela), matches 15 markers to Madeleine.

He is saying that he cannot conclude it is her DNA because it is mixed with others (probably Kate and Gerry, both of which have 50% of her DNA.

I am not being selective, but his conclusion isn't exactly straight, and he claims it is inconclusive. he has not ruled it out as being hers!!

What I am telling you is that in his opinion he can't conclude it was solely Madeleines blood because it was mixed with 2 people who she shares her DNA with.

He has not said it isn't hers, just that it is inconclusive for him to draw an opinion. what he doesn't conveniently tell us is if non McCann blood is involved.

What is so hard for you to understand?

I say "because the FBI said so", now you are getting childish. All I have pointed out is that in the USA  15 markers are needed, whereas in the UK and Portugal (I believe it's) 19.

Anyway, you have done nothing to suggest anything other than McCann DNA was found in the boot

This is like talking to a brick wall Do your own research into the markers and how significant 15 is. (The FBI part is for comparison).

Read between the lines!! He is saying the blood (which was known to be detected by Keela), matches 15 markers to Madeleine.

You are talking utter mince now. Do your own research? I've provided you with the DNA expert report on how significant it is and the DNA expert is saying it isn't significant and you are saying I should be reading about not what he is saying but what he isn't. You are a barefaced liar now.

We are now at the stage where you have previously said her DNA has been found and now you are saying it might be hers.

All I have pointed out is that in the USA  15 markers are needed, whereas in the UK and Portugal (I believe it's) 19.

And for the umpteenth time I have called for your source on this which you can't provide presumably in the knowledge that you are talking ****.

Dude,forget only the bullsh1t,you must know deep down that for some reason this is a cover up, who had a villa very close by,who were staying there?these are the things we should be looking at

I've sat through the first 2. Incredibly dull fare so far.

We are now at the stage where you have previously said her DNA has been found and now you are saying it might be hers.



he has a habit of shifting the goalposts, kept accusing me of saying that I said no body meant there was no abduction - when I said no such thing and asked him to prove it he couldn't so instead changed it to I definitely implied that was the case - then posted my own quotes only for him to finally admit it, makes stuff up as he goes along as he has convinced himself the case has been solved.

Mar 23, 2019 -- 10:45AM, scandanavian_haven wrote:

We are now at the stage where you have previously said her DNA has been found and now you are saying it might be hers. he has a habit of shifting the goalposts, kept accusing me of saying that I said no body meant there was no abduction - when I said no such thing and asked him to prove it he couldn't so instead changed it to I definitely implied that was the case - then posted my own quotes only for him to finally admit it, makes stuff up as he goes along as he has convinced himself the case has been solved.

Disappointed with this comment SH.

Shrewd is stating that first I said her DNA has been found, now I am saying it might be hers?

As far as I recall I haven't changed my mind on anything, and all we have been doing in the last few posts is try to establish what the expert has written, and in his report he states that in his opinion the results of the DNA are inconclusive, therefore it might be (partially) hers and he does not discount this.

So to now say I've changed my mind I very very wrong.

In fact it was Shrewd who was implying that the boot DNA came from a non McCann source. He had posted the DNA report, which (correct me if I am wrong) doesn't state this.

I accept that I was wrong in that exchange SH, as I was being barraged by yourself and Shrewd, but I apologise for getting it wrong. I am really just wanting any evidence that might factually suggest that she did not die in that apartment.

You have continually said her blood was found in the car and on more than one occasion that it is a million to one not to be hers.

The DNA expert who analysed the blood says he is unable to conclude it is her DNA never mind her blood. You now appear to be agreeing with him.

These are two entirely different positions. Banging on about the FBI and Portuguese law which you refuse to provide a source for doesn't change that.

Even if it was conclusive that she died in the flat that doesn't take us any further in terms of how she died or who killed her.

