Has Scotland Yard dodged a bullet in the Maddie case?

[Mr Gray]

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.

I have explained it many times and am happy to do it again....xtina claimed the result was confusing which it is not ...it is perfectly clear and understandable...she wa sthe one who raised it...will my explanation be off topic

[Mr Gray]

The DNA evidence...

a sample was found that contained 15 of maddie markers....If this sample was of good quality...not lcn dna...a nd from one person...and found at a site where none of her family had been....that would be  astrong indication that the dna had come from maddie.

The sample in question was made up of dna from 3 to 5 people and 15 markers were found that corresponded to maddie. The problem is other people including complete strangers but particularly her family will share some of these markers....so the question is did the 15 markers found come from maddie or from others...the question is impossible to answer

[xtina]

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

No, it was not that at all ....

just a simple mistake of forgetting to put the link....

i would have thought though..... you would have known where it was....

seeing you understand everything....

whatever you say though...

I believe along with the dogs there was proof of dna...imo


 just it all got changed to suit ...like everything else ...that is my opinion..

Like why was there no DNA in apartment IIRC...

why did gmcc have to go home to collect it ...can you really say it was genuinely  DNA of maddie IMO...

My thought maybe ott but still my opinion 

There was this as well.............. the same link

.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -

When was the DNA deposited - 
How was the DNA deposited - 
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from - 
Was a crime committed -

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

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

[Mr Gray]

No, it was not that at all ....

just a simple mistake of forgetting to put the link....

i would have thought though..... you would have known where it was....

seeing you understand everything....

whatever you say though...

I believe along with the dogs there was proof of dna...imo


 just it all got changed to suit ...like everything else ...that is my opinion..

Like why was there no DNA in apartment IIRC...

why did gmcc have to go home to collect it ...can you really say it was genuinely  DNA of maddie IMO...

My thought maybe ott but still my opinion 

There was this as well.............. the same link

.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -

When was the DNA deposited - 
How was the DNA deposited - 
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from - 
Was a crime committed -

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

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

you are taking sentences out and not quoting the report in its entirety...you should read my explanation.

the dna cane from 3 tto 5 people and therefore it was impossible to confirm a match...it really is quite clear...and thats why I dont believe amarals claim as to what Prior said...just as there are other false claims in his book.

what you believe is up to you but the evidence shows no confirmation of maddies dna presence...and that is  a fact

[xtina]

you are taking sentences out and not quoting the report in its entirety...you should read my explanation.

the dna cane from 3 tto 5 people and therefore it was impossible to confirm a match...it really is quite clear...and thats why I dont believe amarals claim as to what Prior said...just as there are other false claims in his book.

what you believe is up to you but the evidence shows no confirmation of maddies dna presence...and that is  a fact

No, I am not talking sentences out ....its there for all to read...they are paragraphs,... not sentences....

IMO you are using that as an excuse...


you asked what I didn't understand I showed you that's all

so IMO you are using this as another excuse....

Have you ever seen Stuart Prior deny what GA wrote ....he had every opportunity in the libel case....

It may be a fact to you ....but that doesn't make it one ....only if you want it to be...


I think...you can take it either way ....in what you believe happened ....

but it's not 100% conclusive IMO....that you make it out to be....

[Mr Gray]

No, I am not talking sentences out ....its there for all to read...they are paragraphs,... not sentences....

IMO you are using that as an excuse...


you asked what I didn't understand I showed you that's all

so IMO you are using this as another excuse....

Have you ever seen Stuart Prior deny what GA wrote ....he had every opportunity in the libel case....

It may be a fact to you ....but that doesn't make it one ....only if you want it to be...


I think...you can take it either way ....in what you believe happened ....

but it's not 100% conclusive IMO....that you make it out to be....

It's 100% inconclusive......that's not what I say it's what the report says....no one is arrested on 100% inconclusive evidence which suggests Prior never said any such thing

[Alice Purjorick]

The deposition of John Robert Lowe dated 18th July 2008 said:

Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.

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

[Mr Gray]

The deposition of John Robert Lowe dated 18th July 2008 said:

Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.

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

That's what I have said and explained why... Amaral and sceptics seem to think the report somehow confirms Maddie's DNA...it doesn't

[Snowgirl]

That's what I have said and explained why... Amaral and sceptics seem to think the report somehow confirms Maddie's DNA...it doesn't

Wasn't it  rather that  he said 15 out of 19 markers would be enough in their country ? 

[Mr Gray]

Wasn't it  rather that  he said 15 out of 19 markers would be enough in their country ?

Not if it was a mixture of 3 to 5 people including Maddie's family....amaral didn't seem to understand this

[G-Unit]

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

Here were are back at the beginning. Your argument was that do Carmo's words ('the parents are not suspects') are evidence of something completely different ('we aren't investigating the parents).

The one statement is unrelated to the other, so at best you're just guessing about his meaning.

[Mr Gray]

Here were are back at the beginning. Your argument was that do Carmo's words ('the parents are not suspects') are evidence of something completely different ('we aren't investigating the parents).

The one statement is unrelated to the other, so at best you're just guessing about his meaning.

If they are not suspects it's suggests they are not being investigated...that's logic not guesswork....f you think they are then you are guessing

[slartibartfast]

If they are not suspects it's suggests they are not being investigated...that's logic not guesswork....f you think they are then you are guessing

So evidence transforms into suggests?

[Mr Gray]

So evidence transforms into suggests?

The definition of evidence is something that suggests or indicates something is true

The fact that both police forces have made statements... suggests...indicates...supports ..the fact that the McCann's are not being investigated

[misty]

why when its opinion based on fact.....xtina claimed Prior made a statement ....which I dont believe he did...and there is little evidence to support it....she claims the DNA evidence is not conclusive and confusing when it is quite simple to understand...sil claims there is action in porto..as  afact..but refuses to provide a cite...all my criticisms are justified

https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20180721/45995129047/diez-anos-del-carpetazo-luso-al-caso-maddie-un-misterio-que-sigue-abierto.html
*snipped*
"Meanwhile, in Portugal they advance in silence and without pressure; Nobody wants another controversy like that of Gonçalo Amaral, the commissar who ended up in a judicial conflict with the McCann couple for accusing them of hiding his daughter's body after he died by accident, something never proven."