Re: Maddie 'look-alike' DNA to go to the UK from Queenstown

by **tigger** 09.02.13 12:49

Woofer wrote:I thought that Maddie`s DNA had been destroyed by FFS. Do we know if there is any genuine DNA of Maddie anywhere? There was none in the flat, apparently there was a hair from her coat and a pillow case from her bed - but we only have the McCann`s word for this. The DNA that was compared to the fluids in the car boot has apparently been destroyed by FSS, so where is this DNA that can be compared to the girls in NZ?

Yes, and the hair which was said to be Maddie's did not have a root attached so at the time it wasn't possible to get a full DNA result from that.
However, science has advanced and DNA can be taken from hairs without roots.

It is an excellent example of why the FSS should have kept all the samples. It is standard practice to do so.
I don't for a minute believe that ALL the samples were contaminated by staff. I would also have to believe in Santa Claus and flying reindeer.

I don't believe ANY samples were contaminated at all. Staff DNA is stored for that very reason and how convenient that just on this case this contamination 'happened', the case of the century one might say.
Have the FSS ever had such a disaster befall them before or since?
Or are we to believe that CSI dogs with a 100% success record, failed only when faced with the McCann case?
And the same thing happened to the FSS?

by bobbin 09.02.13 12:58

pennylane wrote:Surely the easiest way would be to take a mouth swab of the parents and child in NZ and verify a biological match

This is such rank-amateur pink spin, and those that buy into it..... well nuff said!

Where's the 'head-line' in that story though pennylane.
How many newspapers would be sold with the following message 'girl in New Zealand has a coloboma', a bit like the one that McCs claimed that their daughter had, but later disclaimed in interview when they said it was actually only just a tiny little speck that you wouldn't ordinarily notice, but which does show up very clearly in ~~our top-quality range of photo-shopped~~ photos, available for ~~purchase~~ viewing on our toll charging phone line free website. All further enquiries can be answered on our ~~not~~ toll free phone line.
Lots of love(~~ly dosh~~), and wishing you Happy Hunting on your well earned annual holidays. xxxxx [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by pennylane 09.02.13 13:07

bobbin wrote:
pennylane wrote:Surely the easiest way would be to take a mouth swab of the parents and child in NZ and verify a biological match

This is such rank-amateur pink spin, and those that buy into it..... well nuff said!

Where's the 'head-line' in that story though pennylane.
How many newspapers would be sold with the following message 'girl in New Zealand has a coloboma', a bit like the one that McCs claimed that their daughter had, but later disclaimed in interview when they said it was actually only just a tiny little speck that you wouldn't ordinarily notice, but which does show up very clearly in ~~our top-quality range of photo-shopped~~ photos, available for ~~purchase~~ viewing on our toll charging phone line free website. All further enquiries can be answered on our ~~not~~ toll free phone line.
Lots of love(~~ly dosh~~), and wishing you Happy Hunting on your well earned annual holidays. xxxxx [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As always, you are spot on bobbin! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 09.02.13 14:05

pennylane wrote:Surely the easiest way would be to take a mouth swab of the parents and child in NZ and verify a biological match.

This is such rank-amateur pink spin, and as for those that buy into it..... well nuff said!

agree......and I hope that it is the result of this test which is going to SY and not a sample to be compared against McCanns, that is wrong and unnecessary. I would as a parent want a damned good explanation why instead of trying to match my child's DNA to mine, it was sent to match against a parent of a missing child. I would not allow it.

by pennylane 09.02.13 14:40

russiandoll wrote:
pennylane wrote:Surely the easiest way would be to take a mouth swab of the parents and child in NZ and verify a biological match.

This is such rank-amateur pink spin, and as for those that buy into it..... well nuff said!

agree......and I hope that it is the result of this test which is going to SY and not a sample to be compared against McCanns, that is wrong and unnecessary. I would as a parent want a damned good explanation why instead of trying to match my child's DNA to mine, it was sent to match against a parent of a missing child. I would not allow it.

