Establishing the identity of an abducted child by DNA.

[Benice]

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.

[mercury]

##


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

[Benice]

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.

[mercury]

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?

[Benice]

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.

[mercury]

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

[sadie]

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. 

[G-Unit]

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.




 

[Eleanor]

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?

[G-Unit]

"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?

[Eleanor]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[jassi]

"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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[stephen25000]

Even The Police?  No hope then.

Quite possibly.