Author Topic: Why now?  (Read 18582 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #315 on: November 29, 2021, 12:22:37 PM »
All it would show is what all the other mitochondrial DNA findings showed; that the hair was from him or from someone having the same maternal bloodline.

It would certainly not prove that Brueckner was ever in 5A because no exact match is possible using mitochondrial DNA, despite the PJ's mistaken claim.

EXACTLY.  Sharing a haplotype proves nothing.  It can certainly be used to slur a person though as had been done by sceptics ad nauseam with Jane Tanner an endeavour which your recent posts suggest is an aberration you intend to perpetuate.

I find your posts extraordinary as you argue against the science - argue against the PJ conclusion using the science - and mystifyingly against yourself as you seem stuck in sceptic shibbolethland.
I have never encountered such an exhibition of meaningless obduracy - it really is in a class of its own.

Quote from: Carana on November 28, 2021, 03:12:14 PM
Except that the final reports states:

From pages 4167 to 4182, the forensics report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was appended, whose conclusions do not allow for significant advances in the investigation, but which identify several different haplotypes, some of which match intervenients in the process and others without any identificative value.

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.


The whole point is that the hair found in Burgau is scientifically proven not to be Jane Tanner's ~ I await your next post with more justification to the contrary.
I am sure it will be fascinating.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #316 on: November 29, 2021, 01:54:59 PM »
EXACTLY.  Sharing a haplotype proves nothing.  It can certainly be used to slur a person though as had been done by sceptics ad nauseam with Jane Tanner an endeavour which your recent posts suggest is an aberration you intend to perpetuate.

I find your posts extraordinary as you argue against the science - argue against the PJ conclusion using the science - and mystifyingly against yourself as you seem stuck in sceptic shibbolethland.
I have never encountered such an exhibition of meaningless obduracy - it really is in a class of its own.

Quote from: Carana on November 28, 2021, 03:12:14 PM
Except that the final reports states:

From pages 4167 to 4182, the forensics report from the National Institute for Forensic Medicine was appended, whose conclusions do not allow for significant advances in the investigation, but which identify several different haplotypes, some of which match intervenients in the process and others without any identificative value.

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.


The whole point is that the hair found in Burgau is scientifically proven not to be Jane Tanner's ~ I await your next post with more justification to the contrary.
I am sure it will be fascinating.

I find it unreal that the lack of evidence underpinning the statement in the Final Report seems to have escaped your notice.

It wasn't possible to scientifically prove that the hairs found in Burgau were not Jane Tanner's, so it's not possible that Francisco Corte Real said that in his report.

The PJ seem to have either misunderstood what he said or misrepresented it.
England - good effort

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #317 on: November 29, 2021, 05:06:12 PM »
I find it unreal that the lack of evidence underpinning the statement in the Final Report seems to have escaped your notice.

It wasn't possible to scientifically prove that the hairs found in Burgau were not Jane Tanner's, so it's not possible that Francisco Corte Real said that in his report.

The PJ seem to have either misunderstood what he said or misrepresented it.

Hmmmm ~ any idea what the PJ misunderstood or misrepresented from the following information ~

From the PJ files...
The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.


4358 to 4361 Information re Haplotype-S with rest results
16-Processo 16; PDF page 4358

GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL FORENSIC SERVICES

Processo no.2007/000565/PT-B
Processo no.2007/000244/CR-B5,B6
Processo no. 2007/000226/LX-BC1
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

Here we have a another hair from Burgau - only in this instance the sequence is confirmed as matching Robert Murat's mtDNA.

What on earth do you make of that one.  I can hardly wait for your answer which I am sure will be illuminating.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #318 on: November 29, 2021, 07:35:11 PM »
Hmmmm ~ any idea what the PJ misunderstood or misrepresented from the following information ~

From the PJ files...
The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.


4358 to 4361 Information re Haplotype-S with rest results
16-Processo 16; PDF page 4358

GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL FORENSIC SERVICES

Processo no.2007/000565/PT-B
Processo no.2007/000244/CR-B5,B6
Processo no. 2007/000226/LX-BC1
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

Here we have a another hair from Burgau - only in this instance the sequence is confirmed as matching Robert Murat's mtDNA.

