Re: (2 Appendices added) 'Q' wants to know why none of Madeleine's DNA was found in Apt G5A (Long)

by Woofer 06.03.14 22:03

tigger wrote:
Hicks wrote:There is something strange when GM says that 'Madeleine is a mixture of both of us'......well yes, if he and Kate are the parent then it's pretty obvious.
It' a dumb thing for a doctor to say.

He said that in the Swedish interview to explain away the DNA found. - he said something like: ' of course Madeleine's DNA was in the car because our DNA was in it ...'
The smartie DNA theory as I like to call it., evidently he missed the class on alleles or has simply forgotten that essential bit of science or - perish the thought - he thinks we're all very stupid.

I`m sure he does .... really yes

, I`m not joking nah

by Guest 06.03.14 22:58

tigger wrote:
Hicks wrote:There is something strange when GM says that 'Madeleine is a mixture of both of us'......well yes, if he and Kate are the parent then it's pretty obvious.
It' a dumb thing for a doctor to say.

He said that in the Swedish interview to explain away the DNA found. - he said something like: ' of course Madeleine's DNA was in the car because our DNA was in it ...'
The smartie DNA theory as I like to call it., evidently he missed the class on alleles or has simply forgotten that essential bit of science or - perish the thought - he thinks we're all very stupid.

Didn't he mean that his and KM's DNA had been deposited in the car in the normal course of travelling in it (you know spitting and depositing hairs, skin flakes etc) then it was a simple assumption that anyone else's would be too in the normal course of events, including MBM's (from the above sources, plus nappies, drooling, bottles maybe etc).

At least this is how I read it - surely he is not implying that we should believe that MBM's DNA allegedly found in the car was derived from a mixture of his and KM's DNA. Is he?

by Guest 06.03.14 23:12

Got to say I always assumed he meant Madeleine's DNA only appeared to be present because his and Kate's was - "Maddie's" being a accidental combination of the two of theirs, as if Maddie was the colour pink made by mixing red and white. As a doctor he cannot really believe this, so I can only assume he said it as they believe the "laymen" they are trying to convince to be too thick to understand otherwise.

He cannot have meant her DNA was present as a result of her actually being in the car as it was hired almost a month after the disappearance.

by Guest 07.03.14 10:38

Dee Coy wrote:Got to say I always assumed he meant Madeleine's DNA only appeared to be present because his and Kate's was - "Maddie's" being a accidental combination of the two of theirs, as if Maddie was the colour pink made by mixing red and white. As a doctor he cannot really believe this, so I can only assume he said it as they believe the "laymen" they are trying to convince to be too thick to understand otherwise.

He cannot have meant her DNA was present as a result of her actually being in the car as it was hired almost a month after the disappearance.

You are of course right Dee Coy thanks for correcting me, I have confused myself. As you say MBM was never actually supposed to have been in the car since they didn't hire it until well after she disappeared.

So they are hoping we will believe, as you say, that MBM's DNA was an accidental combination of the both of theirs. Crickey this case never fails to amaze me - are the PJ/police/forensics services supposed to believe this as well? Another one for PeterMacs Redflag thread if not already on there.

Thanks for the correction again.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 07.03.14 17:06

tigger wrote:
He said that in the Swedish interview to explain away the DNA found. - he said something like: ' of course Madeleine's DNA was in the car because our DNA was in it ...'
The smartie DNA theory as I like to call it., evidently he missed the class on alleles or has simply forgotten that essential bit of science or - perish the thought - he thinks we're all very stupid.

It's a remarkably stupid thing for Gerry to say. Perhaps he said it because he was on the spot, and obviously the genuine answer would kind of seriously drop him in it.

Let's go completely mad for a second, and assume that Gerry is entirely innocent, and that neither Maddie's body or bits of Maddie's body were ever in that hire car (yes, I know - I did say completely mad). If it were me I would answer the question honestly. I would say "I have no idea, Madeleine was never in that car, dead or alive". I wouldn't make up unscientific crap, especially not if I was a doctor. Because it makes you look guilty.

It's a massive red flag. A doctor must surely have some knowledge of DNA. I really can't think of what he was meaning to say, unless it's your 'smartie DNA theory' tigger :) If DNA could mix on the fly like Gerry seems to insist, this would be an incredibly strange world indeed.

by Guest 07.03.14 17:22

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]
Let's go completely mad for a second, and assume that Gerry is entirely innocent, and that neither Maddie's body or bits of Maddie's body were ever in that hire car (yes, I know - I did say completely mad). If it were me I would answer the question honestly. I would say "I have no idea, Madeleine was never in that car, dead or alive". I wouldn't make up unscientific crap, especially not if I was a doctor. Because it makes you look guilty.

It's a massive red flag. A doctor must surely have some knowledge of DNA. I really can't think of what he was meaning to say, unless it's your 'smartie DNA theory' tigger :) If DNA could mix on the fly like Gerry seems to insist, this would be an incredibly strange world indeed.

***
And it would be a reason to review ALL convictions based on DNA evidence ...

You're right: why does he try and annul forensic findings, like he did when he said - non verbatim - "They don't have any evidence"? I would have said: "I'm innocent", not "you have no proof" ...

by whatliesbehindthesofa 07.03.14 17:38

Châtelaine wrote:
***
And it would be a reason to review ALL convictions based on DNA evidence ...

