UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on August 06, 2015, 05:02:55 PM
-
One would think that establishing the identity of a child who may or may not have been the victim of an abductor would be a simple matter these days but not so apparently.
Is DNA testing as straightforward as one might think?
107
-
Such a small thing to give a DNA sample. Even a hair will do it or a mouth swab. Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
ah yes if course, im sure next time police come round your house asking for a dna swab to prove who you say you are youd be deliriously happy to have helped
-
So when Madeleine is found, whoever has her in their custody only needs to refuse a DNA Test?
DNA can be legally obtained by force if necessary.
-
So when Madeleine is found, whoever has her in their custody only needs to refuse a DNA Test?
DNA can be legally obtained by force if necessary.
A DNA test needs the written consent of the person giving it. If the police are very determined they can use force to get one. That's from suspects, of course. In the case of a parent refusing to let police take a sample from their child force is unlikely to be used. I would imagine the courts would have to get involved in such a case.
-
ah yes if course, im sure next time police come round your house asking for a dna swab to prove who you say you are youd be deliriously happy to have helped
I wouldn't mind at all - especially if I knew I bore a striking resemblance to someone they were looking for - i.e. someone whose DNA they already had - and so it would be really simple to show that I wasn't that person. I'd be more than happy to help in those circumstances.
I can't believe you wouldn't do the same mercury. It would be a strange person who would refuse IMO and I don't think you're strange at all.
-
ah yes if course, im sure next time police come round your house asking for a dna swab to prove who you say you are youd be deliriously happy to have helped
If it helped in the search for a little missing girl ... then like Benice, I would be delighted.
Unlike Benice, I find it strange that you would wish to decline
And I wonder why? £5%4%
-
Do people refuse? How very mean spirited. And it won't actually get them anywhere if there is cause for concern.
A refusal can only suggest something to hide.
-
Do people refuse? How very mean spirited. And it won't actually get them anywhere if there is cause for concern.
A refusal can only suggest something to hide.
Exactly ! .... 8@??)(
Why might you refuse mercury ? Any good reasons ?
-
Exactly ! .... 8@??)(
Why might you refuse mercury ? Any good reasons ?
All steps to find Madeleine must be taken, Sadie. And people WILL submit to DNA tests if asked. This is now the only way to prove that Madeleine is who she is. Or not.
I suspect that Mercury didn't really think before posting.
-
All steps to find Madeleine must be taken, Sadie. And people WILL submit to DNA tests if asked. This is now the only way to prove that Madeleine is who she is. Or not.
I suspect that Mercury didn't really think before posting.
It does seem a bit much if you know your child is your child. You will have a birth certificate, possibly hospital records exist. DNA tests are not always required surely? Or must everyone in the world forego their right to privacy and their right to be believed because one child went missing?
-
It does seem a bit much if you know your child is your child. You will have a birth certificate, possibly hospital records exist. DNA tests are not always required surely? Or must everyone in the world forego their right to privacy and their right to be believed because one child went missing?
So, if a child might seem to be Madeleine, you would suggest that no DNA test should be done? I can just imagine what The Sceptics would make of that.
Privacy? Wot? For the abductor? This is my child and I'm not giving you the opportunity to prove otherwise?
-
So, if a child might seem to be Madeleine, you would suggest that no DNA test should be done? I can just imagine what The Sceptics would make of that.
Privacy? Wot? For the abductor? This is my child and I'm not giving you the opportunity to prove otherwise?
Not a lot of empathy being shown by the supporters here. If you know it is your child, why would you need to have it DNA checked. Your will have photos etc. that you can show the police.
-
Not a lot of empathy being shown by the supporters here. If you know it is your child, why would you need to have it DNA checked. Your will have photos etc. that you can show the police.
Why do you think that DNA swabs of missing people are taken?
Was it not in S Africa that a girl was stolen from a hospital and found later aged 16. DNA identification was responsible for her being identified.
-
Not a lot of empathy being shown by the supporters here. If you know it is your child, why would you need to have it DNA checked. Your will have photos etc. that you can show the police.
There is only one definitive answer. Surely you can see that. And what do you think the abductor is going to say? Have a look at my photograph album? Have a look at a forged Birth Certificate?
Why not just allow a DNA test?
Empathy? You are right. I have no empathy for people who would deliberately refuse to prove that a child is theirs.
-
Why do you think that DNA swabs of missing people are taken?
Was it not in S Africa that a girl was stolen from a hospital and found later aged 16. DNA identification was responsible for her being identified.
I have no problem with DNA testing in situations where stories don't add up. Where a family has Birth Certificates and a timeline of photos it isn't necessary or desirable.
-
There is only one definitive answer. Surely you can see that. And what do you think the abductor is going to say? Have a look at my photograph album? Have a look at a forged Birth Certificate?
Why not just allow a DNA test?
Empathy? You are right. I have no empathy for people who would deliberately refuse to prove that a child is theirs.
How about substituted DNA?
-
There is only one definitive answer. Surely you can see that. And what do you think the abductor is going to say? Have a look at my photograph album? Have a look at a forged Birth Certificate?
Why not just allow a DNA test?
Empathy? You are right. I have no empathy for people who would deliberately refuse to prove that a child is theirs.
You've got this rather the wrong way round. People don't have to prove anything.
There are probably very few countries who would attempt to force a DNA test on people just because they had a child who might, just possibly, vaguely resemble an artist's impression of what Madeleine might look like - if she were still alive.
-
I have no problem with DNA testing in situations where stories don't add up. Where a family has Birth Certificates and a timeline of photos it isn't necessary or desirable.
Have I got this correct?
If it was your child , you would rather remain under suspicion of keeping a missing child, rather than agree to a mouth swap?
-
How about substituted DNA?
This would not be possible. DNA is taken from the person. It cannot be substituted. How daft do you think Law Enforcement is?
-
You've got this rather the wrong way round. People don't have to prove anything.
There are probably very few countries who would attempt to force a DNA test on people just because they had a child who might, just possibly, vaguely resemble an artist's impression of what Madeleine might look like - if she were still alive.
You are wrong. The DNA Test would be forced, if necessary. There is no other way to exclude anyone. And don't imagine that it wouldn't be done.
-
Of course it could be refused - neither British or Portuguese police have any jurisdiction in other countries and would need to rely on cooperation, which might not be forthcoming.
-
I wouldn't mind at all - especially if I knew I bore a striking resemblance to someone they were looking for - i.e. someone whose DNA they already had - and so it would be really simple to show that I wasn't that person. I'd be more than happy to help in those circumstances.
I can't believe you wouldn't do the same mercury. It would be a strange person who would refuse IMO and I don't think you're strange at all.
There was case where the uk police actually did this and it helped them solve a crime...They asked all males in a 20 mile radius of a sex attack to supply a dna sample...
-
There was case where the uk police actually did this and it helped them solve a crime...They asked all males in a 20 mile radius of a sex attack to supply a dna sample...
One of the talked his friend into pretending that he was him. They caught up with him in the end. And he was the perpetrator.
There is no other definitive proof.
-
This would not be possible. DNA is taken from the person. It cannot be substituted. How daft do you think Law Enforcement is?
The sample to be tested against is usual obtained from an item "connected" to the searched for person.
-
The sample to be tested against is usual obtained from an item "connected" to the searched for person.
No. From the person themselves. Both of them. They already have the DNA of Madeleine.
-
The sample to be tested against is usual obtained from an item "connected" to the searched for person.
Madeleine McCann's DNA is on record ... the source was probably the newborn blood spot (heel prick) test as per the blood spot indicated in the files.
-
No. From the person themselves. Both of them. They already have the DNA of Madeleine.
Why did they use the pillow case then?
-
Why did they use the pillow case then?
To be absolutely certain. Can you not see that?
-
Have I got this correct?
If it was your child , you would rather remain under suspicion of keeping a missing child, rather than agree to a mouth swap?
I didn't think anyone in this saga was required to prove their innocence. Isn't it up to law enforcement to prove guilt? If you know you are innocent and the child is yours why should you have to prove it?
-
I didn't think anyone in this saga was required to prove their innocence. Isn't it up to law enforcement to prove guilt? If you know you are innocent and the child is yours why should you have to prove it?
You just do. This much is obvious.
-
I didn't think anyone in this saga was required to prove their innocence. Isn't it up to law enforcement to prove guilt? If you know you are innocent and the child is yours why should you have to prove it?
Any normal person would want to help with the search for a missing child
Common Decency.
-
Any normal person would want to help with the search for a missing child
Common Decency.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that if someone has a child and someone else suggests that child is Madeleine it is a bit much to expect the child's parents to prove it by having a DNA test done. There are other ways.
-
I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that if someone has a child and someone else suggests that child is Madeleine it is a bit much to expect the child's parents to prove it by having a DNA test done. There are other ways.
Definitely? No there aren't other ways.
-
A quick check to ascertain whether or not the child is wearing one of those contact lenses to disguise the coloboma (or fleck) which Sadie mentioned ?
That`s one way.
-
A quick check to ascertain whether or not the child is wearing one of those contact lenses to disguise the coloboma (or fleck) which Sadie mentioned ?
That`s one way.
How would you check that without the parent's consent?
-
Definitely? No there aren't other ways.
I would have been very upset if someone had accused me of having someone else's child. I would have produced their birth certificate and any other proofs I had. I would have then been insulted if the police insisted on DNA testing of my child because they would be insinuating that I was lying. I am innocent until proved guilty, not guilty until proved innocent, as you and others constantly cry on here in relation to the McCanns!
-
How would you check that without the parent's consent?
A child of around 11 might talk about her life..........have shared information about all sorts of things don`t you think?
-
A child of around 11 might talk about her life..........have shared information about all sorts of things don`t you think?
Not with investigators without her parents permission I wouldn't have thought.
-
Not with investigators without her parents permission I wouldn't have thought.
Well......I just feel it`s unlikely anyway that a child could reach the age of 11 either with her coloboma/fleck on view or with the outside intervention necessary to enable its disguise with a lens , without it being detected by this time.
Wouldn`t it necessitate medical or ophthalmic assistance?
If kept somewhere in isolation, she wouldn`t be spotted in the first place to be challenged or disguised, surely.
-
A quick check to ascertain whether or not the child is wearing one of those contact lenses to disguise the coloboma (or fleck) which Sadie mentioned ?
That`s one way.
And you think that it is better to mess with her eyes rather than take a quick mouth swab, a spot of blood, or a hair/ nail clipping?
-
And you think that it is better to mess with her eyes rather than take a quick mouth swab, a spot of blood, or a hair/ nail clipping?
That`s not really what was said..........At or by the age of 11 it is likely that any intervention needed to disguise an eye would be known already by the child herself and others in her life.
No need to "mess" with anything.
-
I would have been very upset if someone had accused me of having someone else's child. I would have produced their birth certificate and any other proofs I had. I would have then been insulted if the police insisted on DNA testing of my child because they would be insinuating that I was lying. I am innocent until proved guilty, not guilty until proved innocent, as you and others constantly cry on here in relation to the McCanns!
you are indeed innocent until proved guilty and by the sounds of things you would tell the police where to go if they accused you of a serious crime and you were innocent...
-
That`s not really what was said..........At or by the age of 11 it is likely that any intervention needed to disguise an eye would be known already by the child herself and others in her life.
No need to "mess" with anything.
If the child is told that the lens is to correct a defect rather than disguise it would that make a difference do you think?
-
That`s not really what was said..........At or by the age of 11 it is likely that any intervention needed to disguise an eye would be known already by the child herself and others in her life.
No need to "mess" with anything.
What if the ......... [nastys] had told her that they had rescued her from her "evil" Mum and Dad who were going to really hurt / kill her cos they didn't want her? She could have been told any psychological lies like Mum and Dad loved A and S better than her. They didn't want her any more.
Then maybe she would hide her added lens ?
Preferring not to tell anyone about her added eye lens cos her "evil" Mum nad Dad would get her back and hurt her ?
-
What if the ......... [nastys] had told her that they had rescued her from her "evil" Mum and Dad who were going to really hurt / kill her cos they didn't want her? She could have been told any psychological lies like Mum and Dad loved A and S better than her. They didn't want her any more.
Then maybe she would hide her added lens ?
Preferring not to tell anyone about her added eye lens cos her "evil" Mum nad Dad would get her back and hurt her ?
and what if that is purely a figment of your imagination ?
-
you are indeed innocent until proved guilty and by the sounds of things you would tell the police where to go if they accused you of a serious crime and you were innocent...
I am speaking of one particular set of circumstances where someone says my child looks like Madeleine McCann. In such a case I would offer eveidence to show the child was mine and i would expect that to be the end of it. If police persisted, suggesting they didn't believe my evidence, and demanded a DNA test then I would be angry.
-
I am speaking of one particular set of circumstances where someone says my child looks like Madeleine McCann. In such a case I would offer eveidence to show the child was mine and i would expect that to be the end of it. If police persisted, suggesting they didn't believe my evidence, and demanded a DNA test then I would be angry.
So if the police didn't believe your evidence you would get angry
What about if they said they had Dna evidence that proved you were lying but offer you a shorter prison sentence if you actually admit you were lying
How angry would you get then
-
So if the police didn't believe your evidence you would get angry
What about if they said they had Dna evidence that proved you were lying but offer you a shorter prison sentence if you actually admit you were lying
How angry would you get then
why on earth would the police say that to me? I have a child, it's my child, I've given proof of that fact. End of story.
-
why on earth would the police say that to me? I have a child, it's my child, I've given proof of that fact. End of story.
You said you would be angry if the police did not believe your proof
-
I wouldn't mind at all - especially if I knew I bore a striking resemblance to someone they were looking for - i.e. someone whose DNA they already had - and so it would be really simple to show that I wasn't that person. I'd be more than happy to help in those circumstances.
I can't believe you wouldn't do the same mercury. It would be a strange person who would refuse IMO and I don't think you're strange at all.
Only IF your child was a doppelganger
And as we know 99.99% were not
Besides, the parents would know if it was, or the likelihood if the appearance had changed so much, their child or not, would they not?
-
Exactly ! .... 8@??)(
Why might you refuse mercury ? Any good reasons ?
Did I say I would refuse? No I did not, so stop making things up, thanks.
-
You said you would be angry if the police did not believe your proof
I think anyone would be angry if they gave proof that their child was their own but the police still wanted to do a DNA test. What they are saying is 'we don't believe you, we think you have someone else's child'.
-
why on earth would the police say that to me? I have a child, it's my child, I've given proof of that fact. End of story.
People react differently. You'd be upset; I wouldn't, if it were solely for police use. I would be annoyed if personal details (name, photo, DNA profile, contact details, etc.) were leaked to the media - but that's a different issue.
I'm not sure what proof a parent on holiday would be able to offer: passports can be forged.
-
People react differently. You'd be upset; I wouldn't, if it were solely for police use. I would be annoyed if personal details (name, photo, DNA profile, contact details, etc.) were leaked to the media - but that's a different issue.
I'm not sure what proof a parent on holiday would be able to offer: passports can be forged.
So you are living your life, minding your own business and the police knock on your door. They tell you that someone has suggested to them that your child looks like another child which is missing. You tell them that the child is yours and you show them it's birth certificate and perhaps you've got other things - lots of people keep the hospital bracelet for example. They look at it all and say they would like to do a DNA test on the child to be absolutely sure. In other words you haven't convinced them you are telling the truth. You may not mind being accused of lying, I do.
-
So you are living your life, minding your own business and the police knock on your door. They tell you that someone has suggested to them that your child looks like another child which is missing. You tell them that the child is yours and you show them it's birth certificate and perhaps you've got other things - lots of people keep the hospital bracelet for example. They look at it all and say they would like to do a DNA test on the child to be absolutely sure. In other words you haven't convinced them you are telling the truth. You may not mind being accused of lying, I do.
Ah yes ... the infallibility of documentation ...
**Snip
A crooked registrar faces a lengthy jail sentence after being found guilty of issuing false birth certificates to a gang of African fraudsters who stole at least £4million from taxpayers over 20 years.