Mar 23, 2019 -- 1:02PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

You have continually said her blood was found in the car and on more than one occasion that it is a million to one not to be hers.The DNA expert who analysed the blood says he is unable to conclude it is her DNA never mind her blood. You now appear to be agreeing with him.These are two entirely different positions. Banging on about the FBI and Portuguese law which you refuse to provide a source for doesn't change that.Even if it was conclusive that she died in the flat that doesn't take us any further in terms of how she died or who killed her.

Lol!!! Where have I agreed with him!!! Please quote. It is my understanding that 15/19 markers indicate that it is many millions to one that the blood/DNA is not McCann. I will continue with that assumption until shown otherwise!

If you can supply me with anything to say otherwise then I will be grateful!

The expert says there is more than one person's blood in the sample, whilst acknowledging 15/19 markers match. He does not even state how many of these markers match his colleagues' blood for reference.

He states that his findings are inconclusive, however you seem to have drawn more information from this report than I have and I cannot see where you are getting this from.

He does not not say this is or isn't Madeleine's blood, nor does he suggest that it comes from any persons other than the 5 McCanns, which is what you were implying.

So I am really struggling to understand what your point is.

Lol!!! Where have I agreed with him!!! Please quote. It is my understanding that 15/19 markers indicate that it is many millions to one that the blood/DNA is not McCann. I will continue with that assumption until shown otherwise!

If you can supply me with anything to say otherwise then I will be grateful!

He has categorically said he cannot reach a conclusion as to whether it is or is not her blood or even that the 15 components that match hers come from blood or even the same person.


You on the other hand have formed the assumption it is a million to one it is not hers based on nothing more than a YouTube video you watched. You are asking me to disprove something you have just made up?

The point is no one can form the conclusion it is her blood other than barking mad conspiracy bampots like you.

You win Shrewd...I'm getting a headache.

You notice Dude hasn't bothered to answer what I said,thats right turn a blind eye

Mar 23, 2019 -- 2:40PM, terry mccann wrote:

You notice Dude hasn't bothered to answer what I said,thats right turn a blind eye

When he is claiming I changed my mind ,when I was simply trying to explain that his expert did not confirm what he was suggesting, he just twists everything around and refuses to accept things even when he has quoted the evidence, I think you should feel lucky that he hasn't responded to you.

Properly doesn't know what im talking about that's why,its one when the truth will always be hidden but why?

Terry, no, deep down I don't believe this is a cover up and I have no idea who had a villa nearby.

Alin. He is not my expert he is the expert who carried out the dna analysis. The DNA analysis you have continually sought to rely on to prove that her blood was in the car when he has made it quite clear that he cannot say whether it was her blood.

Fair enough Dude but you would do worse than watch Rich halls documentary's on this,they cover the whole thing.

The DNA does seem to be exclusive. I read an analysis by someone quite clued up on it that it is not possible to assign  % probability to whether or not Madeleine was present, but that he was surprised that the testing had stopped at the point where Lowe had as there would have been further things that could have been done with the results to eliminate individuals contributions to the profile.

The DNA was taken from the spot in the boot where the dogs indicated. So it would have to be blood or 'the scent of death' as that is all they were trained to indicate for.

Of course the dogs don't indicate only for Madeliene.

So either...

The dogs made a false alert.
Madeleine had been placed in the boot.
The McCanns were unfortunate enough to hire a car that had been used by previous people to transport a body.

*The DNA does seem to be exclusive

Sorry 'inconclusive'

Even if it was conclusive that she died in the flat that doesn't take us any further in terms of how she died or who killed her.

Would rule out an abductor though. Unless we think it is likely that someone would get into the apartment, kill a child, and then carry away the corpse....

Even if it was conclusive that she died in the flat that doesn't take us any further in terms of how she died or who killed her.

Would rule out an abductor though. Unless we think it is likely that someone would get into the apartment, kill a child, and then carry away the corpse....

No it wouldn't. That's exactly what you would expect a child abductor to do.

Taking the body away that is.

Apparently the kids were being checked on every 30 minutes, and you would expect a potential abductor to have been monitoring this.

