do you think maddie is alive or dead

[Gem2626]

The important part is that DNA consistent with Madeleine's was found in the cadaver alert sites.

If the dogs were cued, how come they just so happened to find DNA at those exact spots and nowhere else?

LINK PLEASE

The dogs alerted and then they took DNA samples. As far as i'm aware they didn't take samples from anywhere that the dogs didn't alert.

Why did the dogs alert to DNA from these places that came from 3 men that are alive and well?

 

[blefuscu]

What?

You said that the DNA and blood evidence is being ignored. (Firstly no Blood was found as highlighted in the forensic report).

Why would we be concerned about DNA (or blood if it was relevant) from 3 men (one being Gerry) who were very much alive and well?

Surely we are only concerned with Madeleine's blood or DNA being found which indicates she is dead. There was none.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506725/Blood-McCanns-hire-car-DID-come-Madeleine.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html

There you go. I wait with baited breath for you to say "oh but this proves nothing" as you have with every other piece given to you, as you just won't open your mind and your eyes!

 

[blefuscu]

Deliberately ignoring your claims that I haven't given any evidence that it was a stranger abduction as I suspect you are trying to steer the conversation away from the fact that NONE of Madeleine's DNA or blood was found per the forensic reports.

It's inconclusive not "definitely not Madeleine's". There is a difference.

 

[blefuscu]

Wasn't swab 3a in the forensic report matched to Madeleine?

 

[blefuscu]

We were talking about there not being any of Madeleine's blood or DNA found. You are trying to steer the conversation away and then I imagine in a couple of pages you will be claiming again that Madeleine's DNA and blood was found and linking again to media articles.

And you will be claiming this mythical intruder of which there is no evidence swooped in from out of nowhere and took her and continually ignore multiple requests from multiple Sleuthers to provide a jot of evidence!

 

[Gem2626]

Wasn't swab 3a in the forensic report matched to Madeleine?

NO


"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"

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.

 

[blefuscu]

So why did John Lowe say this in his email to Stuart Price?

"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."

So the swab corresponds to Madeleine's DNA!

 

[Gem2626]

And you will be claiming this mythical intruder of which there is no evidence swooped in from out of nowhere and took her and continually ignore multiple requests from multiple Sleuthers to provide a jot of evidence!

What evidence do you want of an intruder? An intruder would have been in and out within minutes it would be doubtful that they'd be trying to leave evidence behind.

I've already provided a link where a girl was abducted from her bedroom and there was no evidence that she'd been abducted or of who had abducted her. This shows it can be done.

It amazes me that something as simple as someone walking into an apartment, picking up and child and walking off into the night is unbelievable yet we have some complete absurd stories about government conspiracy on here.

 

[blefuscu]

What evidence do you want of an intruder? An intruder would have been in and out within minutes it would be doubtful that they'd be trying to leave evidence behind.

I've already provided a link where a girl was abducted from her bedroom and there was no evidence that she'd been abducted or of who had abducted her. This shows it can be done.

It amazes me that something as simple as someone walking into an apartment, picking up and child and walking off into the night is unbelievable yet we have some complete absurd stories about government conspiracy on here.

Any evidence would do. Anything that proves she was taken by a stranger. There is none. You expect us to believe that this intruder luckily picked an apartment that had 3 children in, and no adults, and he manoeuvred through it in the dark. Found madeleine, took her. Didn't wake her or the twins and walked through the resort with only the uncredible Jane Tanner as witness?

 

[Gem2626]

So why did John Lowe say this in his email to Stuart Price?

"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."

So the swab corresponds to Madeleine's DNA!

NO

You do realise that we get 50% of our DNA from each one of our parents and also share half our DNA with our siblings. A DNA profile with 15 markers could have come from any number of combinations seeing as it is impossible to say whether a sample has come from just one person.

I'm not very good at explaining the DNA stuff but all the information is here that supports what i've said.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm#p10p2617-2623


Just to add- You will notice that the email you quoted is actually the first paragraph before the rest of the email that I quoted a couple of posts ago. The email states that "In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion"

 

[CatFancier]

Stop personalizing posts and arguing with each other. Move on...