Azu Akpom provided fake certificates to the ringleader of the gang who went on to create false identities for up to 100 children to milk the benefits system.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268561/Registrar-forged-birth-certificates-African-gang-4m-benefits-fraud.html#ixzz3j4lX0ehI
It isn't out with the bounds of probability that if one were capable of kidnapping a child ... one would be capable of forging whatever documents were necessary to suit the circumstances.
-
Ah yes ... the infallibility of documentation ...
**Snip
A crooked registrar faces a lengthy jail sentence after being found guilty of issuing false birth certificates to a gang of African fraudsters who stole at least £4million from taxpayers over 20 years.
Azu Akpom provided fake certificates to the ringleader of the gang who went on to create false identities for up to 100 children to milk the benefits system.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268561/Registrar-forged-birth-certificates-African-gang-4m-benefits-fraud.html#ixzz3j4lX0ehI
It isn't out with the bounds of probability that if one were capable of kidnapping a child ... one would be capable of forging whatever documents were necessary to suit the circumstances.
A necessity, I would say.
-
So you are living your life, minding your own business and the police knock on your door. They tell you that someone has suggested to them that your child looks like another child which is missing. You tell them that the child is yours and you show them it's birth certificate and perhaps you've got other things - lots of people keep the hospital bracelet for example. They look at it all and say they would like to do a DNA test on the child to be absolutely sure. In other words you haven't convinced them you are telling the truth. You may not mind being accused of lying, I do.
I understand your feelings, but from the perspective of the police, your say-so isn't proof. Just as if you were asked where you were on a certain day when a crime was committed, it would be naive (IMO) to assume that the police are simply going to accept that you were home alone reading a book without attempting to corroborate it.
Wasn't the sighting under discussion the one in India? If so, aside from a passport (which can be forged), parents don't normally take birth certificates and birth bracelets on holiday with them, do they?
As I said before, I'd be annoyed at any resulting media intrusion. I'd also be annoyed if I had to spend days hunting for some form of evidence to prove an alibi, but I'd understand it. I'd also be less than a happy bunny if I were subject to a dawn raid with my home being turned upside down and left in a state of chaos, or if my phone and computer were seized for analysis for weeks on end with no good reason.
I guess we all react differently.
-
I understand your feelings, but from the perspective of the police, your say-so isn't proof. Just as if you were asked where you were on a certain day when a crime was committed, it would be naive (IMO) to assume that the police are simply going to accept that you were home alone reading a book without attempting to corroborate it.
Wasn't the sighting under discussion the one in India? If so, aside from a passport (which can be forged), parents don't normally take birth certificates and birth bracelets on holiday with them, do they?
As I said before, I'd be annoyed at any resulting media intrusion. I'd also be annoyed if I had to spend days hunting for some form of evidence to prove an alibi, but I'd understand it. I'd also be less than a happy bunny if I were subject to a dawn raid with my home being turned upside down and left in a state of chaos, or if my phone and computer were seized for analysis for weeks on end with no good reason.
I guess we all react differently.
And possibly for no good reason to begin with, other than someone thinking that the child might bear a passing resemblance to an artist's impression of what Madeleine MIGHT look like.
I feel police would need to be very sure of their facts before going in heavy-handed.
-
Do people refuse? How very mean spirited. And it won't actually get them anywhere if there is cause for concern.
A refusal can only suggest something to hide.
You can apply that to the reconstruction too Eleanor...well said!
-
You can apply that to the reconstruction too Eleanor...well said!
Touche, Pussy Cat.
-
I understand your feelings, but from the perspective of the police, your say-so isn't proof. Just as if you were asked where you were on a certain day when a crime was committed, it would be naive (IMO) to assume that the police are simply going to accept that you were home alone reading a book without attempting to corroborate it.
Wasn't the sighting under discussion the one in India? If so, aside from a passport (which can be forged), parents don't normally take birth certificates and birth bracelets on holiday with them, do they?
As I said before, I'd be annoyed at any resulting media intrusion. I'd also be annoyed if I had to spend days hunting for some form of evidence to prove an alibi, but I'd understand it. I'd also be less than a happy bunny if I were subject to a dawn raid with my home being turned upside down and left in a state of chaos, or if my phone and computer were seized for analysis for weeks on end with no good reason.
I guess we all react differently.
My posts are a reply to people who think everyone who is 'fingered' as having Madeleine McCann should happily agree to DNA testing of their child. I said I would provide reasonable proof that my child was my child. If the police then accused me of lying by insisting on a DNA test I would be angry and would refuse. The scenario didn't include me being anywhere but at home.
-
My posts are a reply to people who think everyone who is 'fingered' as having Madeleine McCann should happily agree to DNA testing of their child. I said I would provide reasonable proof that my child was my child. If the police then accused me of lying by insisting on a DNA test I would be angry and would refuse. The scenario didn't include me being anywhere but at home.
If home is the UK, then no chance. The door would be hanging off its hinges and you'd be surrounded by armed police faster than you could blink 8)--))
-
Ah yes ... the infallibility of documentation ...
**Snip
A crooked registrar faces a lengthy jail sentence after being found guilty of issuing false birth certificates to a gang of African fraudsters who stole at least £4million from taxpayers over 20 years.
Azu Akpom provided fake certificates to the ringleader of the gang who went on to create false identities for up to 100 children to milk the benefits system.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268561/Registrar-forged-birth-certificates-African-gang-4m-benefits-fraud.html#ixzz3j4lX0ehI
It isn't out with the bounds of probability that if one were capable of kidnapping a child ... one would be capable of forging whatever documents were necessary to suit the circumstances.
I'm not talking about fraud. I'm talking about an ordinary wife and mother whose child is seen by some nut who decides it looks like Madeleine Mccann and tells the police. The police have to check it out, but once the mother gives reasonable proof, that should be that.
-
I'm not talking about fraud. I'm talking about an ordinary wife and mother whose child is seen by some nut who decides it looks like Madeleine Mccann and tells the police. The police have to check it out, but once the mother gives reasonable proof, that should be that.
How many young girls who look like Maddie have a coloboma in their right eye? Identifying any suspects wouldn't even need DNA analysis imo.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01459/Madeleine-mccann_1459586a.jpg)
-
Well she ain't going to look remotely like that for a start - if she ever did.
-
I'm not talking about fraud. I'm talking about an ordinary wife and mother whose child is seen by some nut who decides it looks like Madeleine Mccann and tells the police. The police have to check it out, but once the mother gives reasonable proof, that should be that.
Interesting you should describe a person who sees a child resembling a reported missing child as "some nut" if that person performs their duty as a citizen and reports the sighting.
What do you consider is reasonable proof? As we have seen documentation can be forged.
What if your ordinary wife and mother does indeed have her child's birth certificate and reasonable proof ... but what if birth certificate and photograph albums etc don't actually feature the child she has substituted for her own?
Glad you seem to accept the police should investigate ... interesting that you don't seem to think it appropriate for them to investigate further than acceptance of the word of a person who may not be all that she seems.
-
How many young girls who look like Maddie have a coloboma in their right eye? Identifying any suspects wouldn't even need DNA analysis imo.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01459/Madeleine-mccann_1459586a.jpg)
We know of at least two ... one in New Zealand and one in Australia. I believe the little girl seen on TV at the football match also has one, but in the opposite eye.
-
And possibly for no good reason to begin with, other than someone thinking that the child might bear a passing resemblance to an artist's impression of what Madeleine MIGHT look like.
I feel police would need to be very sure of their facts before going in heavy-handed.
If there is a reasonable suspicion (however that is interpreted) that any person might be a missing person, fugitive drug dealer, rapist or serial killer for whom there is an established DNA profile, isn't a DNA swab the simplest means of establishing whether the person in question IS the person sought or not?
-
While that might be so in UK, other countries may not view things in the same way.
-
Well she ain't going to look remotely like that for a start - if she ever did.
I was referring to years back when there were sightings.
-
I was referring to years back when there were sightings.
I know you were, but I reckon she still didn't look like that then.
-
Interesting you should describe a person who sees a child resembling a reported missing child as "some nut" if that person performs their duty as a citizen and reports the sighting.
What do you consider is reasonable proof? As we have seen documentation can be forged.
What if your ordinary wife and mother does indeed have her child's birth certificate and reasonable proof ... but what if birth certificate and photograph albums etc don't actually feature the child she has substituted for her own?
Glad you seem to accept the police should investigate ... interesting that you don't seem to think it appropriate for them to investigate further than acceptance of the word of a person who may not be all that she seems.
I'm talking about an innocent person with her own child and sufficient proof of that without needing any other.
-
I'm talking about an innocent person with her own child and sufficient proof of that without needing any other.
how many people carry sufficient proof
-
Why would one need proof? Is it not for the police to prove?
-
Why would one need proof? Is it not for the police to prove?
If the police suspected that an adult was with a chip that had been abducted they wouldn't need proof
)
-
Indeed they would, but would it not be for the police to provide that proof? That's how it usually works.
After all, you keep telling us that the McCanns don't have to prove their innocence, so why should the parent of a child?
-
I suppose that if someone wanted to be difficult then the Police could always follow them about. Check with the neighbours. Check with the school. Check with the local doctors. That all might help.
-
If the police suspected that an adult was with a chip that had been abducted they wouldn't need proof
)
I would have thought theft rather than abduction. 8(0(*
-
how many people carry sufficient proof
If you read back, I'm at home minding my own business.
-
I'm talking about an innocent person with her own child and sufficient proof of that without needing any other.
If a person were to adopt the exceedingly odd behaviour you describe I think that alone would arouse suspicion and therefore determination to check the identity of the child.
Therefore running the risk of turning what should have been a very simple request for assistance into a traumatic event for the lookalike child.
-
Indeed they would, but would it not be for the police to provide that proof? That's how it usually works.
After all, you keep telling us that the McCanns don't have to prove their innocence, so why should the parent of a child?
It would seem to be a simple matter of responding to a request / yellow alert (if that is still current) to eliminate the child in question if the report / description / age seems plausible.
Personally, I see it as just one step further than having an officer flick through your ID before saying "next".
If ever a single DNA mouth swab was used to check all your family members, contrary to procedure, and collectively you happened to have 15 alleles in common with Madeleine, then there might be room for confusion pending clarification...
-
I'm talking about an innocent person with her own child and sufficient proof of that without needing any other.
What proof would that be, though?
A birth bracelet isn't proof of the identity of the child with you, nor is a birth certificate / passport, nor even 5-year-old family photos.
-
Is it not for the police to prove that the child is not yours, rather than the other way round, IE to demonstrate that the documentation etc is false?
-
Is it not for the police to prove that the child is not yours, rather than the other way round, IE to demonstrate that the documentation etc is false?
They do this with a DNA Test.
-
That sounds like a sledgehammer to a nut.
There need to be proper grounds for taking DNA samples.
-
I know you were, but I reckon she still didn't look like that then.
A coloboma cannot be corrected so yes, her eyes would look the same.
-
It would, except that the McCanns themselves say that it wasn't anything very much - barely noticeable at times.
-
What proof would that be, though?
A birth bracelet isn't proof of the identity of the child with you, nor is a birth certificate / passport, nor even 5-year-old family photos.
A birth certificate can be forged very easily in most countries but a birth is easily checked in the records office.
-
I seriously do not understand the fuss about this. It takes less than ten seconds, it doesn't hurt, and the results are destroyed if they aren't relevant.
And the one thing an abductor would be wanting to avoid is a DNA Test.
-
I seriously do not understand the fuss about this. It takes less than ten seconds, it doesn't hurt, and the results are destroyed if they aren't relevant.
And the one thing an abductor would be wanting to avoid is a DNA Test.
Really? I don't think so.
-
It would, except that the McCanns themselves say that it wasn't anything very much - barely noticeable at times.
But is was noticeable and that is why attention was drawn to it in posters. No wonder Amaral got frustrated with them.
-
Really? I don't think so.
Once a dna sample is on the database it stays there. Information gathering is government policy. I'm surprised every newborn isn't being dna tested without their parents knowledge. Maybe they are?
-
A birth certificate can be forged very easily in most countries but a birth is easily checked in the records office.
That doesn't mean that the child in the records office is the one before you, though, does it? What if the original child had died and the one before you is someone else's?
-
Once a dna sample is on the database it stays there. Information gathering is government policy. I'm surprised every newborn isn't being dna tested without their parents knowledge. Maybe they are?
Different countries have different laws.
-
That doesn't mean that the child in the records office is the one before you, though, does it? What if the original child had died and the one before you is someone else's?
And what if it isn't? Surely the police would need substantial evidence to suspect such a thing.
-
Different countries have different laws.
I believe some countries won't allow the police to take a DNA sample without a court order.
-
Really? I don't think so.
It is The Law, and you can insist.
-
Once a dna sample is on the database it stays there. Information gathering is government policy. I'm surprised every newborn isn't being dna tested without their parents knowledge. Maybe they are?
This is not true, Angelo.
-
It is The Law, and you can insist.
Which country?
-
Which country?
England. I don't know about Scotland. But no law as I understand it would allow the DNA of innocent children to be retained against the wishes of their parents.
-
There are too many things that can easily be established /investigated without intrusive tests
Starting with the most obvious, the missing chld's parents having a strong belief the child is or could be theirs
Birth certificates, birth records, gospital records, dental records, medical records, marks and features, (matching ir not matching) school records, photographs, and so on
Interviewing family and friends, childminders, and so on, both adults and children who have known them for years
Any piece of evidence basically before 2007 which shows the child is not the missing child
If then the authorities have any reason to think after all that that something is amiss then they can ask for the intrusive dna test...innocent families are not criminals!
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-dna-and-fingerprint-provisions/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-how-dna-and-fingerprint-evidence-is-protected-in-law
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-dna-and-fingerprint-provisions/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-how-dna-and-fingerprint-evidence-is-protected-in-law
Thank You, Alice.
-
Indeed they would, but would it not be for the police to provide that proof? That's how it usually works.
After all, you keep telling us that the McCanns don't have to prove their innocence, so why should the parent of a child?
Identity is something we all have to prove...opening a bank account...getting a passport...jobs...DBS check...the list goes on
-
Identity is something we all have to prove...opening a bank account...getting a passport...jobs...DBS check...the list goes on
By producing various pieces of paperwork, which as some have pointed out, could be forgeries, but which seem to be readily accepted by the authorities.
-
By producing various pieces of paperwork, which as some have pointed out, could be forgeries, but which seem to be readily accepted by the authorities.
Have you seen the caveat on copies of birth certificates?
-
This is can new thread spun off from the claimed sightings thread.
-
Please don't forget this case when it comes to DNA testing proving who the biological parents of a child are.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-african-parents-reunited-with-daughter-17-years-after-kidnapping-1.2975257
Madeleine could be anywhere in the world living with people who may have 8 years of "legal" documentation, records & photographs - and a large percentage of the world knows next to nothing about her.
-
Madeleine could be anywhere in the world living with people who may have 8 years of "legal" documentation, records & photographs - and a large percentage of the world knows next to nothing about her.
@)(++(*
Yeah ok dream on
-
Please don't forget this case when it comes to DNA testing proving who the biological parents of a child are.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-african-parents-reunited-with-daughter-17-years-after-kidnapping-1.2975257
Madeleine could be anywhere in the world living with people who may have 8 years of "legal" documentation, records & photographs - and a large percentage of the world knows next to nothing about her.
Yes, she very well could. And the first thing they will have done is to get a forged birth certificate. You can even do it yourself.
Likewise, photographs won't have been difficult.
-
Please don't forget this case when it comes to DNA testing proving who the biological parents of a child are.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-african-parents-reunited-with-daughter-17-years-after-kidnapping-1.2975257
Madeleine could be anywhere in the world living with people who may have 8 years of "legal" documentation, records & photographs - and a large percentage of the world knows next to nothing about her.
Exactly
And as Elli says, with money and the right resources which my guys had, it would not be so difficult to get forged papers.
They would have taken photos of her thru the time she was with them ... and any old photos of a baby that roughly resembled her to take her back to her "birth"
-
Exactly
And as Elli says, with money and the right resources which my guys had, it would not be so difficult to get forged papers.
They would have taken photos of her thru the time she was with them ... and any old photos of a baby that roughly resembled her to take her back to her "birth"
Strumming in the wind and not one piece of cast iron evidence to suggest she is alive.
-
Strumming in the wind and not one piece of cast iron evidence to suggest she is alive.
