The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.

[Redblossom]

Was Gerry McCann the 4th member of the Bee Gees?

Sad, catch you later.

Yes do come back and reinterpret that wierd post,LOL
 



Another Digression fron the point, discussion, issue at hand, still not surprised you have been vacuously UNABLE go answer ghe questions LOL, oh dear, YOU started it, YOUhave run away from it, ooops

[Rachel Granada]

Yes do come back and reinterpret that wierd post,LOL
 



Another Digression fron the point, discussion, issue at hand, still not surprised you have been vacuously UNABLE go answer ghe questions LOL, oh dear, YOU started it, YOUhave run away from it, ooops

"Night Fever, Night Fever"....


I'm running away from nothing, love.  Why do you think that they weren't even arrested, never mind charged with anything?

"It's just your jive talkin, tellin me lies..."

[Rachel Granada]

Here's a little tune for Amaral which I think is quite apt....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi2yZTX9nD8

[Redblossom]

"Night Fever, Night Fever"....


I'm running away from nothing, love.  Why do you think that they weren't even arrested, never mind charged with anything?

"It's just your jive talkin, tellin me lies..."

oh, how sad, zzzz

They were never arrested because the PJ had no concrete evidence at the time thats all it means, nothing more, nothing less. They were lucky they were in Portugal, as call me Stu said, in Britain they would havebeen arrested for far less.

[Jazzy]

oh, how sad, zzzz

They were never arrested because the PJ had no concrete evidence at the time thats all it means, nothing more, nothing less. They were lucky they were in Portugal, as call me Stu said, in Britain they would havebeen arrested for far less.

Absolutely, no concrete evidence. They were never arrested. End of story.

[Redblossom]

Absolutely, no concrete evidence. They were never arrested. End of story.

yea, thats what I said, no *concrete* evidence but plenty of *circumstantial*, if they were involved they were damn lucky that the portuguese have more rigorous standards for arrest and charge, including number of dna markers 19/20 IIRC

[Mrs. B]

Jeez, there were no "19 out of 20 DNA markers" - there were 19 out of THIRTY-SEVEN from between 3-5 different people. If, after FIVE years since files were released, people can't even get that basic FACT straight, question is if they've read the files at all.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

[Rachel Granada]

Jeez, there were no "19 out of 20 DNA markers" - there were 19 out of THIRTY-SEVEN from between 3-5 different people. If, after FIVE years since files were released, people can't even get that basic FACT straight, question is if they've read the files at all.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

It's like banging your head against a brick wall isn't it.  How many times will we have to hear the 15/19 markers falsehood re-iterated over and over and over again. 

[Carana]

Actually, there were 15 alleles (not markers in the sense of marker locations) out of 37 in a soup of between 3-5 contributors on the same spot.

At each marker location, the forensic analysis will check for 2 alleles corresponding to the person's profile. In that tiny soup, you simply can't separate who contributed which peas, carrots, beans, celery or tomatoes to the overall speck of minestrone.

Edited to clarify.

[Carana]

It's like banging your head against a brick wall isn't it.  How many times will we have to hear the 15/19 markers falsehood re-iterated over and over and over again.

Forever. Groundhog Day.

[Mrs. B]

Actually, there were 15 alleles (not markers in the sense of marker locations) out of 37 in a soup of between 3-5 contributors on the same spot.

At each marker location, the forensic analysis will check for 2 alleles corresponding to the person's profile. In that tiny soup, you simply can't separate who contributed which peas, carrots, beans, celery or tomatoes to the overall speck of minestrone.

Edited to clarify.

Thanks Carana, it's just unbelievable that people keep spouting these falsehoods, do they actually LIKE to lie or are they just so fixated they cannot retain any information that doesn't agree with their pre-conceived idea that the parents are guilty.

[Carana]

Thanks Carana, it's just unbelievable that people keep spouting these falsehoods, do they actually LIKE to lie or are they just so fixated they cannot retain any information that doesn't agree with their pre-conceived idea that the parents are guilty.

Hard to tell.

A possible explanation for the mindset may possibly lie here?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1914.0

[Mrs. B]

Yes, a good reminder of how easy that can happen. IIRC it's based on a true story too.

[Redblossom]

Jeez, there were no "19 out of 20 DNA markers" - there were 19 out of THIRTY-SEVEN from between 3-5 different people. If, after FIVE years since files were released, people can't even get that basic FACT straight, question is if they've read the files at all.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

You need to go to Specsavers dear, no one said there was 19/20 markers, try rereading, the ref to 19/20 was in regard to the PORTUGUESE AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS, which is ALOT MORE than MOST COUNTRIES, which means the PT authorities are STRICTER on *evidence*,  hopefully you GET it NOW

 


and after you have  managed to do that, i wont give you a clue,  will let you work it out for yourself, im sure youre intelligent enough to reread, then reread that its a fact that 15 out of 19 of madeleines dna markers were found, this is a technical fact, whether it was mixed or not is another matter, the fact remains the FSS could  NOT rule it out that they were hers

[Mrs. B]

Aww... too difficult for you to understand? Never mind, Amaral wasn't clever enough to get it either...

"Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.