No way I would allow it either!

Anyway, it's fiction based on fiction, aimed squarely at the 'McCann believers,' of whom history has shown... will believe anything!

by Woofer 09.02.13 15:02

Heard someone talking about the Profumo affair on the radio this morning - describing how the Mirror ran with it for ages and subequently destroyed the Tories. They were discussing how papers keep repeating some stories for years to keep them current and its usually because they know the people are guilty and are waiting for the big day when all comes to light. They keep it running luke warm so when the big day happens they score the majority of readers.

by russiandoll 09.02.13 15:48

below is the type of thing which does the doubter camp no favours....from the otherwise very good Chelsea Hoffman, in a piece she wrote yesterday :

Madeleine McCann remains missing after a DNA test has proved that she
isn't a New Zealand girl. This really isn't that surprising, but it
seems that authorities will continue disrupting the lives of other
families at the whims of hysterical people who insist that they've
spotted her. How many more times will this happen?

I am hoping that it is the result of a test in NZ which is going to the UK, and not a sample to be tested here, because imo the child should be tested in her home country against her parents and not in the UK against the McCanns.
Whatever, we do not know the result as far as I know so I wish CH had not stated the above as fact.

by ShuBob 09.02.13 16:35

russiandoll wrote:Snip

I am hoping that it is the result of a test in NZ which is going to the UK, and not a sample to be tested here, because imo the child should be tested in her home country against her parents and not in the UK against the McCanns.
Whatever, we do not know the result as far as I know so I wish CH had not stated the above as fact.

I think it's a valid assumption given the press release by Queenstown police on January 4:

"Queenstown Police investigating a reported sighting of missing British girl Madeline McCann say they have identified the young girl seen in Queenstown on New Years Eve and are 'absolutely satisfied' that she is not the missing schoolgirl."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What would have changed between then and now?

by **PeterMac** 09.02.13 17:26

ShuBob wrote:I think it's a valid assumption given the press release by Queenstown police on January 4: . . .
What would have changed between then and now?

Clarence Mitchell's arrangement with the papers to print the story on 4th February ?

by Inspectorfrost 09.02.13 18:01

The NZ reporter who penned the recent article tweeted that police in January were satisfied it was not Madeleine and also tweeted that she asked police for a follow up and got told about this DNA test. I cant work out when she asked for the follow up, and if it was recently, why? If this child had been ruled out by police.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

PS re the earlier conversation about samples being destroyed. The police have Madeleines DNA profile so I guess they would compare the one from the other girl to that one. Someone will correct me if this is wrong. Still stinks though!

by russiandoll 09.02.13 18:43

shubob....." think it's a valid assumption given the press release by Queenstown police on January 4 " :

"Queenstown
Police investigating a reported sighting of missing British girl
Madeline McCann say they have identified the young girl seen in
Queenstown on New Years Eve and are 'absolutely satisfied' that she is not the missing schoolgirl."

Agree 100% this DNA test is needless. But it is being/ has been done and it is not this test which has ruled the chid out in NZ afaik but other steps taken by the NZ police, which should imo have been enough. The DNA is a valid assumption, this is what CH should imo have written, it is not a fact that DNA has ruled the NZ girl out....unless it is the NEGATIVE result sent to SY and the great UK media are not reporting it.

Sorry for being picky, but it is this inaccuracy that certain others look for then jump on....I don't want them having any ammuniton !

by Inspectorfrost 09.02.13 23:16

I find it hard to believe that

A) the British police/Mccanns would not have been sent a photo to look at, especially as this wasnt the first time this girl was pointed out to the police

B) that the parents would not recognise their own daughter 6 years on, that they wouldnt ask for the birth mark to be checked

C) that the parents, if not sent a photo, did not insist on one but seem OK sitting back and letting dna tests be done? for a family to prove their child is not an abducted Madeleine and throuh their spokesman are said to have no comment apart from saying they have faith in the police and will let them get on with it

Therefore I do not believe this story. But if it is true it is even more bizarre.