Would an abductor realistically chance getting in, killing the child and removing the body? Especially when there's a risk of getting caught. Even if they did chance it, what's the odds of getting away with it and clearing any evidence?

That's quite some conspiracy theory Shrewd.

Would an abductor realistically chance getting in, killing the child and removing the body? Especially when there's a risk of getting caught. Even if they did chance it, what's the odds of getting away with it and clearing any evidence?

Probably similar odds to your theory.

Sorry, you are saying they would kill the child in the apartment and run through the streets with the corpse

wtf would they do that for

Has that ever happened in the whole of criminal history ?

It is when these kind of theories start being put forward that you start to realize how outlandish the whole abduction case is.

If this is 'exactly what an abductor would do'  I expect there are going to be several examples where someone gets into an house, kills someone, and carries away the body.

(genuinely) interested to see one example of such bizarre behaviour

Mar 23, 2019 -- 9:16PM, tobermory wrote:

Sorry, you are saying they would kill the child in the apartment and run through the streets with the corpse wtf would they do that for Has that ever happened in the whole of criminal history ?It is when these kind of theories start being put forward that you start to realize how outlandish the whole abduction case is.

Not just this, but they killed her behind the sofa.

Well the whole point of an abduction is to get away with the body. If you are abducting kids then it's generally to **** them. If you are the sort of person who **** 3 year olds your not going be particuarly fussy about whether they are breathing or not.

Mar 23, 2019 -- 9:23PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Well the whole point of an abduction is to get away with the body. If you are abducting kids then it's generally to **** them. If you are the sort of person who **** 3 year olds your not going be particuarly fussy about whether they are breathing or not.

Thanks for confirming what a nutjob and a waste of time you are

If the Isle of Bute killer accidentally killed the girl or had to to stop her screaming Toby do you honestly think his moral compass would have kicked in and he would have thought I don't think I want to have sex with her anymore now she's no longer breathing I'll just leave her here?

ofAllin your thick. You can't possibly comprehend that her parents didn't killer simply because it would confirm your of so low intelligence that you can be taken in by a youtube video made by some bloke sitting in his mums basement.

Mar 23, 2019 -- 9:29PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

ofAllin your thick. You can't possibly comprehend that her parents didn't killer simply because it would confirm your of so low intelligence that you can be taken in by a youtube video made by some bloke sitting in his mums basement.

your or you're?

You're.

No, paedo abductions are to get the - live  - child away from where adults can intervene. The sexual attacks are (sometimes) followed by murder, never the other way around from anything I have heard. And the murder is usually to cover up the sexual attack which is the motive (victim can't talk)

The Isle of Bute psycho wanted to get the girl far away to carry out his rape as he feared adults waking up etc

In Apartment 5A there were no adults there. So the paedo can do what he likes there and then. He can then leave. Worst case scenario an adult comes in before he is done. Even then he still has good odds of getting away, as he can push his way out and run off into the night. Even if he is restrained he could still claim he was just a burglar and quite difficult to get a 4 year old giving evidence in court.

If he takes her out - alive - then he is greatly reducing his chance of molesting her AND increasing his chance of being caught. Also being caught outside with her he no longer has the 'just a burglar' mitigation.

I have just never heard of a stranger murder in the victims home where the stranger took the body away. It just gives the killer a whole new level of hurdles to avoid capture.

The chance of getting away with a dead child who can't move or scream is clearly higher than an alive one who can scream.

If the isle of Bute child awoke as he was carrying her out do you think he would have let her scream or shut her up? I know what my money would be on. I doubt he would be dropping her body in the hall either.

While necrophilia is a thing, it is pretty extraordinarily rare.

Cases of men raping children and then killing them must be 1000 times more common than the other way around as no cases come to mind.

The Isle of Bute guy if he killed her before leaving the house would just have left her there surely? Getting her away from there does not help his chances of getting away with murder, rather he now introduces the factor of whether or not he will be seen in the streets with her body.

