The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Kepharel on 25.07.13 9:14

Well, it’s been a day now, and the competition thread feels about as lively as a shipwreck in the Sargasso sea, so I may as well blow a breeze into its sails with part 2 of 3 of my ‘credible’ scenario entry.  Anyhow, where were we? Forensics and dogs wasn’t it. Not even Forensics and dogs taken together, as they must be, have been able to provide proof of the girl’s death.
 
From Martin Grimes Rogatory:
 
From a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof.
 
Therefore abduction cannot be ruled out.  So now what must be considered is twofold.  Firstly, why go to all the trouble of planning abduction and then contaminating the crime scene by dabbing cadaverous smelling cloths or body parts here and there?  Secondly, the big consideration; why parents would want to arrange the abduction of their eldest child in the first place?  Before I get myself in a tangle with these questions let’s leave the second question for the moment and concentrate just on the first one.
 
On the basis the parents have agreed to ‘give away’ their eldest daughter illegally, much of the groundwork will already have been done.  A kind and loving second family have agreed to take on Madeleine so it should be just a formality to meet somewhere and say bye-bye to your beautiful little girl in the certain knowledge she will have a good life, a new life, and an assured future.  Well in a Disney production maybe, but not quite so easy in real life; there is the inconvenience of having to explain away the sudden departure from the family of a vivacious, bubbly little girl with a finality, a permanence, which will somehow be accepted by the extended family at large and not bring high flying careers in medicine crashing to the ground.
 
The parents are highly intelligent and will have thought through the plan exhaustively, trying to neutralise any and all possible eventualities that might thwart the ‘abduction’ of their little girl.  I would offer this from Chapter 17 of Amaral’s book:
 
In contrast, in the part of the room occupied by Gerald, the walls are bare, cold, no photos of his daughter. It's here that he administers the Madeleine Fund, organises his very busy agenda and writes his blog……… With amazement the police officers discover a series of books and manuals exclusively intended for police services and government agencies.
- Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children;
- Training Courses, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre);
- Making Every Child Matter...Everywhere, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre).
Mark Harrison himself wonders how Gerald McCann could have obtained these books.”
 
Never mind how he could have obtained them, more to the point, how long had they been in his possession?
 
Without these manuals to guide me I shall just have to make a stab at the most obvious precautions.  It’s no use turning up at the Tapas one night and having to field a remark like “Hey, not seen Madeleine lately, she not well?” and having to say, “Come to think of it I haven’t seen her for a couple of days myself.”  Once Madeleine had left the apartment on the 3rd of May things obviously had to move very quickly. While they are intelligent, they are also naïve in investigative procedure and the staged abduction within the apartment was a complete disaster. 
 
But at least I can ignore all that stuff about roller shutter blinds and Tapas conspiracies, for all we know Madeleine could have been gone any time from 6:00pm and safely out of the country, if you accept Amaral’s assertion the last sighting was 5:30 pm.  People can travel a long way in four hours in this day and age.
 
But it would also have been obvious that within a day or so their apartment was going to be turned over big time by detectives, forensics, Sniffer dogs, and the lot.  The question then becomes one of how to throw confusion into the whole investigation, hopefully to put abduction on the back burner of the PJ’s efforts. Well they had a plan; how about contaminating the crime scene with cadaver odour and blood?  Give the PJ something more important than mere abduction to think about.  Had she been killed or abducted?  In their narcissistic view of the world they were never going to be suspects to the abduction of their own child; and absolutely never in her possible death.
 
It might sound a risky strategy to us, and it certainly was, but as I have said, they’re intelligent, but also naïve with overconfidence born from arrogance; see MW employee witness statements remarking on Gerry, at the dining table, having the biggest mouth, though put more delicately. In their minds, dragging anonymous fingers, toes, hand towels around the crime scene and planting contaminated blood might sound a ‘no comeback’ kind of thing to do, but the implications weren’t thought through and they got lucky.  What they wanted to happen, confusion at the PJ, did happen, but Amaral is no Frank Drebin or Clouseau and it was a close run thing.
 
Competition thread alert!!! Just an opportunity to put my case IN THIS COMPETITION!!!
 
There is a debate currently going on here of the coloboma in the child’s eye.  Publicised by the parents on 5th May 2007 and condemned in no uncertain terms by the PJ. Speculation the disclosure is a potential death warrant is a good idea if it seeds even further confusion into the ranks of the PJ who, at the time, dismiss the parents as a pair of unthinking morons who wouldn't know good advice if it was biting them on their backsides. The parents however know there is no risk to the child, unlike the PJ, because they know their child is long gone and in safe hands.
 