Or that she is dead.
-
Strumming in the wind and not one piece of cast iron evidence to suggest she is alive.
And not one piece of cast iron evidence to suggest she is dead either.
The same goes for Ben Needham. Would you describe his mother as' strumming in the wind' for still looking for her son after 23 years?
-
Or that she is dead.
....and not one trace of her in well over 8 years despite extensive worldwide publicity ?
-
And not one piece of cast iron evidence to suggest she is dead either.
The same goes for Ben Needham. Would you describe his mother as' strumming in the wind' for still looking for her son after 23 years?
I was waiting for that case to be brought up.
Do you think Ben is alive as well ?
-
....and not one trace of her in well over 8 years despite extensive worldwide publicity ?
Some of us have hope, Stephen. And some of us don't.
-
Some of us have hope, Stephen. And some of us don't.
You are more than entitled to hope, and perhaps that is something women do more better than men, and I'm not being sexist.
I tend to view the world in a more clinical way, call that pessimistic if you will.
-
You are more than entitled to hope, and perhaps that is something women do more better than men, and I'm not being sexist.
I tend to view the world in a more clinical way, call that pessimistic if you will.
I would rather call it cynical. But that is your problem and not mine.
-
Could we get back on topic now. Especially as this Thread disrupted another Thread.
-
Thank god there are people who still have hope. Even though it could be Madeleine is dead [no doubt you will think 'told you so'] until it is revealed what happened to her and where she is dead or alive, there is still hope she will be found alive.
All your posts about there being no sign of her for eight years are just nothing really, there could be sightings of her but people don't realise it is Madeleine, especially if she is in a country where there is not so much talk about her. Actually apart from people on these forums and such and when Madeleine is in the papers, how often do you think people are talking about Madeleine in Britain?
-
Please don't forget this case when it comes to DNA testing proving who the biological parents of a child are.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-african-parents-reunited-with-daughter-17-years-after-kidnapping-1.2975257
Madeleine could be anywhere in the world living with people who may have 8 years of "legal" documentation, records & photographs - and a large percentage of the world knows next to nothing about her.
If she was a 'replacement' child there would already be documentation, birth certificate, photographs, records of jabs etc ... family members could also have been fooled.
Once enrolled in a school everything else just drops into place for the future.
Bearing in mind that children who not only looked like Madeleine but shared the same mark in the eye have been investigated ... only DNA would determine who she is.
-
Do near four year olds get stolen as replacement children? I thought it was babies out of hospitals.
How would it work exactly in this scenario anyway?
-
Do near four year olds get stolen as replacement children? I thought it was babies out of hospitals.
How would it work exactly in this scenario anyway?
Wouldn't it be fun to actually make a contribution to the debate on the forum once in a while rather than emanating negativity with every post.
Might I refer you to the recent posts by Anna and myself in ... News and current affairs from the Portuguese Algarve ... which tell of a mother thinking her missing son was a young man in a photograph but unfortunately it wasn't.
The photograph showed a man indistinguishable from the missing man and fooled all his friends and relations.
In the case of a child missing for a long period, quite obviously facial recognition would never do ... a DNA test would be a necessity.
-
If someone were in the market for an abducted child then things like birth certificates would already be in hand, like the child in Romania.
Photographs can always be arranged, although I have no photographs of my children at a very young age. Sadly, I am not a photograph taker.
Six months away from the limelight, on a boat or in an isolated house would take care of the child's memory.
DNA is the only way to establish the true identity of any child, and a refusal would in itself be suspicious. In which case The Police would have a mandate to insist.
-
If someone were in the market for an abducted child then things like birth certificates would already be in hand, like the child in Romania.
Photographs can always be arranged, although I have no photographs of my children at a very young age. Sadly, I am not a photograph taker.
Six months away from the limelight, on a boat or in an isolated house would take care of the child's memory.
DNA is the only way to establish the true identity of any child, and a refusal would in itself be suspicious. In which case The Police would have a mandate to insist.
To stray into sadieland, do you think someone with enough money/power would not be able to doctor a DNA test and obtain a child that way?
-
I'm sure there are ways and means of substituting a false DNA sample for analysis
-
The general tone of this thread seems to be that every parent in the world, if approached by the police, should happily agree to a DNA test on their child to prove the child is theirs and not Madeleine McCann.
I think the police would have to follow a process before they got to the stage of asking for tests.
1. They must have reasonable cause to think the child is Madeleine.
2. They must have a reason for rejecting any other proof offered.
-
To stray into sadieland, do you think someone with enough money/power would not be able to doctor a DNA test and obtain a child that way?
No. The test is done by an official on the child itself and in the presence of witnesses. It is then bagged and sent to a laboratory.
-
The general tone of this thread seems to be that every parent in the world, if approached by the police, should happily agree to a DNA test on their child to prove the child is theirs and not Madeleine McCann.
I think the police would have to follow a process before they got to the stage of asking for tests.
1. They must have reasonable cause to think the child is Madeleine.
2. They must have a reason for rejecting any other proof offered.
There is already a process in place. And no one with nothing to hide who isn't just downright bloody minded would refuse.
-
No. The test is done by an official on the child itself and in the presence of witnesses. It is then bagged and sent to a laboratory.
Officials can be bribed, as can witnesses.
-
No. The test is done by an official on the child itself and in the presence of witnesses. It is then bagged and sent to a laboratory.
Is it? Where is that info please?
-
No. The test is done by an official on the child itself and in the presence of witnesses. It is then bagged and sent to a laboratory.
I think bagged and sent is the week link.
-
Officials can be bribed, as can witnesses.
This is just silly. Unless you are suggesting that the child actually is Madeleine, and some powerful body doesn't want anyone to know.
-
Is it? Where is that info please?
You mean you don't watch Telly?
Taking DNA Samples comes under Chain of Evidence.
-
I think bagged and sent is the week link.
Okay, so there is someone out there that is determined that Madeleine will not be identified, and is in a position to make sure that this never happens.
-
Okay, so there is someone out there that is determined that Madeleine will not be identified, and is in a position to make sure that this never happens.
What ?
-
This is just silly. Unless you are suggesting that the child actually is Madeleine, and some powerful body doesn't want anyone to know.
It wouldn't need to a 'powerful body' merely a person with money.
This is all a purely hypothetical discussion anyway.
-
The general tone of this thread seems to be that every parent in the world, if approached by the police, should happily agree to a DNA test on their child to prove the child is theirs and not Madeleine McCann.
I think the police would have to follow a process before they got to the stage of asking for tests.
1. They must have reasonable cause to think the child is Madeleine.
2. They must have a reason for rejecting any other proof offered.
If you broaden your horizon just a little you will realise there may be more children in the world who could be affected by separation from their nearest and dearest than Madeleine McCann.
One only has to look at the huge migrations occurring on our doorsteps where it is inevitable that children will become parted from their parents or their parents may die to see the inherent dangers children face.
I can foresee situations where DNA testing may reunite families.
I find this resistance of some to recognise the possibility that Madeleine could have been any one of a number of children sighted in the past extraordinary ... and I remain somewhat perplexed that you seem to think that DNA elimination tests should not be used to eliminate look-a-likes.
We are not talking thousands upon thousands of children being invasively tested here ... we are talking very few donating cells from a mouth swab ... and apart from the little girl dumped by the roadside in a suitcase ... none for a period of some years.
So is your objection uniquely applicable to Madeleine McCann ... or is it a generalisation applicable to all missing children?
Weird anyway that you envisage police conducting such tests without reasonable cause to do so.
-
If you broaden your horizon just a little you will realise there may be more children in the world who could be affected by separation from their nearest and dearest than Madeleine McCann.
One only has to look at the huge migrations occurring on our doorsteps where it is inevitable that children will become parted from their parents or their parents may die to see the inherent dangers children face.
I can foresee situations where DNA testing may reunite families.
I find this resistance of some to recognise the possibility that Madeleine could have been any one of a number of children sighted in the past extraordinary ... and I remain somewhat perplexed that you seem to think that DNA elimination tests should not be used to eliminate look-a-likes.
We are not talking thousands upon thousands of children being invasively tested here ... we are talking very few donating cells from a mouth swab ... and apart from the little girl dumped by the roadside in a suitcase ... none for a period of some years.
So is your objection uniquely applicable to Madeleine McCann ... or is it a generalisation applicable to all missing children?
Weird anyway that you envisage police conducting such tests without reasonable cause to do so.
Hardly comparable.
Her's an easy question for you, and in reference to this cases unparalleled publicity.
If Madeleine was alive, who would she possibly be with ?
-
What ?
Exactly.
-
It wouldn't need to a 'powerful body' merely a person with money.
This is all a purely hypothetical discussion anyway.
Phew. Thank goodness for that.
-
Hardly comparable.
Her's an easy question for you, and in reference to this cases unparalleled publicity.
If Madeleine was alive, who would she possibly be with ?
Good question!
Who is going to identify Madeleine now? she is no longer a little 3 year old with Tennis Balls... Papers still print those baby pictures. They are of no use at all-well except for the £££$$$€€€.
When you actually think about little Maddie, being abducted by paedophiles it makes it more horrifying that her parents went on a 'total denial of any responsibility', 'celebrity' mission, to 'blaming everyone for not finding her'
And even worse: the parents thought themselves to be more of a victim in the scenario they painted than their daughter.
A whole new career for Kate, money and riches, and fame ALL there for Maddie to look at while she is being abused?
Maddie the industry- continues to make money for many, greedy b@stards. It Is sickening!
-
Hardly comparable.
Her's an easy question for you, and in reference to this cases unparalleled publicity.
If Madeleine was alive, who would she possibly be with ?
Why do you keep on asking the most stupid questions imaginable?
I have made a statement in yet another of my lengthy posts and the very best you can come up with is "Hardly comparable"before sliding off at a tangent which is aimed at discussing nothing.
It suggests to me that either you are an airhead totally incapable of interesting debate or you or you are determined to disrupt every thread on the forum with meaningless drivel and ad hominems.
From observation I would say the latter.
-
Good question!
Who is going to identify Madeleine now? she is no longer a little 3 year old with Tennis Balls... Papers still print those baby pictures. They are of no use at all-well except for the £££$$$€€€.
When you actually think about little Maddie, being abducted by paedophiles it makes it more horrifying that her parents went on a 'total denial of any responsibility', 'celebrity' mission, to 'blaming everyone for not finding her'
And even worse: the parents thought themselves to be more of a victim in the scenario they painted than their daughter.
A whole new career for Kate, money and riches, and fame ALL there for Maddie to look at while she is being abused?
Maddie the industry- continues to make money for many, greedy b@stards. It Is sickening!
Excellent post. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Why do you keep on asking the most stupid questions imaginable?
I have made a statement in yet another of my lengthy posts and the very best you can come up with is "Harldy comparable" before sliding off at a tangent which is aimed at discussing nothing.
It suggests to me that either you are an airhead totally incapable of interesting debate or you or you are determined to disrupt every thread on the forum with meaningless drivel and ad hominems.
From observation I would say the latter.
You don't like that question simply because of the illogic of people such as yourself.
You have claimed Madeleine may still be alive.
So when it comes to an 'airhead' response, you have achieved FIRST PLACE.
-
Good question!
Who is going to identify Madeleine now? she is no longer a little 3 year old with Tennis Balls... Papers still print those baby pictures. They are of no use at all-well except for the £££$$$€€€.
When you actually think about little Maddie, being abducted by paedophiles it makes it more horrifying that her parents went on a 'total denial of any responsibility', 'celebrity' mission, to 'blaming everyone for not finding her'
And even worse: the parents thought themselves to be more of a victim in the scenario they painted than their daughter.
A whole new career for Kate, money and riches, and fame ALL there for Maddie to look at while she is being abused?
Maddie the industry- continues to make money for many, greedy b@stards. It Is sickening!
One point of agreement is that there was a lot of money to be made from Madeleine McCann's disappearance ... a fact which did not escape Mr Amaral when he embarked on his book signing tour and his media career on the back of his botched investigation.
I too find the implication behind Madeleine's abduction horrendous ... but I do not derive the same vicarious pleasure from discussing it as apparently you do.
-
You don't like that question simply because of the illogic of people such as yourself.
You have claimed Madeleine may still be alive.
So when it comes to an 'airhead' response, you have achieved FIRST PLACE.
If Madeleine is found there is little doubt that a DNA test will be necessary to establish that without doubt.
May I include my own ad hominem here ... from what I have seen of your posts you are as dissimilar to every and any educationalist of my experience as is chalk from cheese.
Not only do you fail to impart knowledge you appear to be incapable of assimilating it ... people of intellect usually absorb knowledge like a sponge; for me, you appear to be the exception to the rule.
-
Off Topic and Insulting Posts will be removed.
-
Why do you keep on asking the most stupid questions imaginable?
I have made a statement in yet another of my lengthy posts and the very best you can come up with is "Hardly comparable"before sliding off at a tangent which is aimed at discussing nothing.
It suggests to me that either you are an airhead totally incapable of interesting debate or you or you are determined to disrupt every thread on the forum with meaningless drivel and ad hominems.
From observation I would say the latter.
You don't think this is insulting elle? seriously? wow I thnk it should be removed.
-
If Madeleine is found there is little doubt that a DNA test will be necessary to establish that without doubt.
May I include my own ad hominem here ... from what I have seen of your posts you are as dissimilar to every and any educationalist of my experience as is chalk from cheese.
Not only do you fail to impart knowledge you appear to be incapable of assimilating it ... people of intellect usually absorb knowledge like a sponge; for me, you appear to be the exception to the rule.
Oh dear.
What a predictable attack.
This from the person who said I had gave a link to an edited version of BHH in a BBC audio interview.
The same person who copies and pastes material they don't understand.
As to my ability to absorb information, I have no problems in that whatsoever. However, unfortunately for you, that doesn't include pro-mccann propaganda.
Nil points brietta.
-
You don't think this is insulting elle? seriously? wow I thnk it should be removed.
Difficult, don't you agree, since everybody is at it. I seriously do try not to wipe the entire Board. Unless you think I should.
-
Difficult, don't you agree, since everybody is at it. I seriously do try not to wipe the entire Board. Unless you think I should.
I think you should show even handedness and impartiality. Brietta is a known troll for name calling people who do not believe 'lies'. she has a posted quite few insulting, derogatory remarks against posters who disagree with her. I ask they be swiped OR mine be put back!
Sound fair?
-
Oh dear.
What a predictable attack.
This from the person who said I had gave a link to an edited version of BHH in a BBC audio interview.
The same person who copies and pastes material they don't understand.
As to my ability to absorb information, I have no problems in that whatsoever. However, unfortunately for you, that doesn't include pro-mccann propaganda.
Nil points brietta.
Perhaps now would be the time to enter the discussion on the value of DNA when it comes to missing or abducted children ... I take it you would have no objection to such tests were possible remains to be found in the Algarve ... what is your opinion should a possible living candidate turn up.
Run a beady eye over documents of questionable provenance ... or a quick non invasive DNA test?
I don't want a direct answer to my question ... try making your point in discussion, that is after all what the forum is about - being able to express an opinion whatever it may be for reasonable discussion.
Not a question and answer session.
-
I think you should show even handedness and impartiality. Brietta is a known troll for name calling people who do not believe 'lies'. she has a posted quite few insulting, derogatory remarks against posters who disagree with her. I ask they be swiped OR mine be put back!
Sound fair?
You are every bit as bad, or not, depending on how anyone looks at it.
But why do you all think that it was only your post that was deleted? This is not the case. And I am far less likely to delete posts than some. We all have to use our own judgement. Mine tends to lean towards ridiculous fairness.
But if you think that I am not even handed then take it up with Admin. But then you probably already have.
-
Difficult, don't you agree, since everybody is at it. I seriously do try not to wipe the entire Board. Unless you think I should.
If every post containing an insult sneer put down ad hominem etc were wiped on sight posters might get the picture and start to behave like the adults they purport to be; or get p****d off that no one's noticing their histrionics and go elsewhere.
Why not give it whirl and see what happens ? 8(0(*
-
Perhaps now would be the time to enter the discussion on the value of DNA when it comes to missing or abducted children ... I take it you would have no objection to such tests were possible remains to be found in the Algarve ... what is your opinion should a possible living candidate turn up.