It's not pretty extra ordinarily rare. Whilst they may prefer a child to be alive if they have decided they were going to have sex with them they aren't going to be stopping because she may be dead.

Well he was already prepared to take the chance of carrying her body out anyway. I don't think the deciding factor would have been whether he was sure she was alive or not.

How commonplace is it, iyo?

I think I just told you. Not pretty extra ordinarily rare.

https://youtu.be/6Yt8vioQxrA

But..

Are there cases of paedophiles killing children in order to have sex with them. Paedophile stranger attackers are very rare to begin with, and overwhelmingly they seem to prefer live children.

Abducting dead bodies from their homes is extraordinarily rare to the point of I don't think there is a single case of it on record.

If the person has no connection to the place then why is anyone going to link them to the murder if the body is left there ? The only thing I can think of is the perpertrator may figure his DNA is on the body. But why would he assume his DNA is not left in the apartment from where he has got in or what he has done there.

So he is introducing multiple new ways of getting caught (being seen carrying the body and challenged right there, being seen carrying the body and remembered or seen on CCTV, being seen digging a hole to bury it etc ) all to prevent his DNA (which may not be on record anyway) being found on the body, when he may have left DNA in the apartment anyway.

Okay Tobey they are maybe fair points. But if we are going to apply rarity of the crime and rational logic of the killer to the abduction theory then surely that applies to to any other theory.

Taking your child on holiday to kill them is extraordinarily rare to the point of I don't think there is a single case of it on record.

Why would a person kill their child? Why would they decide to do it abroad? Why not do it at home where you have more time on your hands and know the locality. Why do it in a country where you will be investigated by a foreign police force. Why if it was an accident would you compound matters by trying to to dispose of the body? Especially in a foreign country.

They are introducing multiple new ways of getting caught being seen carrying the body away or cctv, seen digging a hole etc. etc.

I don't think anyone is saying they intended to kill Madeleine.
Any theories I've seen were based on accidental death caused by drugs given to her to make her sleep.
Could be true albeit I think abduction the far more likely reason. (Whilst alive in case anyone queries)

What I have always struggled with, is the how part if true, if it were accidental death by overdosing on whatever drugs they gave her to try to sleep, how could they have successfully of disposed of the body without any trace or any witness or any discovery since and then step outside the next morning in front of the world's cameras pleaing for help, doesn't make any sense. Not only that, but for years and years after they tried to keep the story in the limelight, books, interviews, court cases etc, you'd think they'd want to get on with their lives if they were guilty, you obviously could say it's a pretence, but that much of a pretence? constantly drawing attention to the disappearance 12 years later?

The sheer ease of anyone gaining access to that apartment shouldn't be underestimated either, it was a rented accomodation, I never really heard of past occupants being interviewed/investigated, any one of them could have had a cut key, then there is also the fact it was a ground floor flat, if you were an abductor, you'd not want to be targeting upper levels with an increased chance of being seen/more time to abduct, and it was also right on the outskirts of the complex, easier and quicker to get in and out.

If it was an abduction, then they obviously knew full well the parents werent there, as they're were unlikely to go in at that time knowing there's a half decent chance the parents would be there/awake looking after the children. Would be chilling to think they were being watched, any one that worked or frequented the Tapas Bar would also know they'd left their kids alone at night, as they'd seen them around during the day, know how big their group is  and how many of their entourage there were, could have worked out nobody was home looking after them. The Casa Pia scandal highlights why pa3do's target Portgual, laxer laws and generally one of the poorer European countries with a police force not well equipped enough to handle such a large scale investigation, look at the pure amateurish operation they initially carried out, did not seal off the complex, did not seal of the apartment, not for a whole 24 hours and let all and sundry walk in and out. They wouldn't even script that in a film it's so daft.

