Locally to PdL

[Rachel Granada]

Without googling it,

What are 'triplet codes' ?

What are the possible results of mutations resulting in different triplet codes ?

You can try to bamboozle the forum all you like with what you may fondly imagine to be enigmatic posts... however, the cold, hard truth is that the PJ got it wrong with their interpretation of the DNA results.

Are we now going to have to suffer more 15/19 marker rubbish?

[Rachel Granada]

Or anything else, IMO!

 

[stephen25000]

You can try to bamboozle the forum all you like with what you may fondly imagine to be enigmatic posts... however, the cold, hard truth is that the PJ got it wrong with their interpretation of the DNA results.

Are we now going to have to suffer more 15/19 marker rubbish?

Hardly bamboozling dear, barely above G.C.S.E. Biology.

You were taking the pizz out of the PJ, when you clearly know nothing at all.

As to 'genetic markers', would you care to explain precisely what is meant by this term  ?

[stephen25000]

So you're a detective as well.

[John]

I agree with you Rachel.    I have slightly mixed feelings over whether it is right for police officers to lie to 'suspects' to elicit a confession, but on balance I think it's acceptable -  as it involves no physical violence.

The McCanns would both know that a 100% DNA match would be irrefutable evidence, and if they were guilty of disposing of Madeleine's body then I am sure they would have realised the game was up at that moment.   They would know there was no point in trying to get round such evidence.  A 100 percent DNA match would have been 'game over' and they would know that to deny it would only be delaying the inevitable.

The fact that they did not break down and confess but continued to insist on their innocence even after that irrefutable 'evidence' was claimed to exist, should have told Amaral that he was barking up the wrong tree.

Unfortunately even if Amaral did realise that - he was simply not prepared to admit it as 'saving his face' was more important to him - and so he was not going to back down.  You only have to read his book to know that. IMHO.

An excellent post Benice. 

[Rachel Granada]

Hardly bamboozling dear, barely above G.C.S.E. Biology.

You were taking the pizz out of the PJ, when you clearly know nothing at all.

As to 'genetic markers', would you care to explain precisely what is meant by this term  ?

I will not reply to you after this, stephen.  You consistently swerve difficult questions, and your "enigmatic" posts add nothing to the the debate, as far as I am concerned.  Cold hard facts again - the so-called DNA evidence that the PJ thought they had were worthless.  Not even enough to arrest the McCanns.

[DCI]

I will not reply to you after this, stephen.  You consistently swerve difficult questions, and your "enigmatic" posts add nothing to the the debate, as far as I am concerned.  Cold hard facts again - the so-called DNA evidence that they PJ

Its just another tactic, Rachel, with the intention, to wreck threads.

[Rachel Granada]

Its just another tactic, Rachel, with the intention, to wreck threads.

Yup, adds nothing to the debate IMO, DCI.

[John]

Its just another tactic, Rachel, with the intention, to wreck threads.

Noted.

[stephen25000]

I will not reply to you after this, stephen.  You consistently swerve difficult questions, and your "enigmatic" posts add nothing to the the debate, as far as I am concerned.  Cold hard facts again - the so-called DNA evidence that the PJ thought they had were worthless.  Not even enough to arrest the McCanns.

No what you don't get amongst others, is that the dogs indicated something occurred in the apartment.

The results of the D.N.A. were inconclusive.

Just to remind you, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN A CRIME DIDN'T OCCUR.

The abductor scenario, is just hot air, without an ounce of proof.

[stephen25000]

Its just another tactic, Rachel, with the intention, to wreck threads.

No what it is, is the alternative you can't bear to hear, due to your almost religious support of the Mccanns, which I find quite disturbing.

[DCI]

No what it is, is the alternative you can't bear to hear, due to your almost religious support of the Mccanns, which I find quite disturbing.

Cos the face ain't listening!

[stephen25000]

Cos the face ain't listening!

You did.

You replied.

[Redblossom]

Well look at the first one for a start Red  - are you telling me that at that late stage of the game, this was the first time they'd ever asked Kate those questions?   Surely they couldn't be THAT inept.

Quote
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
End quote

Kate Mccann was only originally interviewed on May 4 when she gave an initial general  rudimentary account of events in general, as did most others, she was never interviewed in detail on May 10 or so when the others all were, it seems the PJ never had the chance to interview her in detail, so your assertion that she gave answers to most of those questions already is just not true, thats all.

She did though by some accounts,as well as Gerry, get interrogated some time in August after the dogs were brought in, before the arguido interviews, what was asked then and what was said no one knows, but fact remains, You cant say with no evidence that she answered most of the questions before. In fact, logically, if she had, she would have no problem answering them again. Clearly MOST questions in the arguido interview had not been asked before, thats all Im saying.

[Jazzy]

No what you don't get amongst others, is that the dogs indicated something occurred in the apartment.

The results of the D.N.A. were inconclusive.

Just to remind you, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN A CRIME DIDN'T OCCUR.

The abductor scenario, is just hot air, without an ounce of proof.

But the Mccanns are free, evidence that something occurred in that apartment is evident. ABDUCTOR, maybe? The Mccanns were eliminated.