As for Chelsea Hoffman either she has insider info or as a crime writer doesnt pay that much attention to detail

by Inspectorfrost 12.02.13 19:35

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As if the result could have been any different.

by Olive_Boyle 13.02.13 11:46

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I missed IF's post last night and have just spotted this. Always interesting to read the comments.

by Olympicana_Reloaded 13.02.13 13:55

DNA Test Confirms Identity

February 13, 2013, 1:42 pm

Southern Police advise that they have received confirmation from Scotland Yard that a DNA sample provided voluntarily from a girl mistaken as missing British girl Madeleine McCann on New Year's Eve in Queenstown last year does not provide a match for that of the missing girl.

At the time of the sighting Police made thorough inquiries into the sighting and were completely satisfied that the girl was not Madeleine McCann. The DNA test result, as requested by Operation Grange - the British police operation investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance - supports and confirms the original Police investigation into the matter.

The sighting is the second of the same girl, the first being in March 2012. At that time Operation Grange did not exist and therefore there was no follow-up request for a DNA test by British authorities.

Police say that at no stage has the girl been identified by NZ Police. Her family has made it very clear that although they appreciate the concerns raised by the public, the family wish to maintain their own and their daughter's privacy.

Given that there is conclusive evidence that their daughter is not Madeleine McCann and has no connection to Madeleine McCann, it is only right that she and her family are entitled to a level of privacy that most of us enjoy.

The family has asked that their privacy continues to be respected and do not want any contact from media.

ENDS

Released by Detective Inspector Steve McGregor, Southern District Crime Services Manager

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Inspectorfrost 13.02.13 19:03

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So, no comment from the parents or their spokesman. Majority of the public's comments cynical. And rightly so.

Hopefully this will put an end to fake sightings and harrassment of innocent families.

by Mirage 13.02.13 19:34

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And just when you thought the pantomime season was over, the following bombshell news from New Zealand ................

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 14.02.13 13:03

Look at the comments in the Sun, the Murdoch paper, never allowed before [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by jd 14.02.13 13:05

candyfloss wrote:Look at the comments in the Sun, the Murdoch paper, never allowed before [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why do they keep using that old 6/7 year photo of Maddie with the 'eye'

by **tigger** 14.02.13 13:35

jd wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Look at the comments in the Sun, the Murdoch paper, never allowed before [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why do they keep using that old 6/7 year photo of Maddie with the 'eye'

a) it's a 'trigger' for people to buy the paper?
b) more importantly - probably don't have to pay copyright on it - I expect there's copyright on a lot of others, including the age advanced. After all, one has to pay for a poster if one wants to join the search. That only buys you a poster, not the right to copy it anywhere.

by cass7 14.02.13 14:02

from birth of a child there are records -- they take a blood test -- cuthrie --yep spelling

this child will have

medical records -- birth certificate

prob passport

dental records

school records

blood type

baby pics

list is endless

so why dna --there is something more to this story imo -- why go to these lenghths when all the lesser distressing things could have been used

wonder what the markers came back as --

by Guest 14.02.13 17:20

Re the coloboma. I googled a bit for information and pictures. Have to say that few if any at all look like Madeleine's alleged coloboma, nowadays referred as "a fleck" ...
Strangely enough I cannot copy the link here.
Just google : coloboma picture
and you'll see what I mean.

by T4two 14.02.13 17:44

cass7 wrote:from birth of a child there are records -- they take a blood test -- cuthrie --yep spelling

this child will have

medical records -- birth certificate

prob passport

dental records

school records

blood type

baby pics

list is endless

so why dna --there is something more to this story imo -- why go to these lenghths when all the lesser distressing things could have been used

wonder what the markers came back as --