There's no doubt however they are an odd couple, I don't think Gerry ever explained why he said on the bus "I'm not here to f****** enjoy myself?" what was that about? They showed little emotion in the aftermath too, no tears or hysterical behaviour, very unanimated, very robotic even, that's what makes it doubly strange, regarless of whether they were involved or were not involed, they had just lost a 3 year old child, unless you're not human you'd show emotion. The only possible explanation for no emotion would be that they knew for some time they were going to lose her, which would play into the hands of the freemason conspiracies.

Doubt anyone will ever know. Same as Ben Needham.

Turned it off after 5 mins,looked like a cover up job blame the portugese police twaddle,utter fantasy.

Mar 23, 2019 -- 10:39PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Okay Tobey they are maybe fair points. But if we are going to apply rarity of the crime and rational logic of the killer to the abduction theory then surely that applies to to any other theory.Taking your child on holiday to kill them is extraordinarily rare to the point of I don't think there is a single case of it on record.Why would a person kill their child? Why would they decide to do it abroad? Why not do it at home where you have more time on your hands and know the locality. Why do it in a country where you will be investigated by a foreign police force. Why if it was an accident would you compound matters by trying to to dispose of the body? Especially in a foreign country.They are introducing multiple new ways of getting caught being seen carrying the body away or cctv, seen digging a hole etc. etc.

The 'taking her there to kill her' is actually a theory some of the nuttier members of the dedicated forums propose. It is obviously silly for the reasons you give. The criminals involved (in any crime) whatever the motive, will have not done things in such a difficult way if there were obviously easier options.

Mar 23, 2019 -- 11:47PM, scandanavian_haven wrote:

What I have always struggled with, is the how part if true, if it were accidental death by overdosing on whatever drugs they gave her to try to sleep, how could they have successfully of disposed of the body without any trace or any witness or any discovery since and then step outside the next morning in front of the world's cameras pleaing for help, doesn't make any sense. Not only that, but for years and years after they tried to keep the story in the limelight, books, interviews, court cases etc, you'd think they'd want to get on with their lives if they were guilty, you obviously could say it's a pretence, but that much of a pretence? constantly drawing attention to the disappearance 12 years later? The sheer ease of anyone gaining access to that apartment shouldn't be underestimated either, it was a rented accomodation, I never really heard of past occupants being interviewed/investigated, any one of them could have had a cut key, then there is also the fact it was a ground floor flat, if you were an abductor, you'd not want to be targeting upper levels with an increased chance of being seen/more time to abduct, and it was also right on the outskirts of the complex, easier and quicker to get in and out.If it was an abduction, then they obviously knew full well the parents werent there, as they're were unlikely to go in at that time knowing there's a half decent chance the parents would be there/awake looking after the children. Would be chilling to think they were being watched, any one that worked or frequented the Tapas Bar would also know they'd left their kids alone at night, as they'd seen them around during the day, know how big their group is  and how many of their entourage there were, could have worked out nobody was home looking after them. The Casa Pia scandal highlights why pa3do's target Portgual, laxer laws and generally one of the poorer European countries with a police force not well equipped enough to handle such a large scale investigation, look at the pure amateurish operation they initially carried out, did not seal off the complex, did not seal of the apartment, not for a whole 24 hours and let all and sundry walk in and out. They wouldn't even script that in a film it's so daft.There's no doubt however they are an odd couple, I don't think Gerry ever explained why he said on the bus "I'm not here to f****** enjoy myself?" what was that about? They showed little emotion in the aftermath too, no tears or hysterical behaviour, very unanimated, very robotic even, that's what makes it doubly strange, regarless of whether they were involved or were not involed, they had just lost a 3 year old child, unless you're not human you'd show emotion. The only possible explanation for no emotion would be that they knew for some time they were going to lose her, which would play into the hands of the freemason conspiracies.Doubt anyone will ever know. Same as Ben Needham.