Let’s face it; by ‘signing’ the child’s ‘death warrant’ they get a good marketing opportunity for the fund, and the abduction scenario fades even further into the investigative backwaters. The parents assume all the commotion will die down; the coloboma awareness publicity drive will fade away into obscurity and from the collective memory of the great masses: They weren’t to know it never was going to die down.
 
So that’s part 2 of 3 of my abduction theory which I shall put up for scrutiny.  If it doesn’t crash and burn, I’ll finish things off, again in a day or so.

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

addendum

Post by Kepharel on 25.07.13 11:15

It has just occurred to me that I still have not spelt out the actual reason the PJ needed to be deflected away from an abduction investigation, though it was in my mind, just didn't get transferred onto the written page.  Any 'new parents' taking on Madeleine would need some pretty solid assurances they were not going to end up at the centre of a never ending world wide search for the little girl.  She had to be 'killed off' for their own peace of mind, and the future of Madeleine.  soz about that smilie 
 

Oh! and one last thing.  This competition thread is a little odd insofar as I imagine anyone coming up with the perfect scenario (and I don't believe this one is for one minute) is not going to be on everyone's Christmas card list on this forum in future, bearing in mind it's ethos.  While this effort of mine implicates the McCanns, it is a cut'n'paste foundation for an abduction without implicating them for some clever little so and so out there, so I shall be debunking my own theory, if it gets as far as completion, just in case anyone thinks I'm an infiltrating pro-McCann troll winkwink

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Lance De Boils on 25.07.13 11:20

@Kepharel wrote:
 
Forensic evidence
 
In summary what it says is there are 20 ‘components’ in Madeleine’s DNA, and, for technical reasons, only 19 will ever show on the ‘chart’ (presumably the graphic output). Now we have to remember that Madeleine’s DNA is a ratio of 50/25/25 for her and each parent. There are 37 components in the sample because there are, at least, three contributors and of these only 15 are of Madeleine.  Therefore out of the 37 components in the sample less than 50% are Madeleine’s.  Lowe then makes the point any individual component of Madeleine is not unique to her, only the combination of them.  Because 50% of her DNA is her parents (25/25) the contributors to the sample could be her, her mother and her father.  The sample was not good enough to be able to tease the three contributions apart and as a result it was too complex for analysis, might have occurred by chance, and does not prove Madeleine was in the Renault Scenic.
 

 I haven't read and digested your whole post, but have aproblem with what you wrote above, which I have made bold.

Madeleine's DNA can only come from her two biological parents. 50% from each.
I'm not sure how you have come up with the 3 contributors.
A child cannot invent its own DNA.

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Kepharel on 25.07.13 11:45

Hi lance,

Your'e gonna have to read the email I mentioned which is on the McCannpj files website.  I took it to mean that 50% of her DNA is unique to her, but the other 50% is the DNA of her biological parents.  I would offer

"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." (not 100%) but in this case the swab contains 3 contributors.

"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.... blah blah "


It is from this that I assume that of the 100% of Madeleine's profile, 50% is unique to her (the combination) and 50% shared between each parent.  If I have got this wrong then can someone explain to me exactly what this memo is saying smilie 

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

kate x Gerry

Post by marconi on 25.07.13 12:14

In my opinion it was Kate who insisted on the review, not Gerry.
Since July 2008 they were not arguidos anymore, Gerry had gone back to work, there was no need that Kate would go back to her job, the media was carter rucked.

Slowly they started to appear in public, separated from each other, after having been like Seamese twins for 4 years.

The review brought many more problems into their relationship, imo.

Gerry was dragged in order to support Kate's idea, I think.

I would not be surprised if  Gerry himself would come forward with the truth, unless he is involved in the goal of the sedation.

We still don't know.

marconi

Posts : 1082
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by AndyB on 25.07.13 12:59

50% from each parent, i.e 50% from Kate and 50% from Gerry.

I think you're reading it as 50% from both parents

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by whmon on 25.07.13 13:00

@Kepharel wrote:Hi lance,

Your'e gonna have to read the email I mentioned which is on the McCannpj files website.  I took it to mean that 50% of her DNA is unique to her, but the other 50% is the DNA of her biological parents.  I would offer

"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." (not 100%) but in this case the swab contains 3 contributors.

