Chit Chat
NETFLIX : Madeleine Mccann
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
His words were carefully chosen not to suggest that anyone elses DNA was in the mix
Make no mistake 15 markers is huge. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 ****. |
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
I've sat through the first 2. Incredibly dull fare so far.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
The point is no one can form the conclusion it is her blood other than barking mad conspiracy bampots like you.
|
|
By:
You win Shrewd...I'm getting a headache.
|
|
By:
You notice Dude hasn't bothered to answer what I said,thats right turn a blind eye
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Properly doesn't know what im talking about that's why,its one when the truth will always be hidden but why?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Fair enough Dude but you would do worse than watch Rich halls documentary's on this,they cover the whole thing.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
*The DNA does seem to be exclusive
Sorry 'inconclusive' |
|
By:
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.... |
|
By:
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.... |
|
By:
No it wouldn't. That's exactly what you would expect a child abductor to do.
|
|
By:
Taking the body away that is.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
You're.
|
|
By:
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. |