Re: McCanns will NOT return to Portugal

by TozerDerry 29.05.14 18:02

noddy100 wrote:
canada12 wrote:Sorry, but as I understand it, the DNA provided by Gerry to the police, from the pillowcase in Rothley, was not a hair sample. It was DNA on the pillowcase.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Reading that could it be Amelie's ?

Have just read that. Needs to be interpretred properly. What is being said is that it could be another female child of the Mccanns, Amelie is another female child of the Mccanns, the scientist does not have the DNA profile of Amelie, and until the DNA for this sample and Amelie are compared it is not possible to say that it is not Amelie, but it certainly could not be a match for both of them. Once Amelie's profile is seen it will be possible to say that the sample is either Madeleine or any other unknown female child of the McCanns.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 29.05.14 18:08

canada12 wrote:
Who said anything about hair? My query is about DNA. There was DNA provided on a pillowcase from Rothley.

You're correct, it was a pillowcase. In any case, I still find the suggestion that the McCanns obtained DNA from a frozen embryo and put it on a pillowcase very far-fetched.

by russiandoll 29.05.14 18:12

Tozer Derry I have read all the posts from you since you joined the forum. As a linguist I am intrigued by your use of random capital letters for common nouns such as child, scientist, north, philosopher among others.

btw have you answered the question I posed twice to you on the Occam's /not Occam's thread?
I can't find a response and it would take you no more than one minute of your time.

by TozerDerry 29.05.14 18:14

russiandoll wrote:Tozer Derry I have read all the posts from you since you joined the forum. As a linguist I am intrigued by your use of random capital letters for common nouns such as child, scientist, north, philosopher among others.

btw have you answered the question I posed twice to you on the Occam's /not Occam's thread?
I can't find a response and it would take you no more than one minute of your time.

As I said, I am disinclined to waste time on replies to potentially aggressive posts- see the posts on the other thread.

Using a smart phone means you lose a lot of control over capitalisation and spelling. Stop looking for complicate answers when simple ones suffice.

by noddy100 29.05.14 18:17

iPhone

russiandoll wrote:Tozer Derry I have read all the posts from you since you joined the forum. As a linguist I am intrigued by your use of random capital letters for common nouns such as child, scientist, north, philosopher among others.

btw have you answered the question I posed twice to you on the Occam's /not Occam's thread?
I can't find a response and it would take you no more than one minute of your time.

iPhone ime

by Guest 29.05.14 18:20

russiandoll: I admire your persistence. I think TD is trying to say, in his own particular, philosophical, scientific language, no, he is not going to respond to you.

by Guest 29.05.14 18:22

About Madeleine's DNA, once more: the first FSS report on the saliva retrieved from the Rothley pillow case confirmed that it originated from a female natural child of both Kate and Gerry McCann. The scientist mentioned, that she understood the McCanns had another female child. In the SECOND report, when she had analysed the DNA of the twins, she CONFIRMED that the DNA in the first report was NOT of them. Thus it must be Madeleine's.

Unless there's a 3rd and unknown daughter of K&G, which is IMO far out.

by russiandoll 29.05.14 18:27

I get that TD will not answer me... and I do not see how asking a polite and straightforward question is potentially aggressive !
I had hoped that he /she would have highlighted the inference drawn re the doors.

Mrs Fenn seemed sure that the patio doors opening signified that someone had entered, when unless she stated that she concluded this because she had suddenly heard adult voices in 5a, an inference could be reasonably drawn that the noise of the doors was someone leaving.

by TozerDerry 29.05.14 18:30

russiandoll wrote:I get that TD will not answer me... and I do not see how asking a polite and straightforward question is potentially aggressive !
I had hoped that he /she would have highlighted the inference drawn re the doors.

Mrs Fenn seemed sure that the patio doors opening signified that someone had entered, when unless she stated that she concluded this because she had suddenly heard adult voices in 5a, an inference could be reasonably drawn that the noise of the doors was someone leaving.

In order to read and parse a series of statements is going to take time that I am reluctant to invest in a forum which allows sly digs and abuse.

I am getting the opinion that the slightest deviation from a party line here makes one a target, so am essentially on my way out the next time I get abuse. If I find I can post here without unpleasantness, i may then invest time in reading the statements you suggest.

by tiny 29.05.14 18:32

where have you been abused and what party line are you referring to

by Guest 29.05.14 18:33

I really don't accept that Russian Doll has been guilty of aggressive behaviour.

by Guest 29.05.14 18:34

Me neither. TD please stop you are now derailing the thread. ontopic

by Guest 29.05.14 18:42

I am very confused now, probably due to my own misinterpretation.

I always thought the Rothley pillowcase provided hair samples.

Mr. A has said I'm sure, that the PJ have MBM's hair samples. Could someone clarify where were these obtained if not from the Rothley pillowcase?

by Guest 29.05.14 18:44

daffodil wrote:I am very confused now, probably due to my own misinterpretation.

I always thought the Rothley pillowcase provided hair samples.

Mr. A has said I'm sure, that the PJ have MBM's hair samples. Could someone clarify where were these obtained if not from the Rothley pillowcase?

I think they came from the car daffodil.

by canada12 29.05.14 18:45

daffodil wrote:I am very confused now, probably due to my own misinterpretation.

