myths debunked

[SapphireSteel]

Wait, what? 37 alleles were found and they all were consistent with every single McCann and Healy? It seems utterly amazing as how they all can't have similar DNA since all of them aren't blood related.

The logical deduction from the presence of the combined McCann/Healy DNA is that it came from a child of Gerry and Kate's.

Madeleine.

 

[SapphireSteel]

While we're examining the "myths" up close, let's have a look at an inconsistency I'd like explained. The visit from David Payne to Kate and the children on the evening of 3 May.

He tells it like this -

1485 ”Did you actually go into the apartment?”
Reply ”I did.”
1485 ”Or did you do the conversation from the door?”
Reply ”No, definitely was inside the apartment, you know whether it be two or three steps into the apartment or you know however many, but I was definitely in the apartment.”
~sbm~
1485 ”How many minutes, you said as a matter of minutes and then you went back and then you played tennis.”
Reply ”Mm.”
1485 ”I’m gonna pin you down and ask you how long you think you were in there for. I know you say minutes.”
Reply ”In their apartment, it, it, I’d say three minutes, five maximum.”
1485 ”Three to five?”
Reply ”Yeah.”http://www.mccannfiles.com/id251.html

Kate, on the other hand, says this -

"David was at the apartment for around 30 seconds, he didn’t even actually enter the flat, he remained at the balcony door. "
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta6


So which is it?

5 minutes in the apartment, or 30 seconds at the door?

Why the discrepancy?

 

[brit1981]

donjeta,
of the dna, basicly every single allele of madeleine's is present in the dna of both her parents (in fact her parents although genetic strangers have at least one allele in common, and both passed this same allele on to madeleine hence she only has nineteen different alleles). And every single allele of kate's is found in kate's parents, and every single allele of gerry's is found in the dna of his parents. To a lesser extent these alleles will be found in the mccann's other children, as well as their other relatives (this is why relatives look alike, and why we would be a tad surprised if a white blond blue eyed couple gave birth to an asian baby).
Now the 37 allele mix came from three to five people, it was not possible to say how many alleles came from each donor. Therefore the fifteen that matched madeleine could have come from up to five people. Although madeleine had these fifteen alleles, because of the inheritance rules I have described above, it means these fifteen would also be found anywhere her parents, grandparents and other relatives left dna. even if all 19 of her alleles had been found it would not have meant anything unless it could have been found in a mix of just one person, and in fact it would have been odd not to find any of her alleles in that car since it would have meant that not one of the relatives had left any dna in the car. if for instance you and your husband hired a car and not one of your children ever went in the car, an examination of the dna found in the car would still find alleles found in their dna in the car simply because your husband and yourself have those same alleles. So the 15 alleles found could easily have come from kate and gerry as they possess these alleles too. The other 22 alleles were not referred to in the report apart from the fact they did not belong to madeleine. so these 22 could also have come from kate and gerry and one to three other people. basicly pick 37 alleles from the kate, gerry, the grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles and you are going to come up with many alleles which will be shared by madeleine.

It is extremely unlogical to think that a mixture of alleles from the mccanns and healys meant it came from a child of the mcanns, especially when the report states it came from three to five people.

as for the coat, a duffy coat is relatively heavy, but not as heavy as a duffle coat and the material is a lot less stiff, they also tend to be shorter (or can be shorter) and do nto have the paddington fastenings. also the picture of an anorak you put up I would refer to as a cagool, not a anorak. So i think a description of a coat as like a duffy but not so heavy or a heavier type anorak is not contradictory.

as for david payne's visit, so what he said it could hve been thre eminutes he was there, kate thought it was less than a minute, david thought he made a step in, ate though he remianed at the door. Not exactly evidence of them conspiring to cover up a death?

earlier, someone said it was a fact the evrd alerted in the place where the 37 alleles were found. This contradicts the files, so does anyone have evidence of the evrd alerting there?