I have some ideas as to how they could have done it but yes, I get how people find it hard to see. But they are usually using as the starting point the information they get from the McCanns, who are obviously going to present a timeline that makes it very difficult to envisage their being able to do this. What people don't stop and think about is how difficult the abduction is with the MCann timeline, or how implausible it is and how wildly different from all other well known child abduction cases. Children being abducted from the place they lived is very,very rare, and the few cases it did happen it was clear the abductor took the child to get them away from the parents, which was not necessary here. 'Stole to order' theories are just fantasy. But most people just figure 'children do get abducted' and are not seeing how unlikely this one is. The case is fascinating because it is a kind of locked room mystery where it is easy to tear down the case for an abduction or a staged crime. The Ben Needham case is less discussed because it is less complex. The McCann case is like The Wallace Murder... ''It was impossible for Wallace to commit the murder and it was impossible for anyone else to have done either'' . So it will be one that always comes around.

The reason they 'keep it in the limelight' is because the press are their biggest allies. Relentless stories about abductors churned out.

Operation Grange was created by The Sun, and is under no circumstances to look at anything but an abduction. That is why it is such a farce. instead of following evidence and seeing where it leads, they start off with the notion that there is an abductor, find someone who was around at the time and try and theorize evidence against the person being the abductor. So obviously there is nothing and they move on to another 'suspect'

Egg Man, Bundle Man, George Harrison Man, Posh Spice Woman and so on into infinity

The 'taking her there to kill her' is actually a theory some of the nuttier members of the dedicated forums propose. It is obviously silly for the reasons you give. The criminals involved (in any crime) whatever the motive, will have not done things in such a difficult way if there were obviously easier options.

I think it's pretty naive to think that criminals are people who apply rational logic constantly to everything they do and always select the easier most logical course of action.

On any given day their are examples of people doing the exact opposite where they carry out actions which it is nigh on impossible not for them to get caught given their actions are either so incredibly stupid or are committed in front of multiple witnesses.

One would think a 'crim' wouldn't snapchat a video of themselves to mates saying "I found the guy who did it' then show a video of themselves in a mirror given the easier and safer option of not doing it. However criminals are also capable of doing stupid ****.

I don't think anyone is saying they intended to kill Madeleine.
Any theories I've seen were based on accidental death caused by drugs given to her to make her sleep.
Could be true albeit I think abduction the far more likely reason. (Whilst alive in case anyone queries)

Well the last few pages have been discussions on Allins suggestion that their was enough blood found under the sofa, under the floor and on the walls to conclude that she definately died in the apartment. I've never said I agreed with that but if he is saying their is enough blood to suggest she died it's unlikely to be caused from an overdose or bump to the head or most accidental deaths unless they accidentally stabbed her.

Toby you keep pointing out how rare child abduction cases are. The same applies to cases where children are killed by their parents and they dispose of their bodies. Extremely rare. Killing their child and managing to JImmy Hoffa them in a foreign country is completely unheard of and as you suggested earlier about taking away a childs dead body away has probably never happened before.

Whatever happened was completely implausible but one of them must be true. You can't discount one potential theory because it's implausible then ignore how implausible the alternatives are.

Well the last few pages have been discussions on Allins suggestion that their was enough blood found under the sofa, under the floor and on the walls to conclude that she definately died in the apartment. I've never said I agreed with that but if he is saying their is enough blood to suggest she died it's unlikely to be caused from an overdose or bump to the head or most accidental deaths unless they accidentally stabbed her.

Perhaps the blood in these areas alone are not telling, but when you add the detection of cadaver in the same spot, no known death in the apartment and no reports of Madeleine having a wound, it's very difficult to assume hat she did not die there. As far as I am aware Keela did not detect blood elsewhere in the apartment, all of which is very unfortunate for the McCanns.

its like one of these modern day tv series,gradualy a series of what look like random characters introduced,tapas 7,murat,uk government,mitchel,clement freud,priest etc introduced to the viewer and eventually certain connections between one or more them are revealed,
imagine yourself joe bloggs on holiday on a sun bed and inventing a one off event where so many random characters are introduced 1000,s of miles from home who eventually no matter how tenuous can be somehow ,somewhere be linked, even vera,baptiste would have their work cut out

post gone mad,

It was not them.