"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.... blah blah "


It is from this that I assume that of the 100% of Madeleine's profile, 50% is unique to her (the combination) and 50% shared between each parent.  If I have got this wrong then can someone explain to me exactly what this memo is saying smilie 

 That is correct. An easy way to understand it is by looking at eye colour, for example:

Father's eyes are brown and he is a carrier for blue eyes
Mother's eyes are brown and she is a carrier for blue eyes.

This represents 100% of the DNA for eye colour passed on to the child.

The child may have brown eyes and be a carrier for brown eyes(25% chance of this outcome)
The child may have brown eyes and be a carrier for blue eyes (50% chance of this outcome)
The child may have blue eyes and be a carrier for blue eyes (25% chance of this outcome)

Whichever eye colour the outcome is - this is 100% f the profile

Therefore as you say  'of the 100% of Madeleine's profile, 50% is unique to her (the combination) and 50% shared between each parent.'

____________________
This message is confidential and the information must not be used, disclosed, or copied to any other person who is not entitled to receive it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and then delete it.

whmon

Posts : 434
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-04-04
Location : Back of Beyond

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Kepharel on 25.07.13 14:02

@whmon wrote:
@Kepharel wrote:Hi lance,

Your'e gonna have to read the email I mentioned which is on the McCannpj files website.  I took it to mean that 50% of her DNA is unique to her, but the other 50% is the DNA of her biological parents.  I would offer

"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." (not 100%) but in this case the swab contains 3 contributors.

"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.... blah blah "


It is from this that I assume that of the 100% of Madeleine's profile, 50% is unique to her (the combination) and 50% shared between each parent.  If I have got this wrong then can someone explain to me exactly what this memo is saying smilie 

 That is correct. An easy way to understand it is by looking at eye colour, for example:

Father's eyes are brown and he is a carrier for blue eyes
Mother's eyes are brown and she is a carrier for blue eyes.

This represents 100% of the DNA for eye colour passed on to the child.

The child may have brown eyes and be a carrier for brown eyes(25% chance of this outcome)
The child may have brown eyes and be a carrier for blue eyes (50% chance of this outcome)
The child may have blue eyes and be a carrier for blue eyes (25% chance of this outcome)

Whichever eye colour the outcome is - this is 100% f the profile

Therefore as you say  'of the 100% of Madeleine's profile, 50% is unique to her (the combination) and 50% shared between each parent.'

The email I mentioned doesn't help in it's lack of clarity. Neither does my total, complete, and utter ignorance of the topic.  When the email says 3 contributors I assumed that if all 3 could be identified then it would show the profile of Madeleine and of each parent. The 37 components in a perfect world would be 20 for Madeleine and 10 each for each parent = 40 (3 contributors), but because they could not be separated due to the poor quality of the sample, her 'uniqueness' and the identity of the contributors could not be separated hence the possibility it all occurred by chance.  Is that rubbish????

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Guest on 25.07.13 14:11

If I understand it correctly each persons DNA is made of of 50% from each parent, 50% from father and 50% from mother.
This video explains..


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Kepharel on 25.07.13 14:23

candyfloss wrote:If I understand it correctly each persons DNA is made of of 50% from each parent, 50% from father and 50% from mother.
This video explains..


 Hi Candyfloss, I think the video is saying that at a molecular level the child would be 50% from each parent in the form of chromosomes 23 from each. The chromosomes are made up from genes, and within the genes is the DNA profile.  The DNA profile contains 40 components, half of which are in a combination unique to the child etc.  I think Whmon's explanation says it much better than I can.

Also I think we are all going to come out of this a little bit wiser because of this debate, and that's a good thing.

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Lance De Boils on 25.07.13 18:41

50% of a child's DNA comes from its Mother and 50% from its Father. That bit is straight forward.

Two "half DNAs", one half from each parent (putting it in the most simplistic way possible) come together and create the child's "full" DNA.

Within that DNA are genes from both parents - some dominant, some recessive. The dominant genes "over-ride" the recessive when it comes to the phenotype (the physical appearance.) But the recessive genes remain there, they are just "dormant."

The phenotype is helpful in tracing genetics backwards, but for the purposes of what we need to know here, it's not important. It would only be important in this case if Maddie's phenotype showed she could not possibly be the biological child of one parent or the other. Or both. Eg, if madeleine had very dark black skin, it would be quite apparent that (barring some extremely rare type of genetic mutation) she could not be genetically related to Kate or Gerry. I think we can ignore the phenotype.

What is most important is her genotype. The pattern of her genes. There will be "chunks of pattern" identical to her Mother and "chunks" identical to her Father. The length of these chunks will vary, and the order in which they appear will vary.