Run a beady eye over documents of questionable provenance ... or a quick non invasive DNA test?
I don't want a direct answer to my question ... try making your point in discussion, that is after all what the forum is about - being able to express an opinion whatever it may be for reasonable discussion.
Not a question and answer session.
Who said I have any objection to D.N.A. tests ?
As to finding a living Madeleine, I have already on several occasions said why I do not believe it will happen.
Can you say the same on the 'accidental death' or 'walking out of the apartment' theories ?
-
You are every bit as bad, or not, depending on how anyone looks at it.
But why do you all think that it was only your post that was deleted? This is not the case. And I am far less likely to delete posts than some. We all have to use our own judgement. Mine tends to lean towards ridiculous fairness.
But if you think that I am not even handed then take it up with Admin. But then you probably already have.
I am taking it up with you because you encouraged me to do so. Brietta is a constant troller and goader who replies to posts with personal attacts.
Now if you take the stance that My posts which respond to her- and challenge her- are worth deleting,then surley you must with the same 'thinking' and being even handed an all, delete hers.
Why won't you?
I cannot wonder why you would think I went to discuss you with Admin? I don 't do sneaky behind back stuff.
I am an adult.
-
If every post containing an insult sneer put down ad hominem etc were wiped on sight posters might get the picture and start to behave like the adults they purport to be; or get p****d off that no one's noticing their histrionics and go elsewhere.
Why not give it whirl and see what happens ? 8(0(*
I do on very rare occasions. But I am normally pretty quick off the mark, so each and every individual thinks it is only them.
However, it does work, if only briefly. But I don't want anyone to piss off. Not much of a Board if they all did.
-
Who said I have any objection to D.N.A. tests ?
As to finding a living Madeleine, I have already on several occasions said why I do not believe it will happen.
Can you say the same on the 'accidental death' or 'walking out of the apartment' theories ?
I already know your opinion on other matters. You reiterate them often enough. However on a thread about identity - abducted children - DNA ... you appear to have an aversion to discussing that subject.
There is a bigger picture than total obsession with Madeleine McCann. It has already been said here, but how would Ben Needham be identified so many years down the line without such testing ... and I believe that a few adults have presented themselves for elimination purposes ... so identity is obviously important to them too.
How refreshing it would be if just for once we could run a thread where McCann bashing was conspicuous by its absence.
-
If every post containing an insult sneer put down ad hominem etc were wiped on sight posters might get the picture and start to behave like the adults they purport to be; or get p****d off that no one's noticing their histrionics and go elsewhere.
Why not give it whirl and see what happens ? 8(0(*
why don't we all behave like adults and stop the ad hominem attacks...anyone care to agree to try
-
If every post containing an insult sneer put down ad hominem etc were wiped on sight posters might get the picture and start to behave like the adults they purport to be; or get p****d off that no one's noticing their histrionics and go elsewhere.
Why not give it whirl and see what happens ? 8(0(*
Yes Indeed!
Why not do just that! be brave and swipe ALL of the personal attacts and not just pick and chose which ones.
I would swipe the lot regardless of which side of the debate they are at! But then... I have nothing to lose!
-
An excellent idea, though difficult for some to maintain for long. ( response to Davel)
-
Who said I have any objection to D.N.A. tests ?
As to finding a living Madeleine, I have already on several occasions said why I do not believe it will happen.
Can you say the same on the 'accidental death' or 'walking out of the apartment' theories ?
I have already explained why I think the accident scenario could not have happenned and it seems SY have discarded the woke and wandered and taken abduction as the most likely
-
I already know your opinion on other matters. You reiterate them often enough. However on a thread about identity - abducted children - DNA ... you appear to have an aversion to discussing that subject.
There is a bigger picture than total obsession with Madeleine McCann. It has already been said here, but how would Ben Needham be identified so many years down the line without such testing ... and I believe that a few adults have presented themselves for elimination purposes ... so identity is obviously important to them too.
How refreshing it would be if just for once we could run a thread where McCann bashing was conspicuous by its absence.
Try reading my last post again.
It would help.
-
why don't we all behave like adults and stop the ad hominem attacks...anyone care to agree to try
You could of course lead by example were you so inclined.
One volunteer being worth ten pressed men n all that.
-
You could of course lead by example were you so inclined.
One volunteer being worth ten pressed men n all that.
it's difficult when so many posters attack me.....
-
it's difficult when so many posters attack me.....
Perhaps if you didn't post quite so much @)(++(*
-
Perhaps if you didn't post quite so much @)(++(*
so the insults start immediately...point proved
-
so the insults start immediately...point proved
Jassi made an observation.
Now how many times have called posters liars or questioned their intelligence ?
-
it's difficult when so many posters attack me.....
Maybe the old saw of "reap what you sow" comes into play here?
Or just grow a thicker skin and rise above it.
-
so the insults start immediately...point proved
Not an insult at all. My observation is that the more posts, the more opportunity for insults.
-
I am taking it up with you because you encouraged me to do so. Brietta is a constant troller and goader who replies to posts with personal attacts.
Now if you take the stance that My posts which respond to her- and challenge her- are worth deleting,then surley you must with the same 'thinking' and being even handed an all, delete hers.
Why won't you?
I cannot wonder why you would think I went to discuss you with Admin? I don 't do sneaky behind back stuff.
I am an adult.
Good. Glad to hear that you are an adult. Why do you think I am having this conversation?
But presuming that it was I who deleted your posts, which it very often isn't, why do you presume that I did?
I read every Reported Post from everyone, and often discard the Reports as spurious, no matter who reports it. But that doesn't stop another Mod deleting it.
However, you seem to have a problem with me personally. Is it because I am an obvious McCann Supporter? When did you last hear a McCann Supporter whinging about deleted posts?
Do you really understand what Moderating is all about?
-
Not an insult at all. My observation is that the more posts, the more opportunity for insults.
you have missed the point..we would like to stop the insults...and your post was insulting
-
Try reading my last post again.
It would help.
That is a constant fall back position of yours. If you can't be bothered discussing the thread topic ... why should I be bothered trawling your past posts for information I so obviously missed first time round.
-
you have missed the point..we would like to stop the insults...and your post was insulting
No it wasn't. but big E can decide.
-
That is a constant fall back position of yours. If you can't be bothered discussing the thread topic ... why should I be bothered trawling your past posts for information I so obviously missed first time round.
TRY reading.
I have no objection to D.N.A. testing.
-
Jassi made an observation.
Now how many times have called posters liars or questioned their intelligence ?
you have made those accusations towards me on a regular basis
-
TRY reading.
I have no objection to D.N.A. testing.
another example of a rude post
-
another example of a rude post
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
Perhaps if you didn't post quite so much @)(++(*
Actually it is not the volume of posts which precipitate attacks and ad hominems ... it is the content and value of them which does. On this thread it seems to be the polarisation of the value of DNA testing which seems nothing short of abomination to some posters if it might lead to the identification of Madeleine McCann.
-
TRY reading.
I have no objection to D.N.A. testing.
are you aware that the use of capitals in posts is equivalent to shouting
-
No it wasn't. but big E can decide.
Exactly. Was it or wasn't it? I am in two minds, so best left. This is what I do. John might not agree with me.
-
are you aware that the use of capitals in posts is equivalent to shouting
Irrelevant.
If I was 'shouting' in my posts, it would be clear cut.
Make no mistake on that.
-
Irrelevant.
If I was 'shouting' in my posts, it would be clear cut.
Make no mistake on that.
it's a fact...it seems you are not aware of it
-
it's a fact...it seems you are not aware of it
I POST AS I WISH. *&*%£
-
Time to wipe the Thread it seems.
Any complaints?
-
Time to wipe the Thread it seems.
Any complaints?
No, Eleanor. 8((()*/
-
I POST AS I WISH. *&*%£
as do I....would you like to hear about all my life experiences again
-
so who would like to agree to stop the insults...don't think I will get many takers
-
No, Eleanor. 8((()*/
Thank You, Stephen. But then you don't whinge either.
Off to cut the grass in a minute. Back in an hour. Make the most of it.
-
Good. Glad to hear that you are an adult. Why do you think I am having this conversation?
But presuming that it was I who deleted your posts, which it very often isn't, why do you presume that I did?
I read every Reported Post from everyone, and often discard the Reports as spurious, no matter who reports it. But that doesn't stop another Mod deleting it.
However, you seem to have a problem with me personally. Is it because I am an obvious McCann Supporter? When did you last hear a McCann Supporter whinging about deleted posts?
Do you really understand what Moderating is all about?
I did not presume anything. I asked a question, as you are a mod and you were posting on the thread.
It was you who posted this reply:
" Difficult, don't you agree, since everybody is at it. I seriously do try not to wipe the entire Board. Unless you think I should."
I replied
"I think you should show even handedness and impartiality. Brietta is a known troll for name calling people who do not believe 'lies'. she has a posted quite few insulting, derogatory remarks against posters who disagree with her. I ask they be swiped OR mine be put back!
Sound fair?"
To Reply...
"However, you seem to have a problem with me personally."
I do not have a problem with anyone on this forum- I don't take it too seriously. Evenhandedness is a requirement of any forum with integrity. I have never called you names or been rude to you. OR discussed you with ADMIN.
...and How many supporters have I reported that have not been treated the same as others?
"Is it because I am an obvious McCann Supporter?"
I think you have gone over a wall with that statement Elle, My best friend is a McCANN supporter...oopsy. Some people I work with /socialise with , are McCANN SUPPORTERS, We don't do name calling and such though.
"When did you last hear a McCann Supporter whinging about deleted posts? "
Hell yeah, now we are getting somewhere, could that be because they don't get theirs deleted such as the posts above I have mentioned?
"Do you really understand what Moderating is all about?"
Do I have to know anything more than I already know? I was a mod in another chatroom many moons ago. I believe in freedom of speech, with responsibility, and within the realms of decency and the law. Is there anything else I should know?
-
You mean you don't watch Telly?
Taking DNA Samples comes under Chain of Evidence.
No. I rarely watch TV. Chain of Evidence? The samples would become part of the chain of evidence, the taking of them is another matter. I would expect there to be very good reasons before someone could be forced to submit to a DNA test.
The ‘chain of evidence’ refers to the handling of evidence from the moment it is found and
seized, right through the prosecution process. It provides an audit trail showing where that
evidence has been at all times.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284166/Evidencev3_0EXT.pdf
-
I did not presume anything. I asked a question, as you are a mod and you were posting on the thread.
It was you who posted this reply:
" Difficult, don't you agree, since everybody is at it. I seriously do try not to wipe the entire Board. Unless you think I should."
I replied
"I think you should show even handedness and impartiality. Brietta is a known troll for name calling people who do not believe 'lies'. she has a posted quite few insulting, derogatory remarks against posters who disagree with her. I ask they be swiped OR mine be put back!
Sound fair?"
To Reply...
"However, you seem to have a problem with me personally."
I do not have a problem with anyone on this forum- I don't take it too seriously. Evenhandedness is a requirement of any forum with integrity. I have never called you names or been rude to you. OR discussed you with ADMIN.
...and How many supporters have I reported that have not been treated the same as others?
"Is it because I am an obvious McCann Supporter?"
I think you have gone over a wall with that statement Elle, My best friend is a McCANN supporter...oopsy. Some people I work with /socialise with , are McCANN SUPPORTERS, We don't do name calling and such though.
"When did you last hear a McCann Supporter whinging about deleted posts? "
Hell yeah, now we are getting somewhere, could that be because they don't get theirs deleted such as the posts above I have mentioned?
"Do you really understand what Moderating is all about?"
Do I have to know anything more than I already know? I was a mod in another chatroom many moons ago. I believe in freedom of speech, with responsibility, and within the realms of decency and the law. Is there anything else I should know?
I believe in freedom of speech, with responsibility, and within the realms of decency and the law. Is there anything else I should know?
And that describes Elli perfectly.
What are you wingeing about?
-
I did not presume anything. I asked a question, as you are a mod and you were posting on the thread.
It was you who posted this reply:
" Difficult, don't you agree, since everybody is at it. I seriously do try not to wipe the entire Board. Unless you think I should."
I replied
"I think you should show even handedness and impartiality. Brietta is a known troll for name calling people who do not believe 'lies'. she has a posted quite few insulting, derogatory remarks against posters who disagree with her. I ask they be swiped OR mine be put back!
Sound fair?"
To Reply...
"However, you seem to have a problem with me personally."
I do not have a problem with anyone on this forum- I don't take it too seriously. Evenhandedness is a requirement of any forum with integrity. I have never called you names or been rude to you. OR discussed you with ADMIN.
...and How many supporters have I reported that have not been treated the same as others?
"Is it because I am an obvious McCann Supporter?"
I think you have gone over a wall with that statement Elle, My best friend is a McCANN supporter...oopsy. Some people I work with /socialise with , are McCANN SUPPORTERS, We don't do name calling and such though.
"When did you last hear a McCann Supporter whinging about deleted posts? "
Hell yeah, now we are getting somewhere, could that be because they don't get theirs deleted such as the posts above I have mentioned?
"Do you really understand what Moderating is all about?"
Do I have to know anything more than I already know? I was a mod in another chatroom many moons ago. I believe in freedom of speech, with responsibility, and within the realms of decency and the law. Is there anything else I should know?
Yes. Stop assuming that you know who deleted your posts. Why attack me? Or am I the only one daft enough to discuss it with you? None of us actually have to.
-
No. I rarely watch TV. Chain of Evidence? The samples would become part of the chain of evidence, the taking of them is another matter. I would expect there to be very good reasons before someone could be forced to submit to a DNA test.
The ‘chain of evidence’ refers to the handling of evidence from the moment it is found and
seized, right through the prosecution process. It provides an audit trail showing where that
evidence has been at all times.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284166/Evidencev3_0EXT.pdf
Exactly.
-
1. I did not assume anything- I asked a question! was it fair and should that post be deleted.
2. I did not attack you- I have no reason to.
3. So, don't talk to me- I don't mind either way.
Have a nice weekend!
-
If you broaden your horizon just a little you will realise there may be more children in the world who could be affected by separation from their nearest and dearest than Madeleine McCann.
One only has to look at the huge migrations occurring on our doorsteps where it is inevitable that children will become parted from their parents or their parents may die to see the inherent dangers children face.
I can foresee situations where DNA testing may reunite families.
I find this resistance of some to recognise the possibility that Madeleine could have been any one of a number of children sighted in the past extraordinary ... and I remain somewhat perplexed that you seem to think that DNA elimination tests should not be used to eliminate look-a-likes.
We are not talking thousands upon thousands of children being invasively tested here ... we are talking very few donating cells from a mouth swab ... and apart from the little girl dumped by the roadside in a suitcase ... none for a period of some years.
So is your objection uniquely applicable to Madeleine McCann ... or is it a generalisation applicable to all missing children?
Weird anyway that you envisage police conducting such tests without reasonable cause to do so.
It is precisely because I look at the wider picture that I refuse to accept that any family whose child looked like Madeleine should have been required to prove their child was their own by having it DNA tested. The inference being that they could have stolen their child from someone else. There are other ways to prove a child belongs to it's parents. No-one has previously mentioned reasonable cause, so it needed saying. A 'sighting' is not, on it's own, reasonable cause.
-
It is precisely because I look at the wider picture that I refuse to accept that any family whose child looked like Madeleine should have been required to prove their child was their own by having it DNA tested. The inference being that they could have stolen their child from someone else. There are other ways to prove a child belongs to it's parents. No-one has previously mentioned reasonable cause, so it needed saying. A 'sighting' is not, on it's own, reasonable cause.
Indeed it is not, it is merely a possibility that requires normal police investigation.
It intrigues me what criteria would be considered at this late stage.
-
It is precisely because I look at the wider picture that I refuse to accept that any family whose child looked like Madeleine should have been required to prove their child was their own by having it DNA tested. The inference being that they could have stolen their child from someone else. There are other ways to prove a child belongs to it's parents. No-one has previously mentioned reasonable cause, so it needed saying. A 'sighting' is not, on it's own, reasonable cause.
Indeed G.
also, there is the human rights of the child who would be subjected to such an intrusion-violation. Mass hysteria was the order of the day - whooped up by the family.