 

[Gem2626]

Any evidence would do. Anything that proves she was taken by a stranger. There is none. You expect us to believe that this intruder luckily picked an apartment that had 3 children in, and no adults, and he manoeuvred through it in the dark. Found madeleine, took her. Didn't wake her or the twins and walked through the resort with only the uncredible Jane Tanner as witness?

No I expect that he had been watching the McCann's and knew their routine. Children have been abducted before ya know it's not out of the realm of possibility.

I'm expected to believe that Gerry McCann walked through the town with a dead Madeleine right at the time she had been reported missing even though he had a tiny window of opportunity but at the same time believe that she was hidden in a freezer at the hotel, undetected for a month and then put in a car (no forensic evidence) and buried somewhere so well she has never been found. I am then expected to believe that Amaral is some sort of Angel and that there is a huge government conspiracy around the McCanns.

It's strange how Jane Tanner and Martin Smith's description of the man they saw are so similar.

 

[goldengirl57]

It's strange how Jane Tanner and Martin Smith's description of the man they saw are so similar.

From the get go Jane Tanners description changed....the end result was someone with longish hair not someone with receding forehead like McCann.

I do find it confusing she described this person as tallish, longish thick hair, then picked Murat as the perb.....very confusing. I thought he wore glasses...

I do think Smiths saw someone carrying a child, and when they saw Gerry on the T.V. and the way he was carrying one of the twins, it prompted a memory. I dont for one minute believe it was Gerry McCann, but someone who looked like him a European same height etc. Whether it was the child I have no idea

 

[Gem2626]

It's strange how Jane Tanner and Martin Smith's description of the man they saw are so similar.

From the get go Jane Tanners description changed....the end result was someone with longish hair not someone with receding forehead like McCann.

I do find it confusing she described this person as tallish, longish thick hair, then picked Murat as the perb.....very confusing. I thought he wore glasses...

I do think Smiths saw someone carrying a child, and when they saw Gerry on the T.V. and the way he was carrying one of the twins, it prompted a memory. I dont for one minute believe it was Gerry McCann, but someone who looked like him a European same height etc. Whether it was the child I have no idea

What changed about her description of the man she saw?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html

Martin Smith description.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

Not sure about Murat. Maybe because he was hanging around translating that night and she felt something was a bit off with him. I don't think she was the only one who thought he wasn't quite right. Will have to go refresh my memory regarding him.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The important part is that DNA consistent with Madeleine's was found in the cadaver alert sites.

If the dogs were cued, how come they just so happened to find DNA at those exact spots and nowhere else?

Scabs, skinned knees & drool



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[jordynsmommy529]

Former US prosecutor Wendy Murphy: "think this is more PR than anything" - YouTube


Sapphire you didn't tell me you were on TV! :floorlaugh:

She reminds me of you!

 

[jordynsmommy529]

What changed about her description of the man she saw?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html

Martin Smith description.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

Not sure about Murat. Maybe because he was hanging around translating that night and she felt something was a bit off with him. I don't think she was the only one who thought he wasn't quite right. Will have to go refresh my memory regarding him.

This is the first description she gave too police, if you could only see someone from behind how could you identify or give a sketch of them in the first place?

Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

 

[Gem2626]

This is the first description she gave too police, if you could only see someone from behind how could you identify or give a sketch of them in the first place?

Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

Did you read all of her first statement. If you had you would have seen this....


"She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms"

"When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking"

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2

Jane Tanners e-fit of the man she saw shows him from the side.

 

[jordynsmommy529]

Did you read all of her first statement. If you had you would have seen this....


"She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms"

"When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking"

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2

Jane Tanners e-fit of the man she saw shows him from the side.

So which is it she can only see him from the side or from behind? You ask for contradictions in her statements and you found one on your own!

 

[Gem2626]

So which is it she can only see him from the side or from behind? You ask for contradictions in her statements and you found one on your own!

Except that the posting is being weird because I did not post that about her seeing him only from behind. I posted about her seeing him from the side.

You can usually tell which posts are mine on here because there will be a link leading to the information I am talking about.