 

[Donjeta]

Don't get me wrong, I've done some basic university courses that covered the basics of genetics and I have absolutely no argument with you about inheritance rules and children's DNA coming from their parents. It's just that that is not what "the material found is consistant with every single mccann and healy who used the car" implied to me. Some of those 37 alleles that were found were certainly inconsistent with some McCanns and Healy's even though it is to be expected that they share many elements of their DNA with their biological relatives.

Was any mitochondrial DNA analyzed?

 

[SapphireSteel]

The McCann defence can be summed up this way -

1, the dogs are rubbish'
2 the DNA is rubbish
3. the PJ are rubbish
4 everyone else is in the wrong except the McCann.

Once again, can the McCann defence offer a credible alternative scenario?

No....not even on this forum it seems.

moo

 

[Sabot]

The McCanns have no need or requirement to answer to anyone, least of all to a bunch of hostile persons on a Forum.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The McCanns have no need or requirement to answer to anyone, least of all to a bunch of hostile persons on a Forum.

I'm not asking the McCanns to personally answer me.

I'm asking some of those "persons on a Forum" to answer...whether they are hostile or not is pretty much a matter of opinion.

We are hear to debate, and part of debating is to provide an feasible argument which supports your views.

I've heard enough denigration of dogs/dna/amaral/pj for now, it's time to add something concrete and constructive to support the IDI allegations.

 

[brit1981]

Don't get me wrong, I've done some basic university courses that covered the basics of genetics and I have absolutely no argument with you about inheritance rules and children's DNA coming from their parents. It's just that that is not what "the material found is consistant with every single mccann and healy who used the car" implied to me. Some of those 37 alleles that were found were certainly inconsistent with some McCanns and Healy's even though it is to be expected that they share many elements of their DNA with their biological relatives.

Was any mitochondrial DNA analyzed?

We are talking about how some people have claimed that the dna found was more than likely from madeleine because 15 of her 19 alleles were found. the reason this is untrue is because every single one of those 15 alleles would be found if her parents were the donors, or her grandparents etc. The remaining 22 alleles could not have come from madeleine. As far as I am aware no mdna was analysed, but why would they take mDNA to analyse as they had enough DNA for reference samples?

No-one who does not think the mccanns did it has rubbished any evidence, simply because there is no evidence against them to rubbish. The forensic's report does not implicate them in anyway, the dogs are not evidence against them (I mean grime, harrison, and operation rectangle have all confirmed that even when accurate the dogs alert to bodily fluids from living humans), the PJ and attorney general of portugal have said there is no evidence that they committed any crime whatsoever (and the AG pointed out that as well as there being no evidence, no-one had come up with a workable theory as to how it would even have been possible for them to have been involved), scotland yard have stated it was a stranger abduction. The only people claiming the mccanns are guilty of anything are a convicted criminal who when one reads extracts from his books does not understand basic DNA or the evrd alerts, and randoms on the internet. It is not the case that those supporting the mccanns are claimign everyone else is wrong, it is a case of them saying everyone is right apart from a convicted criminal, and a few randoms who have nothing to do with the case whatsoever.

A credible scenario is that a person unknown to madeleine walked in the unlocked patio doors that were secluded due to the poor lighting and shubbery, walked into the bedroom, picked up the sleeping child and walked out again. It would have taken less than five minutes and sadly is a scenario that has been played out before.

It certainly has more credibility than the idea that madeleine died in the flat with her parents knowledge, and they then decided not to help her and cover up the death for which no motive is known, then in an hour of broad daylgiht they hid her body in the village they did not know, on foot, in a publicly accessible area, with no digging implements, and hid the body so well that no trace was ever found, and despite the daylight not one witness came forward, they then in that same hour changed for dinner and appeared at dinner acting normally. Or they did all that in the dark in under five minutes. Then if we are to believe the "mccanns did it theory", they removed the body from this excellant hiding place, whislt being tailed by the world's media, and having tens if not hundreds of other witnesses in the form of PJ, flos, friends, family, other guests, MW staff, embassy and consular staff, rubber neckers, villagers etc, and hid it someone -possible the church kitchen (!), and put it in their car and hid it somewhere else (possibly in the sea using a deep sea boat they somehow obtained without a single witness). All the while not one person say anything suspicious. And of cousre there is some sort of international government cover-up involving the US, UK, and the portuguguese as well as scotland yard, the fss, the mccans friends, friends, wifes mother etc. I mean seriously, that is just not possible let alone credible.