-
Indeed G.
also, there is the human rights of the child who would be subjected to such an intrusion-violation. Mass hysteria was the order of the day - whooped up by the family.
mass hysteria whooped by people such as you....which child has been asked to take a dna test
-
Indeed G.
also, there is the human rights of the child who would be subjected to such an intrusion-violation. Mass hysteria was the order of the day - whooped up by the family.
Dont make such a big thing out of it. Just a mouth swab is sufficient.
You prefer that a missing child might be left missing, stolen, rather than take a mouth swab?
Gawd strewth !!
-
so who would like to agree to stop the insults...don't think I will get many takers
I would like to see the insults stopped, but what would be left? some people would not be able to say anything at all. @)(++(*
-
Dont make such a big thing out of it. Just a mouth swab is sufficient.
You prefer that a missing child might be left missing, stolen, rather than take a mouth swab?
Gawd strewth !!
It is intrusive and a violation of a childs human right to remove anything of their person without their consent! 3 year olds would not understand what that meant.
-
I would like to see the insults stopped, but what would be left? some people would not be able to say anything at all. @)(++(*
so still no takers
-
Dont make such a big thing out of it. Just a mouth swab is sufficient.
You prefer that a missing child might be left missing, stolen, rather than take a mouth swab?
Gawd strewth !!
A pair of careless parents mislaid their child. You didn't. Then you get a knock on the door saying your child looks like the missing child. You know it's yours. Why the goodness gracious should you have to prove it? The mouth swab is no big deal, it's the inference that you're a child snatcher that is insulting.
-
Here's an idea - why don't we DNA test every white girl in the world between the ages of 10 & 14 - you never know, we might find Madeleine, though I seriously doubt it.
-
A pair of careless parents mislaid their child. You didn't. Then you get a knock on the door saying your child looks like the missing child. You know it's yours. Why the goodness gracious should you have to prove it? The mouth swab is no big deal, it's the inference that you're a child snatcher that is insulting.
...and could be intimidating and frightening for the child.
-
A pair of careless parents mislaid their child. You didn't. Then you get a knock on the door saying your child looks like the missing child. You know it's yours. Why the goodness gracious should you have to prove it? The mouth swab is no big deal, it's the inference that you're a child snatcher that is insulting.
I think you mean the implication you are a child snatcher is insulting and I agree...so the implication that the mccanns are criminals is also extremely insulting to them..
-
1. I did not assume anything- I asked a question! was it fair and should that post be deleted.
2. I did not attack you- I have no reason to.
3. So, don't talk to me- I don't mind either way.
Have a nice weekend!
Exclamation Mark? That remark in itself could be seen as insulting. But who would bother to delete that?
-
Here's an idea - why don't we DNA test every white girl in the world between the ages of 10 & 14 - you never know, we might find Madeleine, though I seriously doubt it.
the police once dna tested an entire village 5,000 men....and solved a murder
-
Exclamation Mark? That remark in itself could be seen as insulting. But who would bother to delete that?
Surely only if you were a grammar freak.
-
I would like to see the insults stopped, but what would be left? some people would not be able to say anything at all. @)(++(*
You could be right. It is often a contest in who can come up with the smartest put down. Not many winners in the frame as far as I can see. But the odd one or two do make me laugh. About half and half.
-
It is intrusive and a violation of a childs human right to remove anything of their person without their consent! 3 year olds would not understand what that meant.
It wouldn't be a three year old, would it. And supposing it ever was then it would just be a game. Only the parents could turn it into a trauma.
-
Here's an idea - why don't we DNA test every white girl in the world between the ages of 10 & 14 - you never know, we might find Madeleine, though I seriously doubt it.
Is that racist? Let's test all of 'em. There are those who would like everyone to be on a database of some kind, whether using DNA, eye patterns or chipping. Calum McRae (of findmadeleine website) was keen on fingerprint identification;
miPass
miPass is a fingerprint authentication and recognition system. The system uses known identification documents to verify the user. Examples are UK Passport or Driving Licence. The system also allows parents of young user’s to verify them where they do not yet hold a recognised identification document. miPass is a simple way for an establishment to check the identity of an individual by scanning their fingerprint. It will also speed up users accessing events by removing the need for users to carry identification documents.
http://www.linkedin.com/company/mipass
-
A pair of careless parents mislaid their child. You didn't. Then you get a knock on the door saying your child looks like the missing child. You know it's yours. Why the goodness gracious should you have to prove it? The mouth swab is no big deal, it's the inference that you're a child snatcher that is insulting.
Why would you expect the police to know that the person they were talking to was a fine upstanding citizen who wouldn't dream of snatching a child?
Surely it would be the main aim of any child abductor to convince people that they were indeed fine upstanding citizens - who wouldn't dream of committing such a crime? In fact it would be absolutely essential for them to create that impression IMO.
So - you have a person protesting their innocence and expressing their absolute disgust at the very idea that THEY of all people could possibly have snatched a child - and refusing to give a DNA test because they have been sooooo insulted!
How could the police (who don't know them from Adam) possibly know whether they were telling the truth - or putting on a big act?
A dented ego is not a valid reason to be so unhelpful IMO - especially when the fate of a missing child is the reason for a siimple DNA request.
-
Is that racist? Let's test all of 'em. There are those who would like everyone to be on a database of some kind, whether using DNA, eye patterns or chipping. Calum McRae (of findmadeleine website) was keen on fingerprint identification;
miPass
miPass is a fingerprint authentication and recognition system. The system uses known identification documents to verify the user. Examples are UK Passport or Driving Licence. The system also allows parents of young user’s to verify them where they do not yet hold a recognised identification document. miPass is a simple way for an establishment to check the identity of an individual by scanning their fingerprint. It will also speed up users accessing events by removing the need for users to carry identification documents.
http://www.linkedin.com/company/mipass
I initially read that as McPass and thought it some new identification initiative by Kate @)(++(*
-
so there doesn't seem any consensus to stop the insults...
-
Carry on regardless. Mods I mean.
-
I think you mean the implication you are a child snatcher is insulting and I agree...so the implication that the mccanns are criminals is also extremely insulting to them..
What have implications about the McCanns got to do with it? We are talking about parents in legal possession of their own children, not those who have mislaid them.
-
What have implications about the McCanns got to do with it? We are talking about parents in legal possession of their own children, not those who have mislaid them.
Erm, Prove It?
-
Erm, Prove It?
Do they have to? Aren't people considered innocent until proved guilty?
-
Why would you expect the police to know that the person they were talking to was a fine upstanding citizen who wouldn't dream of snatching a child?
Surely it would be the main aim of any child abductor to convince people that they were indeed fine upstanding citizens - who wouldn't dream of committing such a crime? In fact it would be absolutely essential for them to create that impression IMO.
So - you have a person protesting their innocence and expressing their absolute disgust at the very idea that THEY of all people could possibly have snatched a child - and refusing to give a DNA test because they have been sooooo insulted!
How could the police (who don't know them from Adam) possibly know whether they were telling the truth - or putting on a big act?
A dented ego is not a valid reason to be so unhelpful IMO - especially when the fate of a missing child is the reason for a siimple DNA request.
In other words everyone should subjugate themselves to the needs of a pair of parents who mislaid their child, and disregard the insulting implication that they are child-snatchers? Never mind if you're accused, just roll over and accept it? Really?
-
In other words everyone should subjugate themselves to the needs of a pair of parents who mislaid their child, and disregard the insulting implication that they are child-snatchers? Never mind if you're accused, just roll over and accept it? Really?
Well you have the police interviewing people if there has been a murder say, people who were in the vicinity of the crime.
They are not saying they are the murderer, but they need to interview them to make sure they had nothing to do with the murder.
If you get parents who have a child who looks like Madeleine, is the right age has the mark in her eye, then I would think the parents would think, perhaps one day something will report a sighting of our child and we will have to prove she isn't Madeleine McCann. The same as if someone looked exactly like someone who murdered someone would have to prove it wasn't him/her.
I doubt if the parents are going to be nasty about it, just resigned to the fact. After all when proof is given then they are cleared aren't they?
-
In other words everyone should subjugate themselves to the needs of a pair of parents who mislaid their child, and disregard the insulting implication that they are child-snatchers? Never mind if you're accused, just roll over and accept it? Really?
AFAIAC the actions of the parents wouldn't come into it. I would be thinking only of the missing child.
-
AFAIAC the actions of the parents wouldn't come into it. I would be thinking only of the missing child.
And having your own child tested would help the missing child how?
-
And having your own child tested would help the missing child how?
I don't understand the reluctance. Who would it be hurting?
-
You have to consider that the parents may come from a less sophisticated culture than ours and mighn't fully understand the intricacies of DNA testing and might fear that the child was going to be taken away whatever the result.
-
You have to consider that the parents may come from a less sophisticated culture than ours and mighn't fully understand the intricacies of DNA testing and might fear that the child was going to be taken away whatever the result.
You mean that there wouldn't be anyone to explain? The Police aren't savages. And besides, if this situation ever arises then the DNA Test is going to be done anyway. There is no other definitive proof.
-
I don't understand the reluctance. Who would it be hurting?
Who would it help? The child is not the missing child, so it helps how?
-
You mean that there wouldn't be anyone to explain? The Police aren't savages. And besides, if this situation ever arises then the DNA Test is going to be done anyway. There is no other definitive proof.
I don't think you can say that categorically, it would depend upon the law of the country involved and the degree of cooperation by the authorities.
-
Who would it help? The child is not the missing child, so it helps how?
But no one would know that for certain, would they. Do you think that whoever might have Madeleine is going around looking as though they have. Do you think they might try to avoid a DNA Test?
This is so silly. Anyone who has that child would do all of the things that are being suggested by people who would be reluctant to comply for reasons that I don't understand.
-
I don't think you can say that categorically, it would depend upon the law of the country involved and the degree of cooperation by the authorities.
Oh, I think I can.
-
But no one would know that for certain, would they. Do you think that whoever might have Madeleine is going around looking as though they have. Do you think they might try to avoid a DNA Test?
This is so silly. Anyone who has that child would do all of the things that are being suggested by people who would be reluctant to comply for reasons that I don't understand.
I know, it's my child. Why should I have to prove it?
-
A pair of careless parents mislaid their child. You didn't. Then you get a knock on the door saying your child looks like the missing child. You know it's yours. Why the goodness gracious should you have to prove it? The mouth swab is no big deal, it's the inference that you're a child snatcher that is insulting.
You said
"I would like to see the insults stopped, but what would be left? some people would not be able to say anything at all."
You seem unable to compute that calling the parents of a stolen child "careless" and their missing child "mislaid" is insulting in the extreme, as well as showing insensitivity bordering on the callous.
Let's look at your scenario from the other perspective and behind the knocked door are the abductors of a child - not necessarily Madeleine McCann whose recovery you give the appearance of disdaining - don't you think the criminals would pull every trick in the book to make sure the child was not identified.
-
And having your own child tested would help the missing child how?
If there was no DNA match - that would eliminate a potential line of investigation and the search could continue in other directions. So no harm done.
If there was no DNA match - that would rule out any suspicion of your involvement. So no harm done.
If there was a DNA match - then you would have some explaining to do.
The fact that you know you are not involved - doesn't prove to the police that you aren't. You are just a random member of the public to them - who has been reported as having a child who resembles a missing child.
And if your child does resemble the missing child in their opinion - then surely you would be only too keen to sort the matter out ASAP - for everyone's sake - especially the missing child.
-
In other words everyone should subjugate themselves to the needs of a pair of parents who mislaid their child, and disregard the insulting implication that they are child-snatchers? Never mind if you're accused, just roll over and accept it? Really?
In other words ... just ignore criminality and let the crims get on with it for fear of upsetting their equilibrium ...
May sound sensible to you ... but I would question it.
-
You said
"I would like to see the insults stopped, but what would be left? some people would not be able to say anything at all."
You seem unable to compute that calling the parents of a stolen child "careless" and their missing child "mislaid" is insulting in the extreme, as well as showing insensitivity bordering on the callous.
Let's look at your scenario from the other perspective and behind the knocked door are the abductors of a child - not necessarily Madeleine McCann whose recovery you give the appearance of disdaining - don't you think the criminals would pull every trick in the book to make sure the child was not identified.
Were they careful then? Mislaid is quite kind, as it suggests a temporary state of affairs. I and others think they were careless in the extreme. What's insulting and callous about saying so?
I'm not interested in any other perspective but the one of an innocent family with their own child. Why should they have their lives disrupted when they have done nothing wrong at all?
-
If there was no DNA match - that would eliminate a potential line of investigation and the search could continue in other directions. So no harm done.
If there was no DNA match - that would rule out any suspicion of your involvement. So no harm done.
If there was a DNA match - then you would have some explaining to do.
The fact that you know you are not involved - doesn't prove to the police that you aren't. You are just a random member of the public to them - who has been reported as having a child who resembles a missing child.
And if your child does resemble the missing child in their opinion - then surely you would be only too keen to sort the matter out ASAP - for everyone's sake - especially the missing child.
I'm a random member of the public who pays their taxes and has no criminal past. You seem to think that because a child is missing anyone accused of having that child should let their child be DNA tested for the sake of the missing child? How does that help the missing child? I am willing to demonstrate that my child is my child by normal means. I see no need for DNA testing and I very much doubt the police would either.
-
Not to mention the stroppy child herself, who may be within her rights to refuse.
-
I'm a random member of the public who pays their taxes and has no criminal past. You seem to think that because a child is missing anyone accused of having that child should let their child be DNA tested for the sake of the missing child? How does that help the missing child? I am willing to demonstrate that my child is my child by normal means. I see no need for DNA testing and I very much doubt the police would either.
Your micro chipped much loved moggie which has a very distinguishing feature vanishes from your garden.
Six months down the line you spot a slightly fatter cat looking very much like yours with exactly the same distinguishing feature sitting in another person's window.
When you knock at the door you are given the assurance that the cat has lived there for the past four years. Would that be sufficient for you or would you prefer to check what the micro chip might say.
I think you fail to recognise that your individual preferences would not come into play as far as the police are concerned if there was the slightest suspicion that the child you claimed as your own might actually be a missing person ... you would have no choice in the matter ... and the majority of innocent parents would find it no big deal.
-
Were they careful then? Mislaid is quite kind, as it suggests a temporary state of affairs. I and others think they were careless in the extreme. What's insulting and callous about saying so?
I'm not interested in any other perspective but the one of an innocent family with their own child. Why should they have their lives disrupted when they have done nothing wrong at all?
So because the parents were careless to the extreme, no child resembling Madeleine should be DNA'd, well poor Madeleine is all I can say.
How are you going to distinguish between parents who have a child that belongs to them and parents who are bringing up an abducted child?
Apart from that in my opinion believing that Madeleine was abducted, there is a person who goes around stealing children, I would like that person found and locked up.
-
Were they careful then? Mislaid is quite kind, as it suggests a temporary state of affairs. I and others think they were careless in the extreme. What's insulting and callous about saying so?
I'm not interested in any other perspective but the one of an innocent family with their own child. Why should they have their lives disrupted when they have done nothing wrong at all?
There was once a school of thought that exonerated rape if the victim was wearing a short skirt. The parents of a missing child "mislay" nothing ... it is the perpetrator of the crime who is the offender here. Just as it is the rapist who is the criminal not the victim.
You and the others you claim to be of your opinion want to remember that. You also want to remember the innocent victim when you make risible claim of 'disruption' at the thought of a recovery.
-
There was once a school of thought that exonerated rape if the victim was wearing a short skirt. The parents of a missing child "mislay" nothing ... it is the perpetrator of the crime who is the offender here. Just as it is the rapist who is the criminal not the victim.
You and the others you claim to be of your opinion want to remember that. You also want to remember the innocent victim when you make risible claim of 'disruption' at the thought of a recovery.
I thought the nature of the crime had not been determined. You got some inside information ?
-
I know, it's my child. Why should I have to prove it?
Because, unfortunately, The Law says that you might have to.
-
Your micro chipped much loved moggie which has a very distinguishing feature vanishes from your garden.
Six months down the line you spot a slightly fatter cat looking very much like yours with exactly the same distinguishing feature sitting in another person's window.
