McCanns launch new appeal

[Jayelles]

I'm afraid its you who has 'no case'.

I'd like to remind you that outside of a court of law, there is no presumption of innocence, nor could there be. If there were such an out of court presumption there would never be any investigations could there!

Pro-McCanners always want everyone else to prove the case against the McCanns but never are able to prove their innocence.

The McCanns themselves have never provided a believable time line after all this time, yet you demand one from posters here!

Gerry even said he was looking down at his daughter at the exact same time Jne Tanner claimed she saw the mysterious 'abductor' (he gave the time as 9:15 PM and so did she - he in writing on his blog and she verbally on panorama).

So, tell me this, why do you blindly defend the McCanns instead of taking an object look at the facts as we know them? Why not start from the assumption that we do not know, then look at the possibilities. why not be objective? Or do you have some vested reason for blindly defending them?

Oh and the McCanns were never 'cleared' - this is completely untrue.

Anyway, what 'timeline' are you desperately looking for? The one where the McCanns took the eyes of the media to Rome for the funeral whilst someone else disposed of the body? remeber, its quite possible that madeleine was killed on the 2nd May after the McCanns had spent yet another night drinking whils ttheir children were alone and abandoned and crying in their holiday apartment.

Well I suppose in your world where justice works backwards, anything would go.

And of course you can make any McCann did it theory work if you are going to incluide the conspiratorial involvement of half of Praia da Luz!

Judge : "How did they hide her body?"
MDI witness : "Oh they got someone to hide it for them"
Judge : "Where did they hide it?"
MDI Witness : "Oh they got someone to hide her in their freezer for three weeks"
Judge : "And how did they move her body?"
MDI Witness : "They got someone else to do that when they were in Rome"
Judge : "And what did they use to dig a grave?"
MDI Witness : "Oh they got a local to lend them a shovel"
Judge : "And what about the witnesses who saw Madeleine alive at 6.00pm and 6.30pm?
MDI Witness : "They are all involved in a conspiracy"
Judge : "And the forensic scientists who tested the samples?"
MDI Witness : "Yep - they all agreed to be part of the conspiracy"
Judge :"And the Portuguese Attorney General who cleared them?"
MDI : "Well clearly he must be part of the conspiracy too"
Judge :" You have no case. Case dismissed"
MDI Witness : "I knew it - you are part of the conspiracy too... The only one telling the truth is the sniffer dog..."

 

[april4sky]

I teach science as well.

And I have a mathematics based degree. (double major, both mathematics based.)

And Mr. Texana has a graduate degree in engineering and thinks I am an idiot for being on this forum at all, as it is more than obvious to him that based on the facts and evidence and DNA evidence, Madeleine is not living and her parents have some involvement. Fortunately, after a quarter century of marriage, he is tolerant of my faith that people can be persuaded to come to an understanding of facts.

That is why I teach, and he doesn't.

So you will have to find another reason as to why we view things differently.

All the more reason why it's very surprising you would pick one part of the forensic DNA findings and leave out all the rest. The result of which gives a completely false impresssion of their findings.

Final report "FACT." The "experts" couldn't rule Madeleine IN or OUT.

They also report that the individual components were not uniquely Madeleine's so the markers could not be confirmed as Madeleine's!!

The "experts" also concluded that 50% of Madeleines profile is shared by each parent.

And the genetic profiles of the relatives could not be separated.

They could not confirm when and how the DNA was deposited - or from which type of bodily fluids it came from.

Taking on board all of the forensic "experts" findings isn't rocket science - just common sense!!

 

[Jayelles]

No DNA markers belonging to anyone else were identified at the apartment from the trace evidence found there, or from the evidence in the Renault. All of the markers found belonged to Madeleine and no one else. The only thing lacking was ONE marker that would have conclusively proved it was her--15 out of 19 were hers and hers alone.

Are you suggesting that another cadaver was in the apartment or the Renault?

Absolutely not. Please tell me what part of ANY post I have made suggests that - I'd love to understand how you reached that conclusion as it might help me understand how you reach some of your other conclusions.

The notion that there was "another cadaver" would be almost as far fetched as some of the McCann did it theories I have read.

A far simpler and more logical explanation is that the dog alert was false.

I have now posted several times about the SAME dog alerting 27 times at the Jersey children's home when there were no human bodies. It's not a stretch to suppose that the McCann alerts were more of the same.