 

[SapphireSteel]

A credible scenario is that a person unknown to madeleine walked in the unlocked patio doors that were secluded due to the poor lighting and shubbery, walked into the bedroom, picked up the sleeping child and walked out again. It would have taken less than five minutes and sadly is a scenario that has been played out before.
.

~sbm~

The McCanns claim to have been able to see the apartment from where they sat.

So your theory, while credible, has the unfortunate side effect of proving the McCanns to be liars.

If they are lying about that (which we know they are) then it is logical to assume they are lying about other things as well.

This means that any alternate theory you are likely to come up with is based on false premise. No one can offer a credible alternative scenario as every attempt to do so will highlight more discrepancies in the Team McCann's "account of the truth".

How people still manage to justify the obvious mistruths, vilifications and inaccuracies that comprise the McCann defense, is beyond me.

 

[brit1981]

They could see the flat itself, but not always the patio door which was fairly well hidden from view. This can be seen from photos of the area.
Then take the fact the tapas bar was lit up, and the patio was in the dark as well as secluded by shubbery, it woudl have been difficult for an individuel to be seen there especially as they need not have been there for more than a few seconds.

And from the mccanns side as it were there are no mistruths, vilifications and inaccuracies. The mistruths etc come from those trying to claim the mccanns are guilty and repeat mistruths left right and centre (hence the theme of this thread). Can anyone actually demonstrate evidence that proves my list of myths are in fact truths? So far not one person has.

 

[Donjeta]

They could see the flat itself, but not always the patio door which was fairly well hidden from view. This can be seen from photos of the area.
Then take the fact the tapas bar was lit up, and the patio was in the dark as well as secluded by shubbery, it woudl have been difficult for an individuel to be seen there especially as they need not have been there for more than a few seconds.

And from the mccanns side as it were there are no mistruths, vilifications and inaccuracies. The mistruths etc come from those trying to claim the mccanns are guilty and repeat mistruths left right and centre (hence the theme of this thread). Can anyone actually demonstrate evidence that proves my list of myths are in fact truths? So far not one person has.

BBM.
Probably not, unless they have eyes in the back of their head. .

Being seated at a round/oval table means that some members of the group were seated with their backs to the apartments (including Kate and Gerry according to Gonçalo Amaral) and, in themselves, providing a further barrier to vision for those seated opposite.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

 

[SapphireSteel]

I'm sorry but being able to view the edge of the roof if you stand up and squint, does not translate into

"we could see the apartment".

They could not. Black vs white. Truth vs untruth.

As I said in the beginning of this thread. "myths debunked" has the same ring to it as "an account of the truth".

There are facts yet somehow Team McCann has managed to blur black into white, or at least a dirty shade of grey. I suppose this is what expensive PR does when it works well.

 

[brit1981]

I have seen photos that demostrate you can see the flat from where they were sat, one cannot see it well but it was within sight.

Once again can anyone demonstrate any evidence they have about the claims they are making. For instance peopel have claimed madeleine's dna was found in the places the evrd alerted to, but so far no-one has shown where this is stated in the forensics report.

I have also not seen anywhere in the files where it says kate and gerry had their backs to the flat. Amaral has claimed this but as he is a criminal with a conviction for fabricating evidence, was not there, and from extracts I have seen of his book is so unintelligent he cannot understand the very basics of how dna is inheritied then I do not think he is the best witness.

But to repeat myself if peopel have so much evidence against the mccnns, and evidence of a three country governmental cover-up like people have claimed then why not link to it (has anyone claiming to have this evidence actually passed it on to the police?)

 

[SapphireSteel]

I have seen photos that demostrate you can see the flat from where they were sat, one cannot see it well but it was within sight.