When you knock at the door you are given the assurance that the cat has lived there for the past four years. Would that be sufficient for you or would you prefer to check what the micro chip might say.
I think you fail to recognise that your individual preferences would not come into play as far as the police are concerned if there was the slightest suspicion that the child you claimed as your own might actually be a missing person ... you would have no choice in the matter ... and the majority of innocent parents would find it no big deal.
Correct.
-
Because, unfortunately, The Law says that you might have to.
Which law is that then?
-
Which law is that then?
No Law Enforcement anywhere is going to block a DNA Test just because the parents said No.
-
Which law is that then?
The one where a bloke refuses to pay maintenance on the grounds the child is not his?
-
I thought the nature of the crime had not been determined. You got some inside information ?
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
Andy Redwood
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
-
Who ordered the DNA swabs taken from the families, who occupied 5A after the McCanns moved to another apartment?
-
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
Andy Redwood
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
Indeed, but that was only his belief. The Portuguese, who have jurisdiction have said no such thing.
-
Indeed, but that was only his belief. The Portuguese, who have jurisdiction have said no such thing.
Amaral no longer presides over the investigation
-
Indeed, but that was only his belief. The Portuguese, who have jurisdiction have said no such thing.
If removing a child, who has since, never been seen again, is not a crime, what else could it be?
-
Amaral no longer presides over the investigation
What has that got to do with anything?
-
I wonder how some would react on here and people in general, came up to them and demanded they took your child to the police check to take a D.N.A. sample, merely because someone thought your daughter looked like Madeleine. I would suggest some people might be quite offended of being accused of having a stolen child and might react to the person with 'vigour'.
-
If you tried that in the Appalachians or in Texas, some Redneck might just shoot you @)(++(*
-
Well here's a simple suggestion. Why don't the police all around the world round up all blond girls around the age of 12 and do D.N.A. tests on all of them.
Result. 8((()*/
-
Well here's a simple suggestion. Why don't the police all around the world round up all blond girls around the age of 12 and do D.N.A. tests on all of them.
Result. 8((()*/
These would need to be natural blondes, I presume?
-
If the police had sufficient evidence to consider a girl of the appropriate age and appearance to possibly be Madeleine, and the "parents" had little proof of identity then they could ask for a DNA test. If the "parents " refused then the police could go to court present their evidence and hope to get an order for testing.
-
These would need to be natural blondes, I presume?
I feel sure we could extend that to dyed blondes , perhaps pale brown as well. 8(*(
-
If the police had sufficient evidence to consider a girl of the appropriate age and appearance to possibly be Madeleine, and the "parents" had little proof of identity then they could ask for a DNA test. If the "parents " refused then the police could go to court present their evidence and hope to get an order for testing.
That would seem reasonable. Certainly not something for 'plod' to unilaterally decide
-
Who ordered the DNA swabs taken from the families, who occupied 5A after the McCanns moved to another apartment?
I believe the word you are looking for is 'requested'. All the people who gave DNA swabs signed a consent form, including the parents.
-
That would seem reasonable. Certainly not something for 'plod' to unilaterally decide
That sounds the most likely way of dealing with it. The parents are, after all, entitled to the 'presumption of innocence' afforded to all suspects.
-
I believe the word you are looking for is 'requested'. All the people who gave DNA swabs signed a consent form, including the parents.
that's how the first murderer was caught via DNA profiling...the police "request" a sample...then look closely at those who refuse
-
I believe the word you are looking for is 'requested'. All the people who gave DNA swabs signed a consent form, including the parents.
No G, I meant "Ordered" Who gave the order, for a request to be sent for DNA swabs from these families(who occupied 5A after the mccanns). In other words..... was it UK or Portugal?
Don't worry about it, I will just look it up.
-
that's how the first murderer was caught via DNA profiling...the police "request" a sample...then look closely at those who refuse
The reticence to provide a DNA sample was apparently one of the red flags in the Jo Yeates case.
-
No G, I meant "Ordered" Who gave the order, for a request to be sent for DNA swabs from these families(who occupied 5A after the mccanns). In other words..... was it UK or Portugal?
Don't worry about it, I will just look it up.
Was DNA taken from any family who was there AFTER she disappeared?
Genuine memory blank at the moment.
-
I wonder how some would react on here and people in general, came up to them and demanded they took your child to the police check to take a D.N.A. sample, merely because someone thought your daughter looked like Madeleine. I would suggest some people might be quite offended of being accused of having a stolen child and might react to the person with 'vigour'.
I wonder how some would react if they were accused of hiding the body of their child.
-
If the police had sufficient evidence to consider a girl of the appropriate age and appearance to possibly be Madeleine, and the "parents" had little proof of identity then they could ask for a DNA test. If the "parents " refused then the police could go to court present their evidence and hope to get an order for testing.
I'm not sure which family you're* talking about. Is this in general or in a specific instance?
* You plural.
-
I wonder how some would react if they were accused of hiding the body of their child.
Do you mean the mccanns perchance ? &%+((£
-
Was DNA taken from any family who was there AFTER she disappeared?
Genuine memory blank at the moment.
I was about to say that off the top of my head, I would think it unlikely.
But thinking about it more carefully, the use of such data would be to eliminate anyone occupying the villa after the McCanns vacated from the enquiry.
But off the top of my head, I don't know.
-
Why does anyone think the parents of a child who are asked for a DNA sample of such child would be up in arms?
Was there any suggestion that the parents of the child in was it Canada, were angry? All they asked was that the identity of their child was not made public. Of course it would stop all the rumours about their child and stop people reporting their child to the police, as they said had happened numerous times. I wouldn't be surprised if they were relieved to give a DNA sample.
-
Why does anyone think the parents of a child who are asked for a DNA sample of such child would be up in arms?
Was there any suggestion that the parents of the child in was it Canada, were angry? All they asked was that the identity of their child was not made public. Of course it would stop all the rumours about their child and stop people reporting their child to the police, as they said had happened numerous times. I wouldn't be surprised if they were relieved to give a DNA sample.
Surely if the identity of the child was kept secret, it would stop none of the above.
-
that's how the first murderer was caught via DNA profiling...the police "request" a sample...then look closely at those who refuse
I thought he was caught after the guy who gave a sample on his behalf shopped him?
-
Surely if the identity of the child was kept secret, it would stop none of the above.
Of course the police would know.
-
Was DNA taken from any family who was there AFTER she disappeared?
Genuine memory blank at the moment.
Yes of course, Carana. It was before the McCanns because the little lad had left saliva on the bedding and his DNA was checked.
So was a DNA swab taken from those who were there after McCanns left. Surely they would have to check their DNA for elimination. I will check later.
-
I wonder how some would react on here and people in general, came up to them and demanded they took your child to the police check to take a D.N.A. sample, merely because someone thought your daughter looked like Madeleine. I would suggest some people might be quite offended of being accused of having a stolen child and might react to the person with 'vigour'.
I'd object if some unknown person decided that I or any member of my family had to do so. If the police requested it, I don't see the problem.
-
I'd object if some unknown person decided that I or any member of my family had to do so. If the police requested it, I don't see the problem.
Seriously Carana, if someone came up to you in the street and grabbed your daughter claiming it was Madeleine and wanted to take her to the local police station, would you make a scene, or take it on the chin ?
-
I was about to say that off the top of my head, I would think it unlikely.
But thinking about it more carefully, the use of such data would be to eliminate anyone occupying the villa after the McCanns vacated from the enquiry.
But off the top of my head, I don't know.
Or 5A. The G parents had given DNA... presumably to ascertain the provenance of the bedcover trace which was initially gave a "faintly positive" for semen. That may have been the initial urgency for the forensic people, but a proper test might have revealed earlier that it was a male baby's saliva.
The only forensics that might still be useful would seem to be the unidentified hairs, including the ones from Madeleine's bed that neither I nor anyone else seems to have found a trace of.
-
Seriously Carana, if someone came up to you in the street and grabbed your daughter claiming it was Madeleine and wanted to take her to the local police station, would you make a scene, or take it on the chin ?
I don't know what actually happened.
If my family had been on holiday, minding our own business, and had suddenly been accosted by what may have appeared as some bizarre person, yes, of course, the entire family would have wondered what the hell was going on.
If we had then been informed that our daughter closely resembled a missing child, I might still have been a bit peed off at having to waste hours of a holiday, but if it was just a few hours to make a statement and a DNA test to resolve the matter (and after all if my child had been missing I would have hoped that everyone would cooperate)... so no, it wouldn't have unduly bothered me.
-
Do people refuse? How very mean spirited. And it won't actually get them anywhere if there is cause for concern.
A refusal can only suggest something to hide.
Indeed Eleanor and how many questions did Kate refuse to answer ?
-
Indeed Eleanor and how many questions did Kate refuse to answer ?
more importantly...how many hours of questions did Kate answer
-
more importantly...how many hours of questions did Kate answer
You have the questions she did dave condescend to answer ?
-
Indeed Eleanor and how many questions did Kate refuse to answer ?
##
You don't see any difference between refusing a DNA test which you know will exonerate you and refusing to answer questions which you know are designed to fit you up for a crime you didn't commit? There is no comparison IMO.
-
##
You don't see any difference between refusing a DNA test which you know will exonerate you and refusing to answer questions which you know are designed to fit you up for a crime you didn't commit? There is no comparison IMO.
Exonerate you?
Are you having a laugh?
In your mind are all parents of blonde girls of a certain age and look, even with an eye defect, potential suspects in child abduction?
Should they be treated as such, much in the same way as every Tom Dick or Harry that "seemed" suspicious to other Toms Dicks and Harry's reporting them for "loitering, looking suspicious and the rest"? From the months before the abduction (not sure how that one worked) to years after
-
Exonerate you?
Are you having a laugh?
In your mind are all parents of blonde girls of a certain age and look, even with an eye defect, potential suspects in child abduction?
Should they be treated as such, much in the same way as every Tom Dick or Harry that "seemed" suspicious to other Toms Dicks and Harry's reporting them for "loitering, looking suspicious and the rest"? From the months before the abduction (not sure how that one worked) to years after
No I'm not having a laugh. If you know your child is your own and that all it would take to prove it is a simple, painless DNA test, which takes seconds, then IMO that would be the best thing to do. Especially if your child resembles a missing child to the extent that more than one person had reported it.
Why would anyone have a problem with that - that makes no sense to me.
As far as I can see - it's just being used as another stick to beat the McCanns with. End of.
-
No I'm not having a laugh. If you know your child is your own and that all it would take to prove it is a simple, painless DNA test, which takes seconds, then IMO that would be the best thing to do. Especially if your child resembles a missing child to the extent that more than one person had reported it.
Why would anyone have a problem with that - that makes no sense to me.
As far as I can see - it's just being used as another stick to beat the McCanns with. End of.
No it isn't end of at all. The argument is about the principle and not the Mccanns.
Police would need VERY good reason to request a DNA sample.....what do you think that very very good reason might be/be acceptable for traumatising an innocent family?
-
No it isn't end of at all. The argument is about the principle and not the Mccanns.
Police would need VERY good reason to request a DNA sample.....what do you think that very very good reason might be/be acceptable for traumatising an innocent family?
Well we shall have to agree to disagree mercury, as I see nothing traumatic in having a simple DNA test - and as a result of that - to know that any further reports would be able to be dismissed by the police without further reference to you.
-
Well we shall have to agree to disagree mercury, as I see nothing traumatic in having a simple DNA test - and as a result of that - to know that any further reports would be able to be dismissed by the police without further reference to you.
I couldn't care less if people said my child was Madeleine...when I know it isn't and they are all mistaken
It is intrusive, the police would HAVE to come up with a reason to require a DNA test...a very very very good reason...IF the normal checks flagged up anything obviously false they might have a reason, otherwise not
-
I couldn't care less if people said my child was Madeleine...when I know it isn't and they are all mistaken
It is intrusive, the police would HAVE to come up with a reason to require a DNA test...a very very very good reason...IF the normal checks flagged up anything obviously false they might have a reason, otherwise not
Well it says loads about you mercury that you would take such an unreasonable stance
Such a simple thing to allow a mouth swab to rule out all likelyhood that the child that so many people have thought to be Madeleine , is not.
-
If the police want to know who you are in the UK they ask for details such as name, address, driver's licence and so on. We have no history of having our DNA tested to prove who we are. There is no reason why we should be expected to have a DNA test to prove who we are not.
I don't think the police would ask for a DNA test unless normal identity checking methods were inconclusive. For most innocent parents normal methods would quickly demonstrate who a child was.
The reasons being given for submitting to a test are illogical, and none of them over-ride our right to be left alone to live our lives in a free country. The UK isn't a police state and we have the right to be respected and presumed innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary.
I expect some would see it as a good idea for all babies to have their DNA placed on a database for life. That would make police work easier in a lot of cases, but it would be strongly opposed. Issuing identity cards to everyone was strongly opposed. You may like to try and work out why that is.
-
If the police want to know who you are in the UK they ask for details such as name, address, driver's licence and so on. We have no history of having our DNA tested to prove who we are. There is no reason why we should be expected to have a DNA test to prove who we are not.
I don't think the police would ask for a DNA test unless normal identity checking methods were inconclusive. For most innocent parents normal methods would quickly demonstrate who a child was.
The reasons being given for submitting to a test are illogical, and none of them over-ride our right to be left alone to live our lives in a free country. The UK isn't a police state and we have the right to be respected and presumed innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary.
I expect some would see it as a good idea for all babies to have their DNA placed on a database for life. That would make police work easier in a lot of cases, but it would be strongly opposed. Issuing identity cards to everyone was strongly opposed. You may like to try and work out why that is.
"Evidence to the contrary." I think that is the point. A DNA Test is the only definitive test that there is. And it will be destroyed if it is irrelevant.
The Police won't just be grabbing any child that is brought to their attention. Why not just save the time and expense of digging into the family background?
-
"Evidence to the contrary." I think that is the point. A DNA Test is the only definitive test that there is. And it will be destroyed if it is irrelevant.
The Police won't just be grabbing any child that is brought to their attention. Why not just save the time and expense of digging into the family background?
Are you now accepting that DNA testing is not the immediate way of proceeding? Does 'evidence to the contrary' have to exist before a DNA test should be considered? If the police aren't just 'grabbing any child that is brought to their attention' what criteria should be used before they approach people then?
-
Are you now accepting that DNA testing is not the immediate way of proceeding? Does 'evidence to the contrary' have to exist before a DNA test should be considered? If the police aren't just 'grabbing any child that is brought to their attention' what criteria should be used before they approach people then?
No, I am not accepting any such thing. You used the words, "evidence to the contrary". But first of all the child has to be roughly the right age, and the person reporting it not obviously crackers.
I just don't understand the fuss. And in my opinion any normal person would comply.
-
No, I am not accepting any such thing. You used the words, "evidence to the contrary". But first of all the child has to be roughly the right age, and the person reporting it not obviously crackers.
I just don't understand the fuss. And in my opinion any normal person would comply.
I would say a lot of people having seen the events of the last 8 years, might regard anyone saying their child was Madeleine as a complete fruitcake and then treat them accordingly.
-
"Evidence to the contrary." I think that is the point. A DNA Test is the only definitive test that there is. And it will be destroyed if it is irrelevant.
The Police won't just be grabbing any child that is brought to their attention. Why not just save the time and expense of digging into the family background?
One can't be sure of that. Different countries have different rules.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that this testing would take place within a 'western' country that would follow UK rules - this may not be the case.
-
I would say a lot of people having seen the events of the last 8 years, might regard anyone saying their child was Madeleine as a complete fruitcake and then treat them accordingly.
Even The Police? No hope then.
-
Even The Police? No hope then.
Quite possibly.
-
One can't be sure of that. Different countries have different rules.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that this testing would take place within a 'western' country that would follow UK rules - this may not be the case.
I don't actually know what might go on in Brazil or Papua, New Guinea, Jassi. But I doubt that they are completely insensitive, especially as Madeleine could well be in such a place.
-
Quite possibly.
That's a bit sad.
-
No, I am not accepting any such thing. You used the words, "evidence to the contrary". But first of all the child has to be roughly the right age, and the person reporting it not obviously crackers.