I have also posted about the FACT that the car dog's handler behaved quite differently to the McCann car than he did to any of the others. It was the only one he stopped and stayed at. The only one he called the dog back to THREE times, and the only one he tapped.

I'm not sure whether you aren't understanding these posts or choosing to ignore them. I fail to understand why you would interpret my NUMEROUS posts about this as my suggesting it was another cadaver!!

 

[Jayelles]

I can't get past the dogs alerting in the same spot because I can't come up with a reasonable explanation for both a blood evidence dog and a cadaver dog alerting in the same spots and then DNA evidence being recovered in those spots other than it being evidence of Madeleine being injured and then passing away.

So there is no room in your understanding for the FACT that dogs cannot differentiate between the blood of different people?

No room for the FACT that hundreds of people and probably small animals have passed through those flats before and since the McCanns stayed there.

No room for the FACT that the tabloids spun false stories about the DNA?

No room for the FACT that Madeleine was in the flat and that her clothes and toys were in the car thus providing perfectly innocent reasons for her DNA being there?

No room for the FACT that you'd have to factor in an awful lot of conspiracy and supposition which the facts do NOT support in order to make your theory work?

Not very pleasant to think about, but based on scientific fact.

What kind of science?

Please map out your timeline of all of this for me. I really cannot understand why you and Isabella are so reluctant to do so. I am willing to be convinced, but repeating the same discredited arguments with neither justification nor source to back them up isn't convincing me at all.

 

[Jayelles]

Exactly.

Exactly what? That people have no presumption of innocence? That people need to prove their innocence? That the McCanns got someone else to dispose of their daughter's body?

Your friend doesn't even seem to be following the discussion. No-one is disputing Gerry being away from the table at the same time as jane tanner.

 

[Texana]

So there is no room in your understanding for the FACT that dogs cannot differentiate between the blood of different people?

No room for the FACT that hundreds of people and probably small animals have passed through those flats before and since the McCanns stayed there.

No room for the FACT that the tabloids spun false stories about the DNA?

No room for the FACT that Madeleine was in the flat and that her clothes and toys were in the car thus providing perfectly innocent reasons for her DNA being there?

No room for the FACT that you'd have to factor in an awful lot of conspiracy and supposition which the facts do NOT support in order to make your theory work?



What kind of science?

Please map out your timeline of all of this for me. I really cannot understand why you and Isabella are so reluctant to do so. I am willing to be convinced, but repeating the same discredited arguments with neither justification nor source to back them up isn't convincing me at all.

Well, I'm not going to spend any time on a time line until I am sure that basic understanding of DNA is established here.

The cadaver and blood dogs did not alert on Madeleine's scent. They alert to the chemical scents of human blood or human cadaverine, which is the chemical excreted by humans only after dying. It can be scented as early as 1 1/2 hours after dying as decomposition begins.

When the dogs alerted, DNA evidence was found at two of those places, and two places where both dogs alerted. That means that the dogs' alerts were backed up by physical evidence being found there.

On that physical evidence, not ONE marker out of 15 identified was tied to anyone else other than Madeleine. Please check out the odds of that. The dogs do not differentiate. DNA evidence does.

That physical evidence included DNA evidence (I say that instead of hair, because it was only ever identified as "DNA traces" in the official reports) found in the wheel well of the car. It was found below the tiles of the apartment, meaning enough blood had been spilled that it had seeped below the tiles.

I'm sorry, but there is no scientific "room for the fact" that Madeleine's toys or presence in the apartment explain the DNA evidence or the dogs' alerting.

I haven't the slightest idea what any British tabloids said about the DNA. I base my conclusions from the official reports from the FSS.

And no, I'm not providing links. You are quite capable of finding them for yourself if you wish.

 

[Texana]

PS You might like to research "undifferentiated cells" for a more thorough understanding of why the DNA evidence of anyone who happened to be in the apartment or even Madeleine herself, and the evidence found under the tiles and the wheel well of the Renault, are not the same.

 

[april4sky]

Well, I'm not going to spend any time on a time line until I am sure that basic understanding of DNA is established here.

The Forensic "experts" who did the actual work in this case have far more than a "BASIC" understanding of DNA and they don't agree with your "theory" Texana.
Do you think yourself more qualified than they are?