[This is immensely difficult to explain and I fear I am failing miserably.]

In a nutshell, Maddie's DNA is a mish-mash of half of Kate's and half Gerry's Genes.

Subsequent siblings may have a completely different mish-mash of genes from the same parents- hence they look different. They could inherit a lot of the same genes that the first child did and end up looking very similar, or they may not.

I really don't understand the bit where it says the DNA came from 3 sources. I can only assume that the DNA in the samples came from 3 different people. If the DNA came from three completely unrelated people, if the sample was decent, it should be possible to "seperate" them. However, if the DNA came from a mixture of say, Maddie, her siblings and/or her parents, it would be very difficult to establish whose was whose.

Does that help? big grin
nah

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Kepharel on 25.07.13 20:01

@Lance De Boils wrote:50% of a child's DNA comes from its Mother and 50% from its Father. That bit is straight forward.

Two "half DNAs", one half from each parent (putting it in the most simplistic way possible) come together and create the child's "full" DNA.

Within that DNA are genes from both parents - some dominant, some recessive. The dominant genes "over-ride" the recessive when it comes to the phenotype (the physical appearance.) But the recessive genes remain there, they are just "dormant."

The phenotype is helpful in tracing genetics backwards, but for the purposes of what we need to know here, it's not important. It would only be important in this case if Maddie's phenotype showed she could not possibly be the biological child of one parent or the other. Or both. Eg, if madeleine had very dark black skin, it would be quite apparent that (barring some extremely rare type of genetic mutation) she could not be genetically related to Kate or Gerry. I think we can ignore the phenotype.

What is most important is her genotype. The pattern of her genes. There will be "chunks of pattern" identical to her Mother and "chunks" identical to her Father. The length of these chunks will vary, and the order in which they appear will vary.

[This is immensely difficult to explain and I fear I am failing miserably.]

In a nutshell, Maddie's DNA is a mish-mash of half of Kate's and half Gerry's Genes.

Subsequent siblings may have a completely different mish-mash of genes from the same parents- hence they look different. They could inherit a lot of the same genes that the first child did and end up looking very similar, or they may not.

I really don't understand the bit where it says the DNA came from 3 sources. I can only assume that the DNA in the samples came from 3 different people. If the DNA came from three completely unrelated people, if the sample was decent, it should be possible to "seperate" them. However, if the DNA came from a mixture of say, Maddie, her siblings and/or her parents, it would be very difficult to establish whose was whose.

Does that help? big grin
nah

 Hi Lance,
 
When it comes to getting a head around this topic, I reckon confusion is universal, so join the club!!
 
I’m holding on to Whmon’s eyes example and candyflosse’s you tube video here, in order to keep sane, though I think I’m starting to get a handle on the John Lowe FSS email too now.  Let me have one more stab at the 50:25:25 DNA distribution thing again. It’s true that there are only 2 contributors to make up the child’s molecular structure, but she is nevertheless unique.  That’s because, from my reading of all this, when the DNA evolved within the gene there were certain predisposed outcomes of what her physical characteristics would look like as a result of her parents own DNA plus components that were potentially there (carrier) but not 'switched on' (In your post that translates for me as 'dormant').  So if we take Whmons eyes example viz:
 
Father's eyes are brown and he is a carrier for blue eyes............Blue eyes dormant
Mother's eyes are brown and she is a carrier for blue eyes...........
Blue eyes dormant

This represents 100% of the DNA for eye colour passed on to the child.

1. The child may have brown eyes and be a carrier for brown eyes (25% chance of this outcome). No alternative 'dormant' blue
2. The child may have brown eyes and be a carrier for blue eyes (50% chance of this outcome).  
3. The child may have blue eyes and be a carrier for blue eyes (25% chance of this outcome). 
No alternative 'dormant' brown

Whichever eye colour the outcome is - this is 100% f the profile”

 
as both parents have brown eyes but have blue eyed DNA ‘potential’ within the genes the probability is that she will be the same.  There is a chance though that she does not have a ‘potential’ within her DNA to carry a blue eyed gene, or a brown eyed gene, in which case she will be brown eyes only or blue eyes only.  Where John Lowe talks of up to 5 contributors to a profile, that's when I hold up my hands.flag 
 
As far as Whmon’s possible outcomes are concerned I think it is incomplete insofar as there is a 0% possibility that the child could have blue eyes but be a carrier for brown eyes.  This is because in the example given, the possibility doesn't exist in the parent’s profile.  I don't think I can conceptualize the argument any better, I'm sorry (and maybe wrong) daft 
 
For the purposes of this competition no one has convinced me yet that the forensics is incorrect, so I stand by my theory!!  But maybe PeterMac can be the final arbiter, after all it’s his competition.  If he thinks Forensics is wrong I will give in and withdraw gracefully.