I just don't understand the fuss. And in my opinion any normal person would comply.
More caveats? How do the police decide who's crackers and who's not? People with some very strange ideas can appear quite normal.
I don't object to providing proof that my child is my child. I do object to having the child DNA tested as a matter of course.
-
More caveats? How do the police decide who's crackers and who's not? People with some very strange ideas can appear quite normal.
I don't object to providing proof that my child is my child. I do object to having the child DNA tested as a matter of course.
I do know that some people with strange ideas can appear to be quite normal. Some people believe that any sighting of Madeleine is crackers.
And who said anything about a matter of course?
-
If the police want to know who you are in the UK they ask for details such as name, address, driver's licence and so on. We have no history of having our DNA tested to prove who we are. There is no reason why we should be expected to have a DNA test to prove who we are not.
I don't think the police would ask for a DNA test unless normal identity checking methods were inconclusive. For most innocent parents normal methods would quickly demonstrate who a child was.
The reasons being given for submitting to a test are illogical, and none of them over-ride our right to be left alone to live our lives in a free country. The UK isn't a police state and we have the right to be respected and presumed innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary.
I expect some would see it as a good idea for all babies to have their DNA placed on a database for life. That would make police work easier in a lot of cases, but it would be strongly opposed. Issuing identity cards to everyone was strongly opposed. You may like to try and work out why that is.
I agree with that, G-Unit.
I have never bought into the argument "if you do nothing wrong, then what is the harm in surveillance -for your own safety of course.
The government having your DNA.
Having your medical records.
Having CC TV on every street.
Why not in every home?
Why not have a tracking device implanted at birth.....
1984
-
The only reason the police would want DNA would be if all other means of identity had failed.
People can be issued with a false birth certificate.
The people who traffic other people are very detailed in what they do.
-
I agree with that, G-Unit.
I have never bought into the argument "if you do nothing wrong, then what is the harm in surveillance -for your own safety of course.
The government having your DNA.
Having your medical records.
Having CC TV on every street.
Why not in every home?
Why not have a tracking device implanted at birth.....
1984
I tend to agree also JP - and no doubt if it was implemented some clever criminal would find a way round it - especially with a computerised system involved.
I remember when bank cards were introduced - and were claimed to be the answer to all kinds of crimes - no more muggings etc - as no-one would need to carry cash. Instead we now have a multi billion pound fraud industry involving bank cards.
-
I do know that some people with strange ideas can appear to be quite normal. Some people believe that any sighting of Madeleine is crackers.
And who said anything about a matter of course?
That is the impression I have been given; that nothing else is acceptable, which is why I joined the discussion in the first place.
-
That is the impression I have been given; that nothing else is acceptable, which is why I joined the discussion in the first place.
For me it is the only definitive answer. And I know that I would not object.
-
For me it is the only definitive answer. And I know that I would not object.
That's fine, everyone is allowed a point of view. Mine is different, but just as valid in my opinion.
I'm prepared to explain and support my viewpoint and I expect others to explain and support theirs. I do object when some people suggest that anyone with a different opinion is lacking in some way though. It adds nothing to the discussion and should cease.
-
That's fine, everyone is allowed a point of view. Mine is different, but just as valid in my opinion.
I'm prepared to explain and support my viewpoint and I expect others to explain and support theirs. I do object when some people suggest that anyone with a different opinion is lacking in some way though. It adds nothing to the discussion and should cease.
My statement that DNA is the only definitive answer is a fact and not an opinion. That I would not object is also a fact.
However, I am entitled to an opinion on what other people might do, as is everyone. This will not cease.
-
I do know that some people with strange ideas can appear to be quite normal. Some people believe that any sighting of Madeleine is crackers.
And who said anything about a matter of course?
'..... any sighting of Madeleine is crackers...........' ???
but no trace of Madeleine has been found since she disappeared...........................
-
If the police want to know who you are in the UK they ask for details such as name, address, driver's licence and so on. We have no history of having our DNA tested to prove who we are. There is no reason why we should be expected to have a DNA test to prove who we are not.
I don't think the police would ask for a DNA test unless normal identity checking methods were inconclusive. For most innocent parents normal methods would quickly demonstrate who a child was.
The reasons being given for submitting to a test are illogical, and none of them over-ride our right to be left alone to live our lives in a free country. The UK isn't a police state and we have the right to be respected and presumed innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary.
I expect some would see it as a good idea for all babies to have their DNA placed on a database for life. That would make police work easier in a lot of cases, but it would be strongly opposed. Issuing identity cards to everyone was strongly opposed. You may like to try and work out why that is.
Is your objection based on the idea that your child's DNA would remain on a police database? If so, I still don't quite see the difference between that and having the police note all the other bits of identifying information about the child / family.
There was a lot of controversy in the UK about the introduction of a national ID card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006
In some countries, it's illegal to leave your home without some form of ID. It's not just in case the police suddenly to decide that you might have committed an offence, but in case you're in a serious accident.
In Portugal, there was a rumpus about CCTV as it was viewed as an invasion of privacy, yet in many other countries that is an accepted part of life.
Perhaps it's the potential misuse of that information that's scary. Some TV show or other on one of the US channels (ages ago) was based on CCTV footage of people in embarrassing situations. I don't know if that has since been outlawed, but IMO that was clearly a misuse of a legitimate means of security surveillance.
-
That's fine, everyone is allowed a point of view. Mine is different, but just as valid in my opinion.
I'm prepared to explain and support my viewpoint and I expect others to explain and support theirs. I do object when some people suggest that anyone with a different opinion is lacking in some way though. It adds nothing to the discussion and should cease.
And yet you were unmistakeably of a 'different opinion' to K&G re their holiday activities as a family- and you obviously thought they were seriously ''lacking in some way'' - simply because their opinion on how to spend their holiday was different to yours.
A tad hypocritical?
-
And yet you were unmistakeably of a 'different opinion' to K&G re their holiday activities as a family- and you obviously thought they were seriously ''lacking in some way'' - simply because their opinion on how to spend their holiday was different to yours.
A tad hypocritical?
Would you leave children exposed to unnecessary danger ?
-
Would you leave children exposed to unnecessary danger ?
Not if I believed I was exposing them to unnecessary danger - but then I wouldn't let them out of my sight day or night if I took into account all the potential dangers which exist - including sitting with them all night in case of cot death.
No-one can guard against every eventuality of danger. If they could there would no kids in A&E at any time. And no-one is immune from making human errors. There are no perfect parents.
The possibility of abduction is so rare it is not a usual danger to consider when making out one's holiday 'to do' list.
I agree with the AG who said:
quote
The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger.....
nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating.......
nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Unquote
-
Not if I believed I was exposing them to unnecessary danger - but then I wouldn't let them out of my sight day or night if I took into account all the potential dangers which exist - including sitting with them all night in case of cot death.
No-one can guard against every eventuality of danger. If they could there would no kids in A&E at any time. And no-one is immune from making human errors. There are no perfect parents.
The possibility of abduction is so rare it is not a usual danger to consider when making out one's holiday 'to do' list.
I agree with the AG who said:
quote
The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger.....
nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating.......
nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Unquote
They were in a country they did not know and with a language thet did not speak, and they left their children repeatedly in a precarious and unsafe situation.
Hindsight is one thing.
Commonsense is another.
-
has anyone raised any objections to DNA testing in the Needham case......
-
Have they found anyone to test yet? If they do, he might object.
-
Have they found anyone to test yet? If they do, he might object.
yes they have and the test was negative...
-
Have they found anyone to test yet? If they do, he might object.
Didn't some geezer show up twice over the years.
It wasn't positive the first time; I don't know about the second time &%+((£
-
They could get DNA from a child chewing a piece of gum. One male suspect said use my chewing gum then switched it with another one but that was found to be female DNA @)(++(* no need to look any further.
-
Have they found anyone to test yet? If they do, he might object.
The chap who offered to have his DNA taken himself , thought he might be Ben (according to the Daily Mail that is )
Bit of a different scenario
-
Poor kid. A simple DNA test could have saved her from that ordeal.
Mexico
Mistaken identity: girl pulled screaming from Mexican school and sent to Texas
Jo Tuckman in Mexico City
Thursday 23 April 2015 01.59 BST
Last modified on Tuesday 19 May 2015 11.39 BST
A 14-year-old Mexican girl, who was dragged screaming from her secondary school by federal agents last week and flown to Houston to be with a woman who claimed to be her mother, was repatriated to Mexico on Wednesday.
Parents of taken Mexican girl blame judge for mix-up that sent her to Texas
Read more
The repatriation of Alondra Luna follows DNA tests showing that she is not the daughter of Dorotea García, who had obtained a judge’s order to get her forcibly brought to Houston.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/22/mistaken-identity-girl-screaming-mexican-school-texas
-
Poor kid. A simple DNA test could have saved her from that ordeal.
Mexico
Mistaken identity: girl pulled screaming from Mexican school and sent to Texas
Jo Tuckman in Mexico City
Thursday 23 April 2015 01.59 BST
Last modified on Tuesday 19 May 2015 11.39 BST
A 14-year-old Mexican girl, who was dragged screaming from her secondary school by federal agents last week and flown to Houston to be with a woman who claimed to be her mother, was repatriated to Mexico on Wednesday.
Parents of taken Mexican girl blame judge for mix-up that sent her to Texas
Read more
The repatriation of Alondra Luna follows DNA tests showing that she is not the daughter of Dorotea García, who had obtained a judge’s order to get her forcibly brought to Houston.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/22/mistaken-identity-girl-screaming-mexican-school-texas
As well as a paranoid deluded mother and pathetic judge?Quite
-
As well as a paranoid deluded mother and pathetic judge?Quite
Would you have been a tadge paranoid if your daughter had been dragged sceaming out of school and taken to another country because the authorities believed the claims of the Houston woman.
I think any caring mother would have been. Are you saying that it would have been OK by you?
A simple DNA test, a mouth swab, would have proved that the deluded woman was wrong.
All that trauma need not have happened.
-
Would you have been a tadge paranoid if your daughter had been dragged sceaming out of school and taken to another country because the authorities believed the claims of the Houston woman.
I think any caring mother would have been. Are you saying that it would have been OK by you?
A simple DNA test, a mouth swab, would have proved that the deluded woman was wrong.
All that trauma need not have happened.
Err....I was referring to the mother who got the pathetic judge to authorise the "abduction" of the non daughter from Mexico!!!
-
From a related article:
(snip)
The prosecutor’s office in the south-western state of Michoacan said in a statement that it is looking into the case involving a civil court judge in Los Reyes, including media reports and videos “which suggest probable acts against the child’s bests interests and could constitute an illegal action”.
Video footage of Alondra being taken screaming by police circulated widely and attracted national and international attention to the case.
Alondra had asked for DNA tests in Mexico before she was sent to the US, and her parents presented more than a dozen documents including her baptismal records, family photographs and a copy of her birth certificate.
But Judge Cinthia Elodia Mercado ruled that Alondra was in fact Alondra Diaz Garcia, who was taken from Texas by her father in 2007. The other girl remains missing, and the father’s whereabouts are also unknown.
Elodia Mercado said this week that it was not within her authority to order DNA testing, and she was obligated to ensure Mexico followed international conventions on child abductions.
“We, as judges, are only responsible to resolve the case with respect to recovering the minor,” she said. “We don’t do investigations or make inquiries.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/24/mexican-prosecutors-investigation-girl-texas
And from another one (snipped):
With a media spotlight now on the case, Reynaldo Díaz delivered the real Alondra Díaz to family members who then presented her to authorities, saying she was prepared to go live with her mother.
García had an emotional reunion with her daughter this week in a courtroom in Los Reyes.
In the case of the first girl, the judge denied requests by her and her family for DNA tests, saying it was not within her authority. This time Mercado waited for DNA confirmation.
The difference in treatment prompted Alondra Luna and her parents to travel to Los Reyes to stake out the courthouse on Friday and demand an apology.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/15/mexican-judge-returns-teenage-girl-us-mother-previous-mistaken-identity
-
From a related article:
(snip)
The prosecutor’s office in the south-western state of Michoacan said in a statement that it is looking into the case involving a civil court judge in Los Reyes, including media reports and videos “which suggest probable acts against the child’s bests interests and could constitute an illegal action”.
Video footage of Alondra being taken screaming by police circulated widely and attracted national and international attention to the case.
Alondra had asked for DNA tests in Mexico before she was sent to the US, and her parents presented more than a dozen documents including her baptismal records, family photographs and a copy of her birth certificate.
But Judge Cinthia Elodia Mercado ruled that Alondra was in fact Alondra Diaz Garcia, who was taken from Texas by her father in 2007. The other girl remains missing, and the father’s whereabouts are also unknown.
Elodia Mercado said this week that it was not within her authority to order DNA testing, and she was obligated to ensure Mexico followed international conventions on child abductions.
“We, as judges, are only responsible to resolve the case with respect to recovering the minor,” she said. “We don’t do investigations or make inquiries.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/24/mexican-prosecutors-investigation-girl-texas
And from another one (snipped):
With a media spotlight now on the case, Reynaldo Díaz delivered the real Alondra Díaz to family members who then presented her to authorities, saying she was prepared to go live with her mother.
García had an emotional reunion with her daughter this week in a courtroom in Los Reyes.
In the case of the first girl, the judge denied requests by her and her family for DNA tests, saying it was not within her authority. This time Mercado waited for DNA confirmation.
The difference in treatment prompted Alondra Luna and her parents to travel to Los Reyes to stake out the courthouse on Friday and demand an apology.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/15/mexican-judge-returns-teenage-girl-us-mother-previous-mistaken-identity
Thanks for that, Carana, a very interesting state of circumstances indeed.
The child with the wrong identity being traumatised by being hauled off because the judge ruled a DNA test out ... the child with the correct identity confirmed by the simple expediency of a DNA test being carried out and having the choice of where she wished to live.
I think under the circumstances Alondra Luna and her parents merit far more than an apology.
-
Thanks for that, Carana, a very interesting state of circumstances indeed.
The child with the wrong identity being traumatised by being hauled off because the judge ruled a DNA test out ... the child with the correct identity confirmed by the simple expediency of a DNA test being carried out and having the choice of where she wished to live.
I think under the circumstances Alondra Luna and her parents merit far more than an apology.
Corrupt countries can procure corrupt DNA results! like no one knew that already.
-
Corrupt countries can procure corrupt DNA results! like no one knew that already.
The suggestion being?
-
British dad fears hospital staff swapped his newborn baby with another tot and sold his son to traffickers
0 COMMENTS 07:44, 7 SEPTEMBER 2015 UPDATED 08:29, 7 SEPTEMBER 2015
BY MATT ROPER
"Someone took my child and I have no idea where he is, who is taking care of him, what has happened to him"
A British dad and his wife fear their newborn baby may have been swapped by hospital staff and sold to traffickers after DNA tests revealed a child they were given was not theirs.
Richard Cushworth and his devastated Salvadoran wife Mercedes Casanellas have launched a desperate appeal to find their son after fearing he was swiped in hospital who thought his light skin would catch a high price on the black market.
The couple, who live in the United States, travelled to El Salvador so Ms Casanellas could give birth in her home country.
But after giving birth, the pair decided to have a DNA test while back in the US after noticing the child did not look like either of them - and discovered to their horror that the child wasn't theirs.
In an emotional interview with a local TV station, a teary Ms Casanellas said: "We haven't been able to sleep thinking about where he is, and who has him.
"We just want them to give us our son back."
The parents fear their light-skinned baby was snatched deliberately by staff at the exclusive Ginecologico private hospital in the country's capital San Salvador to sell to child traffickers.
The family have reportedly already investigated all the other babies born at the hospital on the same day and found that all are with their correct parents - reinforcing their belief that their own son was stolen.
Mr Cushworth, who met Ms Casanellas when he worked as a missionary in El Salvador, said: "It's a horrible situation. I have a child and I don't know where he is.
"Someone took my child and I have no idea where he is, who is taking care of him, what has happened to him. Is he in the country? It's awful.
"I sometimes try not to think about this because it is so frightening."
Ms Casanella's obstretrician-gyneocologist, Dr Alejandra Guidos, who the couple accuse of masterminding the plot, was arrested on Thursday, according to their family's lawyer Francisco Meneses.