The cadaver and blood dogs did not alert on Madeleine's scent. They alert to the chemical scents of human blood or human cadaverine, which is the chemical excreted by humans only after dying. It can be scented as early as 1 1/2 hours after dying as decomposition begins.

Can you confirm any of the alerts were from a dead Madeleine as again the real "experts" don't agree with you.

When the dogs alerted, DNA evidence was found at two of those places, and two places where both dogs alerted. That means that the dogs' alerts were backed up by physical evidence being found there.

You can't know what the dogs alerted to?

Dog alerts are only part of the process which is why forensics have to be done, and again the real "experts" don't agree with your theory.

You need to facter in all of the "experts" findings.

On that physical evidence, not ONE marker out of 15 identified was tied to anyone else other than Madeleine. Please check out the odds of that. The dogs do not differentiate. DNA evidence does.

I am no expert but it's not rocket science to understand the real experts findings.
Final report "FACT." The "experts" couldn't rule Madeleine IN or OUT.

They also report that the individual components were not uniquely Madeleine's so the markers could not be confirmed as Madeleine's!!

The same experts also reported that 50% of Madeleines profile is shared by each of her parents and the genetic profiles of her relatives could not be separated.

Texana if as YOU claim none of the markers were tied to anyone other than Madeleine -
How do you suppose the "experts" reported that the markers could not be confirmed as Madeleines?

The forensic "experts" were trying to confirm Madeleine's DNA - Which is why stats for the possibility of her were presented - Understandably!!

We don't know how many or indeed which markers contained the same components as her parents or the twins.

So you can't know "as you claim" that none of the markers are tied to anyone other than Madeleine.

That physical evidence included DNA evidence (I say that instead of hair, because it was only ever identified as "DNA traces" in the official reports) found in the wheel well of the car. It was found below the tiles of the apartment, meaning enough blood had been spilled that it had seeped below the tiles.

You shouldn't just assume the DNA traces recovered were Madeleine's.

Real forensic "experts" don't jump to conclusions - and not surprisingly they don't agree with you.

I'm sorry, but there is no scientific "room for the fact" that Madeleine's toys or presence in the apartment explain the DNA evidence or the dogs' alerting.

There is no scientific evidence that the dogs were alerting to a dead Madeleine.
Again you can't know what the dogs alerted to.

Without a body most of us know by now that dog alerts mean nothing unless they can be confirmed by "expert" forensic testing.
Only then can a conclusion be drawn.

And none of the forensic tests performed by the real "experts" came to the conclusion you would have us believe.

I haven't the slightest idea what any British tabloids said about the DNA. I base my conclusions from the official reports from the FSS.
And no, I'm not providing links. You are quite capable of finding them for yourself if you wish.

It wasn't just British tabloids Texana Britain does have some reputable papers.

Which official FSS report have you read that comes to anything like the conclusion you have?

I won't waste my time searching for links that never existed.
IMO if they existed you would be more than happy to provide them.

 

[Texana]

No markers were found belonging to anyone else. So 15 out of 19 markers were linked only to Madeleine...and nothing that could be linked to anyone else.

No, it does not completely rule out someone else being the donor. But it does put the odds at close to 1 in 1000.

I don't understand what you mean by "can't know what the dogs alerted to?" One dog alerted to cadaverine and one dog alerted to blood. (human in both cases.) They're not trained to alert to anything else.

Here's your link for DNA on Wikipedia. Note there are some references to British law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fingerprinting

 

[Texana]

I won't waste my time searching for links that never existed.
IMO if they existed you would be more than happy to provide them.

I've been happy to provide links in the past and then they are a) ignored or b) dismissed as tabloid press.

So I can use my time more wisely doing a load of laundry or some work related items or anything else.

You can go through my old posts and old threads and the media threads and they're there.

Of course the FSS has a much better understanding of DNA. They also understand as well how to phrase their responses in a way that satisfies the political people in charge, tells the truth, and keeps them employed. Not many people last long working for any government agency without learning that.

And again: The comment from the FSS was not that Madeleine was ruled out. They said only that the DNA could not be conclusively identified as hers with 15 out of 19 markers identified.

What was unsaid: The chance of the DNA evidence in the Renault belonging to anyone other than Madeleine are 1 in 1000. That is a 99.9 percent chance it was Madeleine's.