What on earth do you make of that one.  I can hardly wait for your answer which I am sure will be illuminating.

None of the mtDNA results proved that anyone was or was not in a particular place.
England - good effort

Offline Swertigo Virl

Re: Why now?
« Reply #319 on: November 29, 2021, 07:46:53 PM »
None of the mtDNA results proved that anyone was or was not in a particular place.
Much like the dog alerts then, completely inconclusive.
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #320 on: November 29, 2021, 08:40:02 PM »
Much like the dog alerts then, completely inconclusive.

In forensic science, inconclusive means that the scientist is unable to say whether someone should be included or excluded as the source of the biological evidence. mtDNA results are always inconclusive in that sense. The PJ were wrong to say that;

 the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
England - good effort

Offline Swertigo Virl

Re: Why now?
« Reply #321 on: November 29, 2021, 08:53:39 PM »
In forensic science, inconclusive means that the scientist is unable to say whether someone should be included or excluded as the source of the biological evidence. mtDNA results are always inconclusive in that sense. The PJ were wrong to say that;

 the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
I think itís fair to say the PJ struggled to understand quite a lot of things.
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #322 on: November 29, 2021, 09:03:29 PM »
None of the mtDNA results proved that anyone was or was not in a particular place.

Then was it just yet another mega FAIL for the PJ.

Did they not compare a known sample of Jane's hair with that found in Burgau prior to carrying out mtDNA analysis / testing.

mtDNA testing destroys the hair tested making it impossible to then compare an individualís actual profile with the original hair sample.



 
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #323 on: November 29, 2021, 10:21:16 PM »
Then was it just yet another mega FAIL for the PJ.

Did they not compare a known sample of Jane's hair with that found in Burgau prior to carrying out mtDNA analysis / testing.

mtDNA testing destroys the hair tested making it impossible to then compare an individualís actual profile with the original hair sample.

Yes, you were wrong to believe the PJ on this occasion.
England - good effort

Offline Billy Whizz Fan Club

Re: Why now?
« Reply #324 on: November 29, 2021, 10:55:39 PM »
Much like the dog alerts then, completely inconclusive.

It wasn't the alerts that were inconclusive. The alerts are indicative. They successfully indicated where human cellular material (blood, imo) might be found. In this case that is exactly what happened. It was the analysis of the DNA evidence that was "inconclusive".

Offline Swertigo Virl

Re: Why now?
« Reply #325 on: November 29, 2021, 11:04:16 PM »
It wasn't the alerts that were inconclusive. The alerts are indicative. They successfully indicated where human cellular material (blood, imo) might be found. In this case that is exactly what happened. It was the analysis of the DNA evidence that was "inconclusive".
What conclusively did the alerts tell us wrt to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why now?
« Reply #326 on: November 29, 2021, 11:18:59 PM »
What conclusively did the alerts tell us wrt to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

What has anything told us wrt the disappearance? There is, as yet, nothing definitive, just theories imo.
England - good effort

Offline Brietta

Re: Why now?
« Reply #327 on: November 29, 2021, 11:25:15 PM »
It wasn't the alerts that were inconclusive. The alerts are indicative. They successfully indicated where human cellular material (blood, imo) might be found. In this case that is exactly what happened. It was the analysis of the DNA evidence that was "inconclusive".
It was not the analysis which was inconclusive - it was the evidence.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Why now?
« Reply #328 on: November 29, 2021, 11:27:13 PM »
What has anything told us wrt the disappearance? There is, as yet, nothing definitive, just theories imo.

Yes but you haven't seen the evidence Wolters has.

But then he hasn't seen the evidence I have either.

So we're even.
Good Luck Everyone

Offline Swertigo Virl

Re: Why now?
« Reply #329 on: November 29, 2021, 11:47:40 PM »
What has anything told us wrt the disappearance? There is, as yet, nothing definitive, just theories imo.
And yet some still insist that the dog alerts are conclusive evidence of parental involvement, why do you think that is?
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.