Once again can anyone demonstrate any evidence they have about the claims they are making. For instance peopel have claimed madeleine's dna was found in the places the evrd alerted to, but so far no-one has shown where this is stated in the forensics report.?)

DNA bash - check.

I have also not seen anywhere in the files where it says kate and gerry had their backs to the flat. Amaral has claimed this but as he is a criminal with a conviction for fabricating evidence, was not there, and from extracts I have seen of his book is so unintelligent he cannot understand the very basics of how dna is inheritied then I do not think he is the best witness.?)

Amaral bash - Check

But to repeat myself if peopel have so much evidence against the mccnns, and evidence of a three country governmental cover-up like people have claimed then why not link to it (has anyone claiming to have this evidence actually passed it on to the police?)

McCann doubters bash - Check.

It's all quite repetitive.

I will keep asking...please give us a credible alternative scenario instead of constantly attempting to dissemble and blur the evidence we do have.

 

[brit1981]

There is no DNA bash, just a statement of fact - madeleine's dna was not found. The forensics report do nto implicate the mccanns. It is a untruth to claim that the dna results in anyway implicate the mccanns.

As for amaral , again it is a statement of fact that he is a criminal with a conviction for falsifying evidence in a case relating to a missing little girl. It is also a fact if one reads his book he does not understand the basis of genetics. If people think amaral is so great why do they refer to telling the truth about him as bashing, surely they also think the fact he is a criminal is great?

And how is stating the facts about the dna, dna bashing. It is more a case of those claiming the mccanns did it, are dna bashing by making things up or misinterpreting the dna results.

And given that mccann doubters disagree with the police, the forensics, the ag, and have claimed without a shred of evidence that there is a international tri-way governmental cover-up also involving the police, fss to name just a few and have had to rely on spreading mistruths, people do nto need to bash them, just point it out. If any mccann doubter can provide evidence of their claims of an international governmental cover-up, evidence that madeleine's dna was positively identified, then they can go ahead and do so, but so far not a single one has actually provided truthful evidence.

Ypu claim you have evidence, but where is it? So far you have not posted one piece of evidence against the mccanns that is actually factually correct - claiming her dna was found, when it was not is not citing evidence, it is posting misinformation.

 

[SapphireSteel]

there is no dna bash, just a statement of fact - madeleine's dna was not found. The forensics report do nto implicate the mccanns. It is a untruth to claim that the dna results in anyway implicate the mccanns..

The forensics alone do not implicate anything except that one of the McCanns lost bodily fluid in some very odd places.

The forensic confirmation relevant DNA at the sites alerted to by the Cadaver Dog, however, is an entirely different story, as is the way the DNA was left in the car trunk. It is believed something dripped down a wheel well.

as for amaral , again it is a statement of fact that he is a criminal with a conviction for falsifying evidence in a case relating to a missing little girl. It is also a fact if one reads his book he does not understand the basis of genetics. If people think amaral is so great why do they refer to telling the truth about him as bashing, surely they also think the fact he is a criminal is great?
..

I'm sorry but your claim to have a better understanding of the DNA results than Amaral was pretty much invalidated for me when you said this -

Originally Posted by brit1981

The only dna identified at an alert site was identified as belonginf to gerry mccann.

To which I replied this -

Incorrect. DNA was found which belonged to Kate and Madeleine or Amelie also.

From: "Prior Stuart" <Stuart.Prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
To: "Task Portugal" <Task.Portugal@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence
>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting...Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart...Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item;..."Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

Madeleine's DNA is made up of 50% Kates and 50% Gerrys, therefore it goes without saying that Kate's DNA was found also.

and how is stating the facts about the dna, dna bashing. It is more a case of those claiming the mccanns did it, are dna bashing by making things up or misinterpreting the dna results...