I'm sure the FSS people know far more about DNA than I do, (duh.) But I can explain it in a way that maybe everyone gets:

You get 10 markers from your mother and 10 from your father with your DNA. With the DNA found in the Renault, some combination was found that could be traced directly to Kate and Gerry. The exact combination, of course, wasn't made public.

10 from Kate, 5 from Gerry...or 7 from Kate, 8 from Gerry...make up any math equation you wish.

The result is always the same: No other markers belonging to any other human on the planet were found in that sample. The odds of it not being Madeleine are 1 in 1000. That is a 99.9 percent chance the DNA blood evidence in the Renault came from Madeleine.

Evidence found in the wheel well of a rented car where Madeleine should not have ever been. Evidence backed up by a cadaver dog alerting at the same spot in the car. Evidence that cannot be logically explained by anything else that is a huge stretch of imagination.

So forget the links. If we all agree on the FSS statement, then the mathematics do the rest.

1 in 1000.

which is the same as

99.9%

You don't have to be an expert in DNA to understand the math.

 

[april4sky]

I've been happy to provide links in the past and then they are a) ignored or b) dismissed as tabloid press.

So I can use my time more wisely doing a load of laundry or some work related items or anything else.

You can go through my old posts and old threads and the media threads and they're there.

Of course the FSS has a much better understanding of DNA. They also understand as well how to phrase their responses in a way that satisfies the political people in charge, tells the truth, and keeps them employed. Not many people last long working for any government agency without learning that.

And again: The comment from the FSS was not that Madeleine was ruled out. They said only that the DNA could not be conclusively identified as hers with 15 out of 19 markers identified.

What was unsaid: The chance of the DNA evidence in the Renault belonging to anyone other than Madeleine are 1 in 1000. That is a 99.9 percent chance it was Madeleine's.

I'm sure the FSS people know far more about DNA than I do, (duh.) But I can explain it in a way that maybe everyone gets:

You get 10 markers from your mother and 10 from your father with your DNA. With the DNA found in the Renault, some combination was found that could be traced directly to Kate and Gerry. The exact combination, of course, wasn't made public.

10 from Kate, 5 from Gerry...or 7 from Kate, 8 from Gerry...make up any math equation you wish.

The result is always the same: No other markers belonging to any other human on the planet were found in that sample. The odds of it not being Madeleine are 1 in 1000. That is a 99.9 percent chance the DNA blood evidence in the Renault came from Madeleine.

Evidence found in the wheel well of a rented car where Madeleine should not have ever been. Evidence backed up by a cadaver dog alerting at the same spot in the car. Evidence that cannot be logically explained by anything else that is a huge stretch of imagination.

So forget the links. If we all agree on the FSS statement, then the mathematics do the rest.

1 in 1000.

which is the same as

99.9%

You don't have to be an expert in DNA to understand the math.

Nonesence Texana.

You are choosing to facter in what you "think" the experts left out.....which makes it your theory not fact!!

The DNA forensic"experts" don't agree with your theory.

And you don't have to be an expert in math to think you know better than the DNA forensic experts.

No evidence was found from a "dead" body.

Strange that you chose to "link" wikipedia but refused to post links that prove your "claims"
:waitasec:
As I said I won't waste my time searching for links that never existed.

 

[Isabella]

Nonesence Texana.

You are choosing to facter in what you "think" the experts left out.....which makes it your theory not fact!!

The DNA forensic"experts" don't agree with your theory.

And you don't have to be an expert in math to think you know better than the DNA forensic experts.

No evidence was found from a "dead" body.

Strange that you chose to "link" wikipedia but refused to post links that prove your "claims"
:waitasec:
As I said I won't waste my time searching for links that never existed.

To be honest the only link ive ever seen you post didnt work anyhow.

Paint it what ever way you like...but there is absolutely no evidence of kidnapping whatsoever..none ...and the PP did not rule out that Madeleine was definetly taken from that apartment alive. In fact he didnt believe the kidnap theory either.

 

[Isabella]

Nonesence Texana.

You are choosing to facter in what you "think" the experts left out.....which makes it your theory not fact!!

The DNA forensic"experts" don't agree with your theory.

And you don't have to be an expert in math to think you know better than the DNA forensic experts.

No evidence was found from a "dead" body.