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Praiaaa on 25.07.13 20:35

@whmon wrote:
@whmon wrote:This could possibly explain the F*** OFF I'm not here to enjoy myself comment. I've just googled cocaine side effects and among other things irritability and mood swings are listed.
A further thought on cocaine use: If a person is using this drug then presumably the mind-altering effects of it could be the cause of all sorts of erratic behaviour that would not occur if the individual was not under the influence at the time, say for e.g. - disposing of a body rather than contacting the authorities to report a tragic accident

Good point! Maybe that is what we have been missing all along, and assuming behaviour was 'rational' - maybe it just wasn't, for that reason...

Praiaaa

Posts : 419
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2011-04-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Praiaaa on 25.07.13 20:37

And also makes a good case for the possible connection with RM, and his possible business interests.
Definitely more likely than illuminati, Bilderburgs, conspiracies etc....

Praiaaa

Posts : 419
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2011-04-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Lance De Boils on 25.07.13 21:19

@Praiaaa wrote:
@whmon wrote:
@whmon wrote:This could possibly explain the F*** OFF I'm not here to enjoy myself comment. I've just googled cocaine side effects and among other things irritability and mood swings are listed.
A further thought on cocaine use: If a person is using this drug then presumably the mind-altering effects of it could be the cause of all sorts of erratic behaviour that would not occur if the individual was not under the influence at the time, say for e.g. - disposing of a body rather than contacting the authorities to report a tragic accident

Good point! Maybe that is what we have been missing all along, and assuming behaviour was 'rational' - maybe it just wasn't, for that reason...

But here we're making a leap from recreational use to habitual use and I believe there is quite a difference.
Some people only use certain drugs on "special occasions" - perhaps when socialising with a group of friends (at a party or on holiday, say.) In that case the mood swings would occur in the few days after use (the "comedown.")
More prolonged mood problems can be a side effect of regular use.

Personally I don't think too much can be read into Gerry's "not here to enjoy myself" comment. To my mind that sounds like a "sense of humour" thing.

However, the very fact that the video was ever put into the public domain raises more questions for me.
(And the language used in front of young children is another matter.)

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Lance De Boils on 25.07.13 21:22

Kepharel - I surrender.flag

I did study genetics at university, but it was such a long time ago that I'm too too rusty to get my head around it all. (And truth be told, too lazy to go and dig out all my old text books and papers!)

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by sharonl on 25.07.13 21:46

@PeterMac wrote:The previous one has clearly resulted in failure.   No one was able to come up with a credible scenario which fitted the criteria set, or rather which the McCanns set.

So this is the renewed challenge, but the rules are different.
1  You MUST include, or account for, or explain away, any forensic evidence, or lack of it.
2  You MUST include, or account for, or explain away, the evidence provided by the dogs
3  You MUST include, or account for, or explain away, the evidence provided by independent witnesses

4  You MAY discount any self-serving statement made by the McCanns themselves.  Where they give alternative versions, you should state which one you rely on, or that you have discounted both, or all.
5  You MAY discount any self-serving statement made by the Tapas 7,  And where they give alternative versions, you should state which one you rely on, or that you have discounted both, or all.

In the above cases you should state your preferred alternative explanation, which may be anything from "complete fabrication" to misinterpretation, misunderstanding and so on

6  You MAY move events from one day to another, using the McCalender.  
7  You MAY NOT move events detailed by independent witnesses without good reason and proper explanation as to why they were mistaken

And again, stick to Occam's Razor. No Aliens, No Illuminati, No Common Purpose, microchips, Global Domination . . .
Just a little girl who is missing, and sadly, presumed dead.

A competition usually carries a prize or a number of prizes

Am I correct in thinking that the winner or the person who gets closest to the truth, could receive a beautiful full set of leather bound lever arch files, embossed in gold, autographed by Kevin and delivered by hand via his top of the range, chauffer driven Limo?

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3604
Reputation : 435
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by whmon on 25.07.13 21:49

@Kepharel wrote:
@Lance De Boils wrote:50% of a child's DNA comes from its Mother and 50% from its Father. That bit is straight forward.

Two "half DNAs", one half from each parent (putting it in the most simplistic way possible) come together and create the child's "full" DNA.