You are the only one misinterpeting the DNA.

and given that mccann doubters disagree with the police, the forensics, the ag, and have claimed without a shred of evidence that there is a international tri-way governmental cover-up also involving the police, fss to name just a few and have had to rely on spreading mistruths, people do nto need to bash them, just point it out. If any mccann doubter can provide evidence of their claims of an international governmental cover-up, evidence that madeleine's dna was positively identified, then they can go ahead and do so, but so far not a single one has actually provided truthful evidence.
..

That phrase is your phrase.

I only stated there is involvement with different governments at diplomatic level (proven) which is highly unusual (proven) as while all expats will get diplomatic help in a crisis, very rarely do they require it from a third, totally uninvolved Government. (proven).

ypu claim you have evidence, but where is it? So far you have not posted one piece of evidence against the mccanns that is actually factually correct - claiming her dna was found, when it was not is not citing evidence, it is posting misinformation.

As far as I can see, I'm one of the few who is posting information which actually is factually correct.

See my response to Madeleine's DNA not being found.

You continually accuse me of posting misinformation, I constantly provide black and white proof, you then ignore it to skip on to the next track of the ever repeating broken record of McCann defence.

In the interests of furthering the debate, please offer a credible alternative scenario which fits the evidence...otherwise, please stop repeating the spin. It's old, it's tired, it's almost farcical.

The McCanns claims of innocence need something more tangible than just constantly repeating "we're being picked on and here's how" to be credible, in my opinion.

 

[gord]

The forensics alone do not implicate anything except that one of the McCanns lost bodily fluid in some very odd places.

The forensic confirmation relevant DNA at the sites alerted to by the Cadaver Dog, however, is an entirely different story, as is the way the DNA was left in the car trunk. It is believed something dripped down a wheel well.



I'm sorry but your claim to have a better understanding of the DNA results than Amaral was pretty much invalidated for me when you said this -

Originally Posted by brit1981

The only dna identified at an alert site was identified as belonginf to gerry mccann.

To which I replied this -

Incorrect. DNA was found which belonged to Kate and Madeleine or Amelie also.

From: "Prior Stuart" <Stuart.Prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
To: "Task Portugal" <Task.Portugal@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence
>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
>Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
>To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
>Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting...Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart...Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item;..."Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html

Madeleine's DNA is made up of 50% Kates and 50% Gerrys, therefore it goes without saying that Kate's DNA was found also.




You are the only one misinterpeting the DNA.


That phrase is your phrase.

I only stated there is involvement with different governments at diplomatic level (proven) which is highly unusual (proven) as while all expats will get diplomatic help in a crisis, very rarely do they require it from a third, totally uninvolved Government. (proven).




As far as I can see, I'm one of the few who is posting information which actually is factually correct.

See my response to Madeleine's DNA not being found.

You continually accuse me of posting misinformation, I constantly provide black and white proof, you then ignore it to skip on to the next track of the ever repeating broken record of McCann defence.

In the interests of furthering the debate, please offer a credible alternative scenario which fits the evidence...otherwise, please stop repeating the spin. It's old, it's tired, it's almost farcical.

The McCanns claims of innocence need something more tangible than just constantly repeating "we're being picked on and here's how" to be credible, in my opinion.

no you didnt you claimed 100% involvement in a cover up - see quote below

your exact words in a previous post to me

Me :

sorry but just because cover ups have happened in the past in other areas doea not make this case any more likely to be a cover up or not.

What you are claiming is that the prime minister and Chancellor of the UK knowingly instructed the police , and FSS to cover up the death / disposal of a young girl. ?? Not only that this would have to include portugese goverment at a high level as this was a portugese case, Not only this but in past posts you have also claimed the US ambassador was also involved in this cover up ???

Do have this correct ? if I dont please let me know exactky what you are claiming

Your answer


Yes you have it


100% correct.

:cow:
__________________

 

[SapphireSteel]

no you didnt you claimed 100% involvement in a cover up - see quote below

your exact words in a previous post to me

Me :

sorry but just because cover ups have happened in the past in other areas doea not make this case any more likely to be a cover up or not.

