NETFLIX : Madeleine Mccann > Betfair Community

Betfair Community

Home › Chit Chat Forum › NETFLIX : Madeleine Mccann

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Chit Chat

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

These 341 comments are related to the topic:
NETFLIX : Madeleine Mccann

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 7 of 9 • Previous | 1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 341

By:

AllinR1 When: 17 Mar 19 21:04

Surely you haven't exaggerated to try and make a point?

By:

Baphornet When: 17 Mar 19 21:05

[ This image is no longer available. ]

By:

AllinR1 When: 17 Mar 19 21:11

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?

By:

tobermory When: 18 Mar 19 01:52

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

By:

AllinR1 When: 18 Mar 19 10:50

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.

By:

scandanavian_haven When: 18 Mar 19 11:05

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.

By:

AllinR1 When: 18 Mar 19 12:12

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.

By:

scandanavian_haven When: 18 Mar 19 12:21

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.

By:

AllinR1 When: 18 Mar 19 12:53

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.

By:

scandanavian_haven When: 18 Mar 19 12:59

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.

By:

AllinR1 When: 18 Mar 19 13:22

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?

By:

scandanavian_haven When: 18 Mar 19 13:33

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

By:

Baphornet When: 18 Mar 19 13:41

a month would be better

By:

AllinR1 When: 18 Mar 19 13:52

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....

By:

AllinR1 When: 18 Mar 19 13:56

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

By:

AllinR1 When: 22 Mar 19 22:11

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.

By:

tobermory When: 22 Mar 19 22:14

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

By:

AllinR1 When: 22 Mar 19 22:17

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?

By:

AllinR1 When: 22 Mar 19 22:18

*tober

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 22 Mar 19 22:29

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.

By:

AllinR1 When: 22 Mar 19 22:36

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.

By:

detraveller When: 22 Mar 19 22:40

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.

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 22 Mar 19 22:44

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.

By:

AllinR1 When: 22 Mar 19 22:58

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.

By:

terry mccann When: 22 Mar 19 23:07

He cant

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 22 Mar 19 23:16

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.

By:

AllinR1 When: 22 Mar 19 23:26

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

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 22 Mar 19 23:30

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

By:

AllinR1 When: 22 Mar 19 23:36

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.

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 22 Mar 19 23:44

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?

By:

AllinR1 When: 22 Mar 19 23:50

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.

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 23 Mar 19 00:01

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.

By:

AllinR1 When: 23 Mar 19 00:16

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!!

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 23 Mar 19 00:18

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

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

By:

AllinR1 When: 23 Mar 19 00:27

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!!)

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 23 Mar 19 00:33

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

By:

AllinR1 When: 23 Mar 19 00:41

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?

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 23 Mar 19 00:46

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.

By:

AllinR1 When: 23 Mar 19 01:01

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.

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 23 Mar 19 01:08

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.