I always thought the Rothley pillowcase provided hair samples.

Mr. A has said I'm sure, that the PJ have MBM's hair samples. Could someone clarify where were these obtained if not from the Rothley pillowcase?

IIRC the hair samples came from the boot of the hired car. Correct me if I'm wrong...?

by Guest 29.05.14 19:02

Thank you dantezebu and canada12.

I don't want to derail this topic but - they found none of Madeleine's DNA at 5A, yet found hair that matched her DNA in the car??

Truly I have been following this for 5 years, not as informed as many here I know but may I say this is incredible isn't it ?

by stillsloppingout 29.05.14 19:06

TozerDerry wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I really don't accept that Russian Doll has been guilty of aggressive behaviour.
I didn't say she had. It was another poster. But that sort of attitude in what was posted and what was deleted make me reluctant to invest time in analysing a complex statement.

So TD being a relatively new poster, and introducing us to the concept of null Hypothesis " in essence giving defence answers conclusions to which could be at a later date used by the McCann's lawyers .

i am curious as to what your take is regarding this case ? .

by Guest 29.05.14 19:10

TD was asked that question a few days ago but did not reply. TD is now off-line.

by Guest 29.05.14 19:14

daffodil wrote:Thank you dantezebu and canada12.

I don't want to derail this topic but - they found none of Madeleine's DNA at 5A, yet found hair that matched her DNA in the car??

Truly I have been following this for 5 years, not as informed as many here I know but may I say this is incredible isn't it ?

I don't think the hair was tested for DNA at the time because it has no root. It was colour matched to Madeleine.
Thankfully science has moved on and it is now possible to extract DNA from hairs without roots and I think Mr Amaral was hoping that this was going to be done soon.
Also the hairs can be tested for corpse banding which is a process affecting hair after death, indicating the hair came from a dead person.
These tests may well have been done by now but no results are in the public domain.

by stillsloppingout 29.05.14 19:25

Ladyinred wrote:TD was asked that question a few days ago but did not reply. TD is now off-line.

As in the life of Brian ' I should Know i Have seen a few "

They spring up, they get caught out by the clumsy way they enter the debate ,no gentle introduction ,straight in with some bolloc** . [or in this case a ruse, for our pool of posters, to do the work for there legal team !!!! ] .

IMO He will be known to the McCanns [ more likely him ] sounds about mid 50's professional .

by margaret 29.05.14 21:09

canada12 wrote:Madeleine was an IVF baby. More than one embryo was likely created. We don't know what happened to the other embryos. One possible explanation for there being other sources of DNA which are from a natural child of the McCanns and exclude the Twins.

ETA - if there were other embryos and they were frozen, the McCanns would have had access to them at any time. Correct?

Just to answer your question yes it's feasible there were other embryos, however those embryos are not for anyone else's use. Only Kate and Gerrys, are you thinking someone else may have used them?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 29.05.14 21:12

stillsloppingout wrote:
TozerDerry wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I really don't accept that Russian Doll has been guilty of aggressive behaviour.
I didn't say she had. It was another poster. But that sort of attitude in what was posted and what was deleted make me reluctant to invest time in analysing a complex statement.
So TD being a relatively new poster, and introducing us to the concept of null Hypothesis " in essence giving defence answers conclusions to which could be at a later date used by the McCann's lawyers .

i am curious as to what your take is regarding this case ? .

I'm sure lawyers could manage to construct a defense without the assistance of this forum.

by petunia 29.05.14 21:42

stillsloppingout wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:TD was asked that question a few days ago but did not reply. TD is now off-line.
As in the life of Brian ' I should Know i Have seen a few "

They spring up, they get caught out by the clumsy way they enter the debate ,no gentle introduction ,straight in with some bolloc** . [or in this case a ruse, for our pool of posters, to do the work for there legal team !!!! ] .

IMO He will be known to the McCanns [ more likely him ] sounds about mid 50's professional .

by petunia 29.05.14 21:45

as the saying goes wlbts every little helps. big grin

by canada12 29.05.14 22:00

margaret wrote:
canada12 wrote:Madeleine was an IVF baby. More than one embryo was likely created. We don't know what happened to the other embryos. One possible explanation for there being other sources of DNA which are from a natural child of the McCanns and exclude the Twins.

ETA - if there were other embryos and they were frozen, the McCanns would have had access to them at any time. Correct?

Just to answer your question yes it's feasible there were other embryos, however those embryos are not for anyone else's use. Only Kate and Gerrys, are you thinking someone else may have used them?

No, I was thinking Kate and Gerry could have used them. Completely out of the box thinking and probably not likely, but it did occur to me that this could be the source of DNA on the pillowcase that Gerry brought back with him from Rothley, and that DNA would show up as being from Kate and Gerry, and would be different from Amelie and Sean. However for that theory to work, Kate and Gerry would have to know the sex of the embryo as they'd need a female to present as Madeleine's DNA.

It's probably a far-fetched idea. But there have also been theories posted on this forum that Madeleine had a twin, from one of the spare embryos, who had been implanted in another mother, and therefore another female child might exist who would have DNA from Kate and Gerry, and not be Madeleine.

Log in for more topics