What you are claiming is that the prime minister and Chancellor of the UK knowingly instructed the police , and FSS to cover up the death / disposal of a young girl. ?? Not only that this would have to include portugese goverment at a high level as this was a portugese case, Not only this but in past posts you have also claimed the US ambassador was also involved in this cover up ???

Do have this correct ? if I dont please let me know exactky what you are claiming

Your answer


Yes you have it


100% correct.

:cow:
__________________

And....?

Seriously? The only response you can think of?

I construct an entire rebuttal proving that the "myth debunking" is just spreading further inaccuracies, and that is ignored, to bicker over one phrase?

How about not bashing the dogs/dna/pj/amaral/other posters, and presenting with some constructive and workable theories on how Madeleine disappeared?

I keep asking....

 

[brit1981]

you cut the quote in such a way it missed out the bit where lowe states it cannot be said to be madeleine's

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. 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 Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. 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 inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

John Lowe
Forensic Scientist"

I do not know if you realised, but when you quoted this report, you missed out the part that said it was not possible to claim the material came from madeleine as the alleles were not unique to her, it was a mixed sample, and she shares these alleles with her parents. You in actual fact cut the quote off at the bit where it says it woudl eb simple to say it was madeleines. I realise this was probably an accident on your part, but it could be very misleading for those who did not realise the quote had been cut off before this very important information - people reading just the bit you put up might actually have thought Lowe was saying it was madeleine's!!!!!!!!!!!


no-one is bashing the forensics as the forensics report does nto implicate the mccanns. It is those claiming it is the mccanns/international cover-up etc, who are trying to mislead witht he forensics report by cutting out the relevant parts (no I am nto accusing you of doing that on purpose I am certain it was an accident on your part, but others have done it repeatedly).
no-one is bashing the dogs, just pointing out what grimes, harrison, and operation rectangle have said about the dogs abilities i.e that they would alert to bodily fluids from living people. The only bashing is coming from those trying to mislead about the dogs abilities, and claiming the evrd only alerted to places where a dead body had been.

As for amaral, well it is not bashing, just pointing out facts. Which ever way one slices it the only person against the mccanns who has ever had anything to do with the case is a convicted criminal who worked on the case for just a few months before being removed from it. he is not just a convicted criminal, his conviction relates to fabricating evidence! Not exactly a star witness!

The PJ have stated there is no evidence against the mccanns.

And no-one is bashing other posters, just pointing out when they write things that are untrue - i.e claiming the smiths positively identified gerry mccann, which is untrue.

But you have not dismissed anything. You have claimed the forensics implicate the mccanns, which it does not, you have claimed in other posts that you have evidence of a cover-up at the highest level, and that the US government put pressure on the authorities to close the case!!!
You have not at any point come up with any facts which implicate the mccanns?

What facts do you have that implicate the mccans, prove a cover-up etc because so far you have not put up a single shred of evidence anywhere on the forum, and yet repeatedly state you have proven these things?
If you honestly believe you have proven your theories such as US government pressure, than can you please post it here (and really you should contact the police too if you really have this evidence).

 

[gord]

And....?

Seriously? The only response you can think of?

I construct an entire rebuttal proving that the "myth debunking" is just spreading further inaccuracies, and that is ignored, to bicker over one phrase?

How about not bashing the dogs/dna/pj/amaral/other posters, and presenting with some constructive and workable theories on how Madeleine disappeared?

I keep asking....

sigh.......... it is been one of your arguments for months here that there was an implicit cover up - then to ssee you alter that view above ...it is just par for the course in the way you debate points

No one bashes DNA - The report clearly states that the DNA traces found in the boot of the car cannot be claimed to belong to Madeleine - it could belong to at least the immediate family - the FSS say you cannot seperate componenents out into 3 individual DNA profiles ie it could be Maddy but it could be Gerry , it could be Kate etc etc - That is the fact here that is one of the key reasons the case fell apart - amongst other things

If you choose to ignore the FSS report and facts and interpret it your way then that is fiine your opinion - but please dont constantly claim to be posting proof and facts when in reality all you are doing is posting your opinion .