Has Scotland Yard dodged a bullet in the Maddie case?

[Mr Gray]

Oh lol,.... he is not the only one whos claims are full of errors...

At least,... in my opinion,.... he stuck to the one conclusion he made..

Not like some who changed the story to fit...

also, ...blame everyone but themselves.....

you posted..
I think the DNA results are very confusing and can't be taken as absolutely conclusive..


what are you confused about....I could expalin it to you....

[Mr Gray]

I use google.co.uk

Please don't insinuate that I am lying.

If you are too lazy to do a tiny bit of simple research, so be it, your views are worthless.

Im fairly positive you are mistaken and your claim is worthless...and thats why you cannot provide a cite

[G-Unit]

Ive quoted it

And it didn't suggest what you thought it did. The evidence from 2007 demonstrated the mistake in your reasoning.

[ShiningInLuz]

I am telling you that you are clearly wrong...there has been no sign of any action from porto and a simple google search does not show any...you can settle this easily by citing your result...the fact is you cannot as you are mistaken

I put the link into my database shortly before posting.

I have no intention of citing this result.

I am neither mistaken nor lying.

You are asserting there is no evidence of activity - without proof.

I am asserting that I have found evidence of activity - without proof.

You either trust me or you don't.

[Mr Gray]

And it didn't suggest what you thought it did. The evidence from 2007 demonstrated the mistake in your reasoning.

now you are quoting opinion....you said there was no evidence...you are wrong......It does support my reasoning...imo...the situation in 2007 was completely different as I have expalined to you

[Mr Gray]

I put the link into my database shortly before posting.

I have no intention of citing this result.

I am neither mistaken nor lying.

You are asserting there is no evidence of activity - without proof.

I am asserting that I have found evidence of activity - without proof.

You either trust me or you don't.

if you have no intention of providing a cite your claim is worthless....I think you are mistaken. The fact that you have not provided a cite which could easily prove me wrong shows you cannot.

[ShiningInLuz]

if you have no intention of providing a cite your claim is worthless....I think you are mistaken. The fact that you have not provided a cite which could easily prove me wrong shows you cannot.

I choose not to provide a cite at this time because the Porto effort may make a nice article for my blog.

Now back to you.  Do you have a cite for no evidence of activity?

Since you don't have supporting evidence for an assertion I know to be wrong, perhaps you should just move on.

[Mr Gray]

I choose not to provide a cite at this time because the Porto effort may make a nice article for my blog.

Now back to you.  Do you have a cite for no evidence of activity?

Since you don't have supporting evidence for an assertion I know to be wrong, perhaps you should just move on.

the very fact that there have been no reports of any action...for several years I believe...is evidence of no action.

[ShiningInLuz]

the very fact that there have been no reports of any action...for several years I believe...is evidence of no action.

The trouble is I've got reported evidence of action.

Do the forum a favour.  Move on.

[Mr Gray]

The trouble is I've got reported evidence of action.

Do the forum a favour.  Move on.

you claim you have ....no cite no credibility.....
do the forum a favour and abide by the rules...claims without cites have no credibility

[G-Unit]

now you are quoting opinion....you said there was no evidence...you are wrong......It does support my reasoning...imo...the situation in 2007 was completely different as I have expalined to you

This discussion began when you said in Post #221;

"both have made it clear the parents are not being investigated"

You have failed to produce and evidence to uphold that statement, so why not admit it?

[Mr Gray]

This discussion began when you said in Post #221;

"both have made it clear the parents are not being investigated"

You have failed to produce and evidence to uphold that statement, so why not admit it?

the statements made by both police forces which I have quoted are evidence of them not being investiagted

[xtina]

you posted..
I think the DNA results are very confusing and can't be taken as absolutely conclusive..


what are you confused about....I could expalin it to you....

This is one of the things....as I read it ...it points to being maddie's DNA....

Thank you for the offer of explaining it...

but will decline your offer .... as it won't change my mind...

to 2616 Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA profile
TRANSLATED BY ALBYM

10-Processo 10 - 2615 to 2616
10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2615
 
10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2616
 
Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ
on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA
profile

This serves to add [to the case file] a laboratory examination report prepared
in England, written in English and translated into Portuguese, delivered to this
police force on 4 September 2007 by English police officer Stuart Prior.

This laboratory report tells about the examinations made of two trace evidence
recoveries, one behind the living room sofa in apartment 5A and the other in the
boot area of the vehicle used by the McCann family, hired [by them] from the end of May this year.

In some of these recoveries (samples) DNA was found whose components are also
found in the profile of Madeleine McCann.

With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed
DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann.

In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified
DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components.

Portimao, 11 September 2007
Inspector
Joao Carlos

[Mr Gray]

This is one of the things....as I read it ...it points to being maddie's DNA....

Thank you for the offer of explaining it...

but will decline your offer .... as it won't change my mind...

to 2616 Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA profile
TRANSLATED BY ALBYM

10-Processo 10 - 2615 to 2616
10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2615
 
10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2616
 
Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ
on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA
profile

This serves to add [to the case file] a laboratory examination report prepared
in England, written in English and translated into Portuguese, delivered to this
police force on 4 September 2007 by English police officer Stuart Prior.

This laboratory report tells about the examinations made of two trace evidence
recoveries, one behind the living room sofa in apartment 5A and the other in the
boot area of the vehicle used by the McCann family, hired [by them] from the end of May this year.

In some of these recoveries (samples) DNA was found whose components are also
found in the profile of Madeleine McCann.

With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed
DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann.

In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified
DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components.

Portimao, 11 September 2007
Inspector
Joao Carlos

it does not point to it being Maddies DNA...you have admitted you dont understand it and therefore your conclusions are based on your inability to understand......i understand it..its quite clear...my conclusions are based on an understanding of the evidence

you havent provided a link yo your cite bt it looks like you have picked out sentences from the report to make a case that does not exist in the report as a whole

[slartibartfast]

it does not point to it being Maddies DNA...you have admitted you dont understand it and therefore your conclusions are based on your inability to understand......i understand it..its quite clear...my conclusions are based on an understanding of the evidence

you havent provided a link yo your cite bt it looks like you have picked out sentences from the report to make a case that does not exist in the report as a whole

Unless you start explaining your understanding of the evidence it is just a contradiction of another posters view and may well be seen as not adding anything to the discussion.