Strange that you chose to "link" wikipedia but refused to post links that prove your "claims"
:waitasec:
As I said I won't waste my time searching for links that never existed.

Tex thanks for the way you explained it. It makes a lot more sense to me now

 

[Refugee]

Tex thanks for the way you explained it. It makes a lot more sense to me now

These pro-McCanns! They always want everyone else to prove their Holy Duo guilty rather than accept that their is no evidence of abduction and plenty of evidence of neglect and worse!

 

[Texana]

Nonesence Texana.

You are choosing to facter in what you "think" the experts left out.....which makes it your theory not fact!!

The DNA forensic"experts" don't agree with your theory.

And you don't have to be an expert in math to think you know better than the DNA forensic experts.

No evidence was found from a "dead" body.

Strange that you chose to "link" wikipedia but refused to post links that prove your "claims"
:waitasec:
As I said I won't waste my time searching for links that never existed.

April, that's just sad. Pointing out the facts about the FSS statement is not a theory, it's a fact.

Labeling what I said as "theory" doesn't make it so anymore than pointing to the sky and calling it green makes it green.

You are still not addressing the DNA evidence as FSS said in their initial statement: 15 out of 19 markers were tied to Madeleine. No other markers belonging to any other human existed in that sample.

That makes the odds of the DNA evidence belonging to any other person, 1 in 1000. Or 99.9 percent.

Actually, I didn't get my DNA facts from Wiki. Oddly enough, for some strange reason, a lot of teachers marry CSI techs and policemen and detectives.

Go find your own sources and check out the mathematical odds. I'm not doing your homework for you. If you are truly motivated, you'll check out the facts for yourself.

You can go back in these very threads and find the links to the FSS statements.

The fact remains: The FSS stated originally that 15 out of 19 markers were tied to Madeleine. The odds of that being any other person on the planet are 99.9%.

 

[april4sky]

April, that's just sad. Pointing out the facts about the FSS statement is not a theory, it's a fact.

Labeling what I said as "theory" doesn't make it so anymore than pointing to the sky and calling it green makes it green.

You are still not addressing the DNA evidence as FSS said in their initial statement: 15 out of 19 markers were tied to Madeleine. No other markers belonging to any other human existed in that sample.

That makes the odds of the DNA evidence belonging to any other person, 1 in 1000. Or 99.9 percent.

Actually, I didn't get my DNA facts from Wiki. Oddly enough, for some strange reason, a lot of teachers marry CSI techs and policemen and detectives.

Go find your own sources and check out the mathematical odds. I'm not doing your homework for you. If you are truly motivated, you'll check out the facts for yourself.

You can go back in these very threads and find the links to the FSS statements.

The fact remains: The FSS stated originally that 15 out of 19 markers were tied to Madeleine. The odds of that being any other person on the planet are 99.9%.

No Texana what's really sad is the forensic experts "findings" said a lot more than that. Which you choose to ignore.

And it makes no odds who your married to because if you don't facter in, "for whatever reason,":waitasec: all the findings of the DNA forensic experts then it's obvious you won't come up with the same conclusions.

The DNA forensic experts provided the "facts" in this case. Do they agree with your conclusion/theory?

 

[Isabella]

No Texana what's really sad is the forensic experts findings/said a lot more than that which you choose to ignore.

And it makes no odds who your married to because if you don't facter in, "for whatever reason,":waitasec: all the findings of the DNA forensic experts then it's obvious you won't come up with the same conclusions.

The DNA forensic experts provided the "facts" in this case. Do they agree with your conclusion/theory?

Well they dont agree with your "theory" thats for sure.

 

[Refugee]

Well they dont agree with your "theory" thats for sure.

Just for clarity, is April claiming that Madeleine was abducted? I'd love to see the evidence of that, not seen any yet!

 

[Isabella]

Just for clarity, is April claiming that Madeleine was abducted? I'd love to see the evidence of that, not seen any yet!

Yes April claims that Madeleine was kidnapped ...after all....Tanner saw the kidnapper lol

Who needs more proof than that..right?

 

[Texana]

I've been reading the official statements and reports on the DNA evidence.

Everything is presented as conclusion but no actual results are stated. Slow going, still going through it all.

Isabella, you are right. Jane Tanner, who didn't even tell Kate or Gerry what she saw that night, is about the least reliable "eyewitness."

Kato Kaelin was more credible.