Within that DNA are genes from both parents - some dominant, some recessive. The dominant genes "over-ride" the recessive when it comes to the phenotype (the physical appearance.) But the recessive genes remain there, they are just "dormant."

The phenotype is helpful in tracing genetics backwards, but for the purposes of what we need to know here, it's not important. It would only be important in this case if Maddie's phenotype showed she could not possibly be the biological child of one parent or the other. Or both. Eg, if madeleine had very dark black skin, it would be quite apparent that (barring some extremely rare type of genetic mutation) she could not be genetically related to Kate or Gerry. I think we can ignore the phenotype.

What is most important is her genotype. The pattern of her genes. There will be "chunks of pattern" identical to her Mother and "chunks" identical to her Father. The length of these chunks will vary, and the order in which they appear will vary.

[This is immensely difficult to explain and I fear I am failing miserably.]

In a nutshell, Maddie's DNA is a mish-mash of half of Kate's and half Gerry's Genes.

Subsequent siblings may have a completely different mish-mash of genes from the same parents- hence they look different. They could inherit a lot of the same genes that the first child did and end up looking very similar, or they may not.

I really don't understand the bit where it says the DNA came from 3 sources. I can only assume that the DNA in the samples came from 3 different people. If the DNA came from three completely unrelated people, if the sample was decent, it should be possible to "seperate" them. However, if the DNA came from a mixture of say, Maddie, her siblings and/or her parents, it would be very difficult to establish whose was whose.

Does that help? big grin
nah

 Hi Lance,
 
When it comes to getting a head around this topic, I reckon confusion is universal, so join the club!!
 
I’m holding on to Whmon’s eyes example and candyflosse’s you tube video here, in order to keep sane, though I think I’m starting to get a handle on the John Lowe FSS email too now.  Let me have one more stab at the 50:25:25 DNA distribution thing again. It’s true that there are only 2 contributors to make up the child’s molecular structure, but she is nevertheless unique.  That’s because, from my reading of all this, when the DNA evolved within the gene there were certain predisposed outcomes of what her physical characteristics would look like as a result of her parents own DNA plus components that were potentially there (carrier) but not 'switched on' (In your post that translates for me as 'dormant').  So if we take Whmons eyes example viz:
 
Father's eyes are brown and he is a carrier for blue eyes............Blue eyes dormant
Mother's eyes are brown and she is a carrier for blue eyes...........
Blue eyes dormant

This represents 100% of the DNA for eye colour passed on to the child.

1. The child may have brown eyes and be a carrier for brown eyes (25% chance of this outcome). No alternative 'dormant' blue
2. The child may have brown eyes and be a carrier for blue eyes (50% chance of this outcome).  
3. The child may have blue eyes and be a carrier for blue eyes (25% chance of this outcome). 
No alternative 'dormant' brown

Whichever eye colour the outcome is - this is 100% f the profile”

 
as both parents have brown eyes but have blue eyed DNA ‘potential’ within the genes the probability is that she will be the same.  There is a chance though that she does not have a ‘potential’ within her DNA to carry a blue eyed gene, or a brown eyed gene, in which case she will be brown eyes only or blue eyes only.  Where John Lowe talks of up to 5 contributors to a profile, that's when I hold up my hands.flag 
 
As far as Whmon’s possible outcomes are concerned I think it is incomplete insofar as there is a 0% possibility that the child could have blue eyes but be a carrier for brown eyes.  This is because in the example given, the possibility doesn't exist in the parent’s profile.  I don't think I can conceptualize the argument any better, I'm sorry (and maybe wrong) daft 
 
For the purposes of this competition no one has convinced me yet that the forensics is incorrect, so I stand by my theory!!  But maybe PeterMac can be the final arbiter, after all it’s his competition.  If he thinks Forensics is wrong I will give in and withdraw gracefully.

 To put it very simply - it is unlikely that a child will have blue eyes with a recessive brown gene because brown is always dominant over blue. I say 'unlikely' rather than definitely not as there are other factors to take into consideration (hence species are able to evolve rather than remain in a stagnant gene pool.) until extinction.)