Ms Casanellas said that, from the fifth month of her pregnancy, she remembered how Dr Guidos would repeatedly tell her that her child would be dark-skinned, even though the father is white.
She said: "I always thought that was strange. How would he know that from the ultra-sound scans, and why would he keep saying it?"
Remembering her baby's birth, she said: "I was very stressed at first because the baby took a while to start breathing, but then I held him and remember thinking that he looked like my husband.
"He was very white and had similar features. I remember seeing his genitals and thinking that they were white and pinkish.
"But then the anesthetist came and told me that I was very nervous and that they were going to give me something to put me to sleep. After that I don't remember anything, until I woke up the next morning.
"Around 8am, they started to bring the babies to their mothers, and I waited for mine. But when I took him I saw that he was very different to the one I had held in the delivery room. When I changed his clothes I noticed that his genitals were very dark and not rosy like how I'd remembered.
"I said to the nurse, 'look, his genitals are very dark', and she told me, 'no, that's normal, that's normal'".
Ms Casanellas said photos she took of her baby son soon after the birth prove that the baby was white-skinned.
Despite the doubts, the couple took the baby back home to Dallas,, Texas, but over the coming months family and friends also noticed the child's darker colour and lack of resemblance with his parents.
Ms Casanellas said: "I would take photos of him and put them next to my husband, trying to find something of us in him. I kept trying to convince myself that he was really ours, that over time we would begin to see a resemblance.
"But my motherly instincts kept telling me that he wasn't mine."
The baby was three months old when the couple finally found to courage to take a DNA test, which showed he has a 0.00 per cent probability of being their son.
Desperate to find the baby she gave birth to, the couple rushed back to El Salvador.
At first San Salvador's Ginecologio hospital, considered the best private hospital in the country, denied that the baby could have been swapped, saying it was "impossible" due to their "high standards" of control.
But after Dr Guidos's arrest, following the family's high-profile TV interview, the hospital ordered an internal investigation and promised that the situation will be "rectified".
The country's Attorney General has now ordered a criminal investigation into the baby's disappearance amid claims a trafficking gang, led by Dr Guido, has been operating inside the hospital.
Ms Casanellas said: "I just want him to give me my baby back. I want to know that my child hasn't been trafficked or any other crime committed against him. I need my baby, I'm just asking for my baby."
The couple added that, if the true parents of the baby they were given are not found, they will raise him as their own.
She said: "If they can't find his mother, he already has parents, us. We are taking care of him and, even though we know he isn't our biological son, we still love him."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/british-dad-fears-hospital-staff-6395250#rlabs=2%20sitewide
-
British dad fears hospital staff swapped his newborn baby with another tot and sold his son to traffickers
0 COMMENTS 07:44, 7 SEPTEMBER 2015 UPDATED 08:29, 7 SEPTEMBER 2015
BY MATT ROPER
"Someone took my child and I have no idea where he is, who is taking care of him, what has happened to him"
A British dad and his wife fear their newborn baby may have been swapped by hospital staff and sold to traffickers after DNA tests revealed a child they were given was not theirs.
Richard Cushworth and his devastated Salvadoran wife Mercedes Casanellas have launched a desperate appeal to find their son after fearing he was swiped in hospital who thought his light skin would catch a high price on the black market.
The couple, who live in the United States, travelled to El Salvador so Ms Casanellas could give birth in her home country.
But after giving birth, the pair decided to have a DNA test while back in the US after noticing the child did not look like either of them - and discovered to their horror that the child wasn't theirs.
In an emotional interview with a local TV station, a teary Ms Casanellas said: "We haven't been able to sleep thinking about where he is, and who has him.
"We just want them to give us our son back."
The parents fear their light-skinned baby was snatched deliberately by staff at the exclusive Ginecologico private hospital in the country's capital San Salvador to sell to child traffickers.
The family have reportedly already investigated all the other babies born at the hospital on the same day and found that all are with their correct parents - reinforcing their belief that their own son was stolen.
Mr Cushworth, who met Ms Casanellas when he worked as a missionary in El Salvador, said: "It's a horrible situation. I have a child and I don't know where he is.
"Someone took my child and I have no idea where he is, who is taking care of him, what has happened to him. Is he in the country? It's awful.
"I sometimes try not to think about this because it is so frightening."
Ms Casanella's obstretrician-gyneocologist, Dr Alejandra Guidos, who the couple accuse of masterminding the plot, was arrested on Thursday, according to their family's lawyer Francisco Meneses.
Ms Casanellas said that, from the fifth month of her pregnancy, she remembered how Dr Guidos would repeatedly tell her that her child would be dark-skinned, even though the father is white.
She said: "I always thought that was strange. How would he know that from the ultra-sound scans, and why would he keep saying it?"
Remembering her baby's birth, she said: "I was very stressed at first because the baby took a while to start breathing, but then I held him and remember thinking that he looked like my husband.
"He was very white and had similar features. I remember seeing his genitals and thinking that they were white and pinkish.
"But then the anesthetist came and told me that I was very nervous and that they were going to give me something to put me to sleep. After that I don't remember anything, until I woke up the next morning.
"Around 8am, they started to bring the babies to their mothers, and I waited for mine. But when I took him I saw that he was very different to the one I had held in the delivery room. When I changed his clothes I noticed that his genitals were very dark and not rosy like how I'd remembered.
"I said to the nurse, 'look, his genitals are very dark', and she told me, 'no, that's normal, that's normal'".
Ms Casanellas said photos she took of her baby son soon after the birth prove that the baby was white-skinned.
Despite the doubts, the couple took the baby back home to Dallas,, Texas, but over the coming months family and friends also noticed the child's darker colour and lack of resemblance with his parents.
Ms Casanellas said: "I would take photos of him and put them next to my husband, trying to find something of us in him. I kept trying to convince myself that he was really ours, that over time we would begin to see a resemblance.
"But my motherly instincts kept telling me that he wasn't mine."
The baby was three months old when the couple finally found to courage to take a DNA test, which showed he has a 0.00 per cent probability of being their son.
Desperate to find the baby she gave birth to, the couple rushed back to El Salvador.
At first San Salvador's Ginecologio hospital, considered the best private hospital in the country, denied that the baby could have been swapped, saying it was "impossible" due to their "high standards" of control.
But after Dr Guidos's arrest, following the family's high-profile TV interview, the hospital ordered an internal investigation and promised that the situation will be "rectified".
The country's Attorney General has now ordered a criminal investigation into the baby's disappearance amid claims a trafficking gang, led by Dr Guido, has been operating inside the hospital.
Ms Casanellas said: "I just want him to give me my baby back. I want to know that my child hasn't been trafficked or any other crime committed against him. I need my baby, I'm just asking for my baby."
The couple added that, if the true parents of the baby they were given are not found, they will raise him as their own.
She said: "If they can't find his mother, he already has parents, us. We are taking care of him and, even though we know he isn't our biological son, we still love him."http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/british-dad-fears-hospital-staff-6395250#rlabs=2%20sitewide
What a wonderful couple !
Shows the need for DNA checking tho.
-
Not a lot of empathy being shown by the supporters here. If you know it is your child, why would you need to have it DNA checked. Your will have photos etc. that you can show the police.
What if the police said they were not happy with your evidence
Do you agree then
Or do you get angry because the police don't believe you
-
What a wonderful couple !
Shows the need for DNA checking tho.
I thought so too, Sadie, but despite their doubts now confirmed I'm not surprised they have bonded with the wee boy.
The worrying thing as well as what has become of their child ... what has become of the mother of the child passed off as theirs? I think this thing must be huge ... how many people must have been involved in it?
Thank goodness for DNA ... which obviously the parents of all the other children born at that time in the maternity hospital agreed to for elimination purposes.
It is mind boggling and almost unbelievable that such a thing could have happened but it did. Someone wanted a fair complexioned child and was prepared to pay (there must have been a lot of money involved) to get one.
Who can say something of the kind did not happen to Madeleine McCann.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=91834&page=1
*snipped*
When a couple seeking to adopt a white baby is charged $35,000 and a couple seeking a black baby is charged $4,000, the image that comes to the Rev. Ken Hutcherson's mind is of a practice that was outlawed in America nearly 150 years ago — the buying and selling of human beings.
The practice, which is widespread among private adoption facilitators, of charging prospective parents different fees depending on the race or ethnicity of the child they adopt is one that Hutcherson is fighting to change from his Redmond, Wash., church. The Antioch Bible Church has established its own adoption agency, and is lobbying state legislators to change Washington's laws.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a legitimate adoption agency is charging $35000 for a white baby, one can only guess at the price on the black market.
There is more to the article & others of a similar nature are also online.
It is interesting to read that outside the UK several countries only allow international adoptions of children over 15 months who are in state orphanages. I also understand that Russia has recently banned Americans who live there from adopting Russian children on the grounds that they will be adversely influenced by liberal US parenting & ideals.
-
Madeleine McCann was 4 not a newborn
She was not an orphan or of parents who might sell her for money
How long will it be before you get back to the theory promulgated in here that Madeleine had been stolen from her holiday flat for bodily parts...liver, kidneys, lungs, honestly, anything to support the abduction theorem had enough of this utter pathetic gutter crapola
-
Madeleine McCann was 4 not a newborn
She was not an orphan or of parents who might sell her for money
How long will it be before you get back to the theory promulgated in here that Madeleine had been stolen from her holiday flat for bodily parts...liver, kidneys, lungs, honestly, anything to support the abduction theorem had enough of this utter pathetic gutter crapola
It would be interesting to see the worldwide statistics for child-trafficking of under 10's compared to parental murder/manslaughter of under 10's.
-
Utterly meaningless in itself
-
Utterly meaningless in itself
If you have nothing but contempt for every post made to promote discussion & knowledge, why are you here?
-
If you have nothing but contempt for every post made to promote discussion & knowledge, why are you here?
Not contempt just doubt as to those statistics you are after and what possible light they could shed, as to why I'm here, same reason YOU are,I wasn't personal so don't you be, thanks
-
If you have nothing but contempt for every post made to promote discussion & knowledge, why are you here?
I think there may be a resistance to entering any sort of meaningful discussion if one doesn't really have much of a counter argument to put up.
I didn't know about the differential in price being charged by adoption agencies for light skinned and dark skinned babies. I can only wonder what the unscrupulous doctor who stole Richard and Mercedes baby charged.
It is a practice which has gone on in many countries, often State sanctioned and did not just involve babies ...
At the Nuremberg Trials, no evidence was found of direct involvement by the Lebensborn organization in the kidnapping of Polish children. However, Heinrich Himmler directed a programme with other segments of the Nazi bureaucracy, whereby thousands of Polish children were kidnapped and subjected to 'Germanisation'. Germanisation involved a period at one of the 're-education camps', followed by being fostered out to German families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
Spanish society has been shaken by allegations of the theft and trafficking of thousands of babies by nuns, priests and doctors, which started under Franco and continued up to the 1990s.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15335899
Why people should think it extraordinary that there are people in existence who would think nothing of entering a child's bedroom to steal her because she had been 'chosen' and paid for by someone ... there are a lot of improbable situations going on in the world from the documented theft of individual children to the documented theft of thousands.
In my opinion the only way of checking who is who in such situations is by using DNA to check it out.
-
What a wonderful couple !
Shows the need for DNA checking tho.
Richard and Mercedes have been reunited with their son ... I hope all goes well for the family in future ... now it only remains to discover what actually may have happened in the hospital.
-
DNA Cracked it. And no one refused.
-
Apparently the El Salvador's Attorney General's office said the babies had been accidentally mixed up.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/el-salvador-baby-swap-couple-absolutely-thrilled-after-biological-child-returned-safely-10491094.html.
The parents of four other boys who were also born on the same day, May 21, had last week brought their babies to be DNA tested after an order was issued by the country's Prosecutor General's Office, which had taken over the investigation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3225887/Parents-discovered-newborn-swapped-birth-doctor-sold-trafficking-ring-finally-reunited-lost-son.html
-
DNA Cracked it. And no one refused.
Why would they? They all needed to know if they had their own child or not.
-
Why would they? They all needed to know if they had their own child or not.
Self interest then. And tough shit to people like The McCanns.
-
Self interest then. And tough shit to people like The McCanns.
Certainly an intriguing story particularly if they have had to sign a gagging order ... wonder why?
-
Certainly an intriguing story particularly if they have had to sign a gagging order ... wonder why?
Tis all a bit odd. Nothing seems to be straightforward. But I can't actually see any mother giving up her own baby for one with a lighter skin, unless she has something to hide.
But I think the point is that none of them actually had a right to refuse a DNA Test, even in El Salvador.
-
Certainly not when it was ordered by their Justice department.
-
Certainly not when it was ordered by their Justice department.
As it would be by any other Justice Department.
-
As it would be by any other Justice Department.
There is also the furore that the parents raised and they made it absolutely plain they were not going to shut up until they discovered what had happened to their son.
If switching the babies was an innocent mistake ... and we know that can happen ... why was it only in the face of the publicity that the authorities investigated and rectified the situation? That could have been done without fuss.
-
There only seems to have been a fuss because a Tabloid or two got hold of it.
From what has been reported, it sounds as if the authorities had it well in hand and had arranged a court order and already got the testing done before the news broke.
-
This story has taken an interesting twist with the parents being accused of attempting a compensation scam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234064/Mother-centre-El-Salvador-baby-swap-blunder-hits-mad-claims-compensation-scam-sue-hospital.html
-
This story has taken an interesting twist with the parents being accused of attempting a compensation scam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234064/Mother-centre-El-Salvador-baby-swap-blunder-hits-mad-claims-compensation-scam-sue-hospital.html
Without DNA testing the possibility is that there would have been long harrowing court cases to attempt a Solomon judgement in this case. The parents who had been given the wrong child never doubted for a minute that the child they had bonded with, loved and nurtured for the first three months of his life was not their own.
The interesting thing is not the allegation being made by the State ... but that both sets of parents signed a gagging order.
How extraordinary that is may be revealed in due time.
Therefore I agree if this case does go to court there could be interesting revelations involved once those gagging orders are lifted. If we are interested enough perhaps we might be persuaded to contribute to a gofundme appeal to contribute to the costs ... either to finance the parents or the State as suits one's predilection.
-
This story has taken an interesting twist with the parents being accused of attempting a compensation scam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234064/Mother-centre-El-Salvador-baby-swap-blunder-hits-mad-claims-compensation-scam-sue-hospital.html
I have to say I wondered why the mother went back to El-Salvadore to have her baby. Just randomly I though US hospitals were likely to be better. Then I thought she maybe just wanted to be with her family at the time, some women do. The reason being alleged never occurred to me though.
-
I have to say I wondered why the mother went back to El-Salvadore to have her baby. Just randomly I though US hospitals were likely to be better. Then I thought she maybe just wanted to be with her family at the time, some women do. The reason being alleged never occurred to me though.
The average cost of a hospital birth in the US is $10,000. Reason enough in itself to consider the option of a free birth in your home country, despite the risks.
-
The average cost of a hospital birth in the US is $10,000. Reason enough in itself to consider the option of a free birth in your home country, despite the risks.
The average cost would be for a spontaneous uterine delivery ... in this case the right financial call was made as the birth was not straightforward and a caesarian section was required.
-
The average cost of a hospital birth in the US is $10,000. Reason enough in itself to consider the option of a free birth in your home country, despite the risks.
El-Salvadore is certainly one of the destinations for 'medical tourists' from the US looking to save money. The treatments aren't free, just cheaper.The San Salvador’s Centro Gynaecologico hospital doesn't do free births, it's a private hospital. I have no idea what the cost is though. I do know that it caters mostly to foreign nationals and provides a western style system of healthcare. It's not recommended for advanced medical treatments, however, so as you say, a bit of a risk.
http://www.globalsurance.com/health-insurance/elsalvador/healthcare/
-
... And a child born in the USA is automatically a U.S. Citizen.
-
... And a child born in the USA is automatically a U.S. Citizen.
Perhaps the parents didn't want to impose such a burden on the child
-
Perhaps the parents didn't want to impose such a burden on the child
Why do you perceive US citezenship to be a burden? There are thousands worlwide risking life and limb for US citizenship.