You're right: why does he try and annul forensic findings, like he did when he said - non verbatim - "They don't have any evidence"? I would have said: "I'm innocent", not "you have no proof" ...

I know what type of person claims "They've got nothing!", and it ain't the innocent type.

by Guest 08.03.14 12:19

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Got to say I always assumed he meant Madeleine's DNA only appeared to be present because his and Kate's was - "Maddie's" being a accidental combination of the two of theirs, as if Maddie was the colour pink made by mixing red and white. As a doctor he cannot really believe this, so I can only assume he said it as they believe the "laymen" they are trying to convince to be too thick to understand otherwise.

He cannot have meant her DNA was present as a result of her actually being in the car as it was hired almost a month after the disappearance.

You are of course right Dee Coy thanks for correcting me, I have confused myself. As you say MBM was never actually supposed to have been in the car since they didn't hire it until well after she disappeared.

So they are hoping we will believe, as you say, that MBM's DNA was an accidental combination of the both of theirs. Crickey this case never fails to amaze me - are the PJ/police/forensics services supposed to believe this as well? Another one for PeterMacs Redflag thread if not already on there.

Thanks for the correction again.

Blackcat, my intention was certainly not to correct - I wouldn't dream of it roses

. It was merely to reiterate the audacity and contempt of GM as demonstrated by what he expects us all to swallow. Ghastly man in every way.

by Guest 09.03.14 21:57

@Deecoy - Yes it is unbelievable what we are being asked to believe, and yes the contempt shown, how have they got away with it? It is as if we are being asked to suspend all rational belief and just accept without question what we are being told. Personally, I think they have some very high level support to take take this stance, how else can it be explained.

No Deecoy please correct us newbies when we have posted something off the mark, I for one, welcome it. I obviously hadn't turned my powers of suspended belief high enough this time!

by Khaleesi 03.01.15 0:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
'Q' has presented this paper to a Madeleine Foundation Regional meeting and has given permission for it to be published:

"I'm just going to touch on something called - Artificial Embryo Twinning: Once an egg has been fertilised by sperm it soon starts dividing. When it divides into separate embryos and the cells are separated , those cells can be implanted into separate mothers and almost identical twins will then be born .- Dizygotic twins.

This isn't Sci Fi, it's another type of IVF, and many studies are being done on this subject and on the children born as a result of this process . the children are called Dizygotic twins - DZ twins like any other siblings, don't necessarily have the exact same chromosome profile. Like any other siblings, DZ twins may look similar , but that’s as far as it goes" ..../rest snipped

It's all nice and dandy, but unfortunately it's also wrong. Actually Artificial Embryo Twinning is creating monozygotic twins in a petri dish. See, when the fertilised egg starts to divide, it is splitted into single cells, which start to divide again, becoming new embryos. In the natural process the embryo splits into parts by itself, creating the identical twins. But it all started from one egg, that was fertilised by one sperm cell, creating ONE ZYGOTE. Monos means in Greek single, hence monozygotic twins. And because they started from one zygote, they have identical DNA, being, basically, clones. As far as I know it is not used during the IVF procedure as cloning people is against the law in most countries on the planet Earth.

Now, the twins that are born from in vitro fertilization are most often dizygotic, that's correct. But they were created in a simpler way: by fertilizing more than one egg cell and then implanting two or more embryos to ensure a greater probability of success, that means pregnancy. See? Two eggsand two sperm cells make two zygotes, hence dizygotic twins. Their DNA profiles share as much of markers as in case of the non-twin siblings. Now, it is perfectly possible that during the IVF procedure that ended up in conceiving Madeleine there was a bigger batch of embryos created and frozen. It is not out of realms of probability that the McCanns donated one or more embryos to another couple, what would mean that there is somewhere their fourth biological child and if it is a female she might be used as Madeleine's DNA double (if I can call it like that). Ya know, to confuse the police they did not provide them with any source of the real Maddie's DNA, and as it was stated in your post, they should have plentiful of them. Instead Gerry went to UK to get some DNA samples of a double, the unknown bio-daughter. Her existence might also explain the different Maddies on the pictures.

by Rufus T 03.01.15 13:32

Indeed Khaleesi, monozygotic one ovum which after fertilisation divides resulting in identical twins and dizygotic which refers to two ova fertilised at the same time resulting in non identical twins. As far as I am aware you are indeed correct that in the case of Artificial Embryo Twinning the result would be identical twins.
Always important to make sure our information is as accurate as possible.

by Baffled 02.11.18 8:50

Smokeandmirrors wrote:A couple of things are bothering me regarding this thread. Two things I cannot understand:

1) Why can a DNA profile not be extracted from a hair, as opposed to a swab from inside the mouth?

2) I can see why people think MM may not have been on the holiday at all, but even if there was a "ringer" involved, wouldn't check in details for the airport sort that one out? A substitute for MM would still have to be checked onto the plane, so where did that child go?

I've often thought that Maddie died at an earlier date in the UK, and that they needed to cover up the cause of her death. The holiday could have been a scam especially for that purpose, but as you ask, what happened to the other Maddie?
Well maybe the 'Maddie' that went with them traveled on the real Maddies passport, but returned on her real one, together with a family member?

____________________________________________________________________________________________

A controversial very tenuous subject with no foundation on which to build. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since this thread was started.

Members are asked not to rekindle old defunct threads without good reason, they are archived because they have passed their sell by date.

Thread locked. Mod

Log in for more topics