____________________
This message is confidential and the information must not be used, disclosed, or copied to any other person who is not entitled to receive it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and then delete it.

whmon

Posts : 434
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-04-04
Location : Back of Beyond

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by whmon on 25.07.13 21:54

@Lance De Boils wrote:
@Praiaaa wrote:
@whmon wrote:
@whmon wrote:This could possibly explain the F*** OFF I'm not here to enjoy myself comment. I've just googled cocaine side effects and among other things irritability and mood swings are listed.
A further thought on cocaine use: If a person is using this drug then presumably the mind-altering effects of it could be the cause of all sorts of erratic behaviour that would not occur if the individual was not under the influence at the time, say for e.g. - disposing of a body rather than contacting the authorities to report a tragic accident

Good point! Maybe that is what we have been missing all along, and assuming behaviour was 'rational' - maybe it just wasn't, for that reason...

But here we're making a leap from recreational use to habitual use and I believe there is quite a difference.
Some people only use certain drugs on "special occasions" - perhaps when socialising with a group of friends (at a party or on holiday, say.) In that case the mood swings would occur in the few days after use (the "comedown.")
More prolonged mood problems can be a side effect of regular use.

Personally I don't think too much can be read into Gerry's "not here to enjoy myself" comment. To my mind that sounds like a "sense of humour" thing.

However, the very fact that the video was ever put into the public domain raises more questions for me.
(And the language used in front of young children is another matter.)

 From what I've read - 'recreational' cocaine use can become 'habitual' almost immediately so that the user becomes hooked without realising it

____________________
This message is confidential and the information must not be used, disclosed, or copied to any other person who is not entitled to receive it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and then delete it.

whmon

Posts : 434
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-04-04
Location : Back of Beyond

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Kepharel on 25.07.13 21:57

Hi Whmon,

You've been a great help to my understanding..just to say thanks. smilie

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by whmon on 25.07.13 21:59

@Kepharel wrote:Hi Whmon,

You've been a great help to my understanding..just to say thanks. smilie

 Thank you Kepharel big grin

____________________
This message is confidential and the information must not be used, disclosed, or copied to any other person who is not entitled to receive it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and then delete it.

whmon

Posts : 434
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-04-04
Location : Back of Beyond

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Lance De Boils on 25.07.13 22:15

Yes. There a many others factors involved in gene expression and the resulting phenotype.
Therefore the probability of showing a particular characteristic is unlikely to exactly match an estimated ratio (in the example above for blue eyes, 2:1:1.)

However, I'm not sure if this discussion of phenotype probability is helpful to us in trying to understand the FSS reports.

We need an expert here as clearly I am not one.   tearhairout help

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by Kepharel on 25.07.13 23:56

@Lance De Boils wrote:Kepharel - I surrender.flag

I did study genetics at university, but it was such a long time ago that I'm too too rusty to get my head around it all. (And truth be told, too lazy to go and dig out all my old text books and papers!)

 Hi Lance, and Sharoni too

Lance, I don't think anyone could blame you; if genetics were a yoga position, I dread to think where the head would be positioned. whistling  I guess we've all had a bit of a correspondence course on this subject now, and I certainly have come away a bit to the wiser, and I bet a few others too.  And Sharoni, it would be great if you were right about those files as prizes.  Accountants just love lever arch files. winkwink

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

and the end!!!

Post by Kepharel on 26.07.13 6:48

So here we go with the final part of presenting a credible scenario for this competition; for a try at the big question as to overall motive.  What would drive these parents to want to give up their eldest child in the first place?  It is the easiest part of all to explain because the answer is never going to be found in the files of the PJ, the Met, or Leicester police; nothing needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; you won’t find rationale, reason or logic in a decision to give away a beautiful little girl to complete strangers, no matter how certain you may be in your own mind that she is heading for a better life. All that’s needed for the finale is a stab at a bit of creative writing.
 
If I was going to make up a good yarn about Madeleine’s abduction, then at least I wanted one that would have a happy ending insofar as I didn’t want it to be paedophiles, organised rings or opportunists; neither did I want her to die in the apartment and be abducted as a means for the body to be dumped somewhere, at sea, or wherever. 
 
A good yarn just needs a large dose of fantasy, seasoned with real life quotable observations from people who knew them, and their state of mind, in order to give it a gloss of genuine substance.  I’m not going to quote chapter and verse in trying to convince peeps of why I believe the parent’s state of mind and the circumstances of their daily lives were what they were, because I have already done that in my spoof entry for the previous competition.  If you want reasons for what I am saying you will find them there.
 
So here goes. Kate McCann is an emotional wreck and barely able to function as a mother anymore with the stress of both family life and work commitments.  She has tried to engage the family into taking Madeleine off her hands but without success. There is the possibility that this state of affairs has even come to the attention of Social Services and in turn caused the generation of a CATS file. While they have well paid successful careers they are nevertheless financially strapped: The very marriage is creaking at the seams.  There is no way they can contemplate splitting up the twins, so it has to be Madeleine.
 
What they had planned for was a hand over of the child to a pre-vetted couple who would love her and care for her.  Their careful planning was, unfortunately not careful enough.  Narcissistic as the couple were by nature they never thought for a moment they would be suspected of any involvement in an abduction or possible death of the child and that was the serious flaw in their thinking that has kept this thing alive for so long. Being the opportunists they were, it quickly became apparent they could make a fast buck from the whole affair and eliminate their financial problems before the whole thing finally died down as, to their way of thinking, it surely would.
 

So lets end the whole thing on an engaging but lyrical note.  Ever have one of those barbeque nights that went really well; it’s getting late, friends and family have gone in doors or home to their beds, and there is just you, sat in a chair beside a tray of fading charcoal embers with drink in hand.  A perfect time for looking up into a clear night sky and reflecting on the hand that life has dealt you.  Well just possibly Madeleine Beth McCann is sat outdoors in a garden somewhere, or maybe looking out of a bedroom window at that self same night sky and thinking the exact same thing.  She isn't Madeleine any more of course, she is someone else now and happy with her life.  Only very occasionally does she get a feeling that there was something else before, though she can’t put her finger on exactly what it was. But these feelings don’t last long, and anyway she has school tomorrow and there is some homework that needs to be finished.

Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can you come up with a REALLY credible scenario ? NEW Competition opens today. NEW RULES

Post by bobbin on 26.07.13 7:25

@Kepharel wrote:So here we go with the final part of presenting a credible scenario for this competition; for a try at the big question as to overall motive.  What would drive these parents to want to give up their eldest child in the first place?  It is the easiest part of all to explain because the answer is never going to be found in the files of the PJ, the Met, or Leicester police; nothing needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; you won’t find rationale, reason or logic in a decision to give away a beautiful little girl to complete strangers, no matter how certain you may be in your own mind that she is heading for a better life. All that’s needed for the finale is a stab at a bit of creative writing.
 
If I was going to make up a good yarn about Madeleine’s abduction, then at least I wanted one that would have a happy ending insofar as I didn’t want it to be paedophiles, organised rings or opportunists; neither did I want her to die in the apartment and be abducted as a means for the body to be dumped somewhere, at sea, or wherever. 
 
A good yarn just needs a large dose of fantasy, seasoned with real life quotable observations from people who knew them, and their state of mind, in order to give it a gloss of genuine substance.  I’m not going to quote chapter and verse in trying to convince peeps of why I believe the parent’s state of mind and the circumstances of their daily lives were what they were, because I have already done that in my spoof entry for the previous competition.  If you want reasons for what I am saying you will find them there.
 
So here goes. Kate McCann is an emotional wreck and barely able to function as a mother anymore with the stress of both family life and work commitments.  She has tried to engage the family into taking Madeleine off her hands but without success. There is the possibility that this state of affairs has even come to the attention of Social Services and in turn caused the generation of a CATS file. While they have well paid successful careers they are nevertheless financially strapped: The very marriage is creaking at the seams.  There is no way they can contemplate splitting up the twins, so it has to be Madeleine.
 
What they had planned for was a hand over of the child to a pre-vetted couple who would love her and care for her.  Their careful planning was, unfortunately not careful enough.  Narcissistic as the couple were by nature they never thought for a moment they would be suspected of any involvement in an abduction or possible death of the child and that was the serious flaw in their thinking that has kept this thing alive for so long. Being the opportunists they were, it quickly became apparent they could make a fast buck from the whole affair and eliminate their financial problems before the whole thing finally died down as, to their way of thinking, it surely would.
 

So lets end the whole thing on an engaging but lyrical note.  Ever have one of those barbeque nights that went really well; it’s getting late, friends and family have gone in doors or home to their beds, and there is just you, sat in a chair beside a tray of fading charcoal embers with drink in hand.  A perfect time for looking up into a clear night sky and reflecting on the hand that life has dealt you.  Well just possibly Madeleine Beth McCann is sat outdoors in a garden somewhere, or maybe looking out of a bedroom window at that self same night sky and thinking the exact same thing.  She isn't Madeleine any more of course, she is someone else now and happy with her life.  Only very occasionally does she get a feeling that there was something else before, though she can’t put her finger on exactly what it was. But these feelings don’t last long, and anyway she has school tomorrow and there is some homework that needs to be finished.
And then came the dogs.......lol4 lol4 lol4 and barked and barked 'till the lovely story ending went away.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 125
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum