NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

sal
Posts: 10722
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by sal » Wed May 16, 2018 6:39 pm

Finally, your crappy, amateur-hour investigations of these people is as error-strewn as your peeping tom job on the wrong Martin Smith. Get your head out of your wizened arse and stop prying into the private business of innocent witnesses, you creepy, stalking shitgibbon.

You might also want to give some thought to the fact that despite describing yourself as a ''researcher'' and painting your own portrait as an expert on all things Madeleine, you are still regurgitating utter myths, such as your comments on DNA - so you are either being deliberately deceptive or you are just a fucking idiot
Not Textusa.

User avatar
catkins
Posts: 31319
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by catkins » Wed May 16, 2018 6:51 pm

sal wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 6:39 pm
Finally, your crappy, amateur-hour investigations of these people is as error-strewn as your peeping tom job on the wrong Martin Smith. Get your head out of your wizened arse and stop prying into the private business of innocent witnesses, you creepy, stalking shitgibbon.

You might also want to give some thought to the fact that despite describing yourself as a ''researcher'' and painting your own portrait as an expert on all things Madeleine, you are still regurgitating utter myths, such as your comments on DNA - so you are either being deliberately deceptive or you are just a fucking idiot
Not Textusa.
Obviously Combovers family aren't close to him because I can't believe they let this horrible specimen of a 'Christian' behave the way he does. :insanity:
Madeleine McCann- Abducted May 2007 from Praia Da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.
DCI Redwood of Scotland Yard - stated that Madeleine could still be found - alive.
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find. ... ign?_rdr=p

User avatar
Hael
Posts: 21006
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Hael » Thu May 17, 2018 11:11 am

sal wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 6:39 pm
Finally, your crappy, amateur-hour investigations of these people is as error-strewn as your peeping tom job on the wrong Martin Smith. Get your head out of your wizened arse and stop prying into the private business of innocent witnesses, you creepy, stalking shitgibbon.

You might also want to give some thought to the fact that despite describing yourself as a ''researcher'' and painting your own portrait as an expert on all things Madeleine, you are still regurgitating utter myths, such as your comments on DNA - so you are either being deliberately deceptive or you are just a fucking idiot
Not Textusa.
Both!!
The trolls funding a shamed coppers right to lie about Kate and Gerry McCann are a new level of weirdo.[omitted] they may have destroyed all hope for good.Talking up conspiracy theories is one thing.Wrecking the search for an abducted child is another.-The Sun

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Whiterose » Wed May 30, 2018 7:58 pm

sandancer says 'DNA cannot be taken from dead skin cells' I don't believe that to be true - One such technology is called "Touch DNA" or "Contact Trace DNA." Touch DNA refers to the DNA that is recovered from skin (epithelial) cells that is left behind when a person touches or comes into contact with items such as clothes, a weapon, or other objects. A person sheds about 400,000 skin cells per day, but it is the lower skin cells that will provide the best DNA profile. These cells are typically recovered when force is used such as on the victim's clothes or at a crime scene after a struggle has occurred.

That is why the PJ should have kept the bedding on Madeleine's bed. They could have done a Touch DNA on the bedding.

They found skin cells on JonBenet's clothing and got a full DNA of an unknown male.
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

sal
Posts: 10722
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by sal » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:16 pm

You cannot be serious?

That satellite image clearly shows the PdL area basking under a clear blue sky. Zoom in, you blind wanker
http://madmaninamac.blogspot.com/

User avatar
MelO
Posts: 4281
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:27 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by MelO » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:06 pm

sal wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:16 pm
You cannot be serious?

That satellite image clearly shows the PdL area basking under a clear blue sky. Zoom in, you blind wanker
http://madmaninamac.blogspot.com/
:s_rofl the man has a 1st in Geography too, don’t you know!

User avatar
Alibongo
Posts: 18570
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:18 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Alibongo » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:02 pm

:snig: :snig:
Parent-blaming is all-too-common these days, and usually the point is to make other parents feel better about their own parenting skills

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Whiterose » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:29 pm

MelO wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:06 pm
sal wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:16 pm
You cannot be serious?

That satellite image clearly shows the PdL area basking under a clear blue sky. Zoom in, you blind wanker
http://madmaninamac.blogspot.com/
:s_rofl the man has a 1st in Geography too, don’t you know!
Really!! He has a first in being a complete and utter loony thats for sure :s_crazy
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Whiterose » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:03 pm

Well according to Carole [Mrs. Fenn's niece] on the afternoon of May 3rd it was -

CT'It was sunny, but... humm... it cooled down at night, hummm, I believe it was sunny, mmm.

So there you are it was SUNNY you dozy thick 'researcher' :s_biggrin
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

User avatar
catkins
Posts: 31319
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by catkins » Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:41 pm

:s_biggrin
Madeleine McCann- Abducted May 2007 from Praia Da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.
DCI Redwood of Scotland Yard - stated that Madeleine could still be found - alive.
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find. ... ign?_rdr=p

User avatar
scoobydoo
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:46 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by scoobydoo » Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:52 pm

Whiterose wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 7:58 pm
sandancer says 'DNA cannot be taken from dead skin cells' I don't believe that to be true - One such technology is called "Touch DNA" or "Contact Trace DNA." Touch DNA refers to the DNA that is recovered from skin (epithelial) cells that is left behind when a person touches or comes into contact with items such as clothes, a weapon, or other objects. A person sheds about 400,000 skin cells per day, but it is the lower skin cells that will provide the best DNA profile. These cells are typically recovered when force is used such as on the victim's clothes or at a crime scene after a struggle has occurred.

That is why the PJ should have kept the bedding on Madeleine's bed. They could have done a Touch DNA on the bedding.

They found skin cells on JonBenet's clothing and got a full DNA of an unknown male.
You can potentially get DNA from any human material, regardless of whether it came from a living donor or a dead donor. So hair blood, skin cells, bone, saliva etc. It just depends on the amount and the quality. All material should have been kept even if nothing could be done with it in 2007, technology improves as time goes on and it could be that one day something could be found.

User avatar
scoobydoo
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:46 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by scoobydoo » Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:58 pm

sal wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:48 am
Deluded old fool.....


Caro Mitchell So the initial costs were £330,000 reduced to £27,000 so what about the difference who paid it? Did they make it up?
Are CR working for the mcs for free as they claim


Lorraine Birks
Lorraine Birks Despicable , who grants the McCanns the power to do as they like with peoples lives ?
What are they so scared of ?


Anthony Bennett
Anthony Bennett Hi @ Caro Mitchell - To answer your question, first let me reproduce Rogua-a-Tory's response this morning to my post. He said: "I really hope that you don’t have to justify yourself to anyone on the CMOMM forum Tony. What you went through was horrendous and if you don’t mind me saying, the bargain struck by them demonstrates just how keen the McCanns are to avoid any court appearance in the UK that actually examines any part of the case". You are right @ Caro Mitchell, there are about £300,000 worth of fees that I DIDN'T have to pay. So who did pay? I have an idea. The governent has paid out £13 million already to keep Operation Grange going. Another £300,000 to stop my appeals being heard would be money well spent, wouldn't it? - if the government were really desperate to cover up something very nasty indeed. As appears to be the case.
Is he stupid? No one had to pay it. The firm did the work for free, totted up how much it actually cost i.e how much they would have billed for, and once the case was won and they were allowed to claim costs they submitted their costs to the court. They did not actually expect to get that amount, nor did they bill anyone else for it. Its how its done, and if you likely have a successful case especially one that provides useful experience or publicity for the lawyers involved you have a good chance of getting the work done for free or minimal cost to yourself.

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Whiterose » Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:57 pm

scoobydoo wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:52 pm
Whiterose wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 7:58 pm
sandancer says 'DNA cannot be taken from dead skin cells' I don't believe that to be true - One such technology is called "Touch DNA" or "Contact Trace DNA." Touch DNA refers to the DNA that is recovered from skin (epithelial) cells that is left behind when a person touches or comes into contact with items such as clothes, a weapon, or other objects. A person sheds about 400,000 skin cells per day, but it is the lower skin cells that will provide the best DNA profile. These cells are typically recovered when force is used such as on the victim's clothes or at a crime scene after a struggle has occurred.

That is why the PJ should have kept the bedding on Madeleine's bed. They could have done a Touch DNA on the bedding.

They found skin cells on JonBenet's clothing and got a full DNA of an unknown male.
You can potentially get DNA from any human material, regardless of whether it came from a living donor or a dead donor. So hair blood, skin cells, bone, saliva etc. It just depends on the amount and the quality. All material should have been kept even if nothing could be done with it in 2007, technology improves as time goes on and it could be that one day something could be found.
I agree scooby. As the person who took Madeleine from her bed, would have had to put his/her arm underneath her to do so, I don't know why they couldn't have done the cellotape or whatever they use to just pick up the skin cells on the sheet!! Why didn't they???
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

sal
Posts: 10722
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by sal » Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:49 pm

message for whiterose from NT
For Whiterose

Evening all.

Unless you are particularly interested, you can ignore this - it's just a response to a question posed on a forum. The person in question used to post on the same forum as me.

Hi Whiterose,

You are right about 'touch DNA' and the fact that DNA can be recovered from epithelial cells.

However, it is really fraught with difficulty, simply because of the possibility of innocent contamination. Imagine you went into a shop and tried on a jumper, but you didn't like it, or it didn't fit - anyway, you end up not buying it. Then someone else does.

If something happened to them, there is the possibility that your DNA in the form of epithelial cells, could be on their garment, yet you have never been in contact with them, or harmed them in any way. There was a weird thing in the case of Milly Dowler where a microscopic bit of DNA from her clothing threw up a match on the DNA database to a sample recovered from a break in at a church hundreds of miles away. I am not sure if they were ever able to explain it, but it wasn't in any way significant in terms of her murder.

So yes, DNA can be recovered from an item that someone has touched, by collecting epithelial cells, you were quite right, but as you can see the danger of convicting someone of a crime they had nothing to do with on the basis of the fact that they once picked up a lamp in a shop that the victim later purchased, mean that it could be a long time, if ever, before it can be relied upon.

Hope that helps and hope you're well.
Posted by Not Textusa at 12:57 No comments:
Email This

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Whiterose » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:08 am

Thank you sal :s_thumbsup

Hi NT and thank you for your post. I am well and hope you are too.

The only thing is, they wouldn't know who I was through the DNA found on the jumper would they :s_smile

The reason I wish they had done a test for epithelial cells [thanks for the scientific name by the way] is that they may have found DNA belonging to the person who had taken Madeleine from her bed, the results could have been used when/if they had a suspect in mind if you know what I mean.
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19848
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Carana » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:37 am

Yes, I agree with NotTextusa on this. It's difficult to prove that a DNA trace is NOT accidental.

However, in the recent case of the little French girl who disappeared last year late one night at a wedding party and was sadly later found dead (RIP little one), there were several indicators that a guy at the party warranted a closer look. They swabbed his car and found a mixed trace of her DNA on the light button of his car... but nowhere else in it.

Aside from his ever-changing stories, as it was a hot evening with the car window supposedly open, she could have simply touched it while playing. He also then changed his story from having had no contact with her to having shown her photos of his dogs on his phone (several people at the party had noticed this) - which could also explain that DNA had simply been transferred for innocent and irrelevant reasons. On the side, the police had found CCTV images of his car and what appeared to be a small shadowy figure next to him, they also found that he'd kept switching off his phone at key times, but not at others, and so his locations could be worked out over that evening, and various other bits of evidence.

They then took more time and totally dismantled his car. In this case, it really happened - they found traces of her blood between some parts of the boot that he hadn't been able to clean away (the morning after she'd disappeared he spent hours meticulously washing his car, but he had an excuse for that as well).

They took him back in for questioning with all this evidence and he eventually cracked and confessed to an "accidental death" and showed them where he'd chucked her little body (down a ravine on a hillside).

Anyway, the point being that it wasn't so much that uncontaminated DNA had been found corresponding to her profile), but where it was found (that had no plausible innocent explanation), the fact that the source sample was positively identified as being her blood, PLUS all the other evidence taken together, that has enabled the prosecution to develop what certainly looks like a solid case.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Whiterose » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:57 am

I agree to what you are saying Carana it is difficult to prove, thank god they were able to nail that piece of filth.

Though if they had a suspect in the McCann's case, how would the person would be able to prove innocence if his/her DNA was found on Madeleine's sheet? That would take a lot of explaining.
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19848
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Carana » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:09 am

Whiterose wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:08 am
Thank you sal :s_thumbsup

Hi NT and thank you for your post. I am well and hope you are too.

The only thing is, they wouldn't know who I was through the DNA found on the jumper would they :s_smile

The reason I wish they had done a test for epithelial cells [thanks for the scientific name by the way] is that they may have found DNA belonging to the person who had taken Madeleine from her bed, the results could have been used when/if they had a suspect in mind if you know what I mean.
No, unless they already had your profile and were specifically looking for yours because they'd decided you'd dunnit.

In theory, I agree that they should have kept it, but the logistics must be like trying to find a grain of sand in the Sahara - akin to trying to isolate skin cells from a large surface of material from those of anyone else who'd touched that bedding (including laundry staff, cleaners, family, police...) with no way of pinpointing an area of interest. There would also a massive risk of yet another mixed soup which would be meaningless.

I'm STILL waiting to discover if the hairs they'd found on the bed have ever been located and analysed... So far, no news on that front.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19848
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Carana » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:33 am

Whiterose wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:57 am
I agree to what you are saying Carana it is difficult to prove, thank god they were able to nail that piece of filth.

Though if they had a suspect in the McCann's case, how would the person would be able to prove innocence if his/her DNA was found on Madeleine's sheet? That would take a lot of explaining.
In theory, it's up to the investigation to prove probable guilt.

For argument's sake, let's say a suspect whose DNA was found was a cousin of an OC staff member. No obvious reason for his DNA to be on the bed (assuming they were able to isolate an uncontaminated DNA sample in the first place). However, if he and OC person had recently been in contact and some skin cells could have been on the clothes of the staff member (as innocent as a hug greeting if they'd met in the street) and that cousin's DNA got transferred from the clothes to the bed while smoothing the sheets in 5A - it would be meaningless. Unless of course, Brains-of-the-Yard "we experts" state this is damning proof that said cousin was therefore necessarily the perp. Jury members in the Cipriano case didn't question "expert" evidence (far less than this hypothetical example) and in the absence of any counter-evidence would be likely to be ticked as "fact". Hey presto, the wrong person gets banged up. Brownie points for a conviction and onwards and upwards.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19848
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Carana » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:44 am

... On the other hand, if that same "cousin" had firmly stated that he'd been totally elsewhere (but was found to have been in the vicinity), had a key to 5A for no plausible reason, had attempted to frame someone else, had spent hours cleaning his car, kept switching his phone on and off for no logical innocent reason, had no logical explanation as to why he wasn't where he'd said he was, had a suspicious history of Internet usage, had bought a certain type of household products known to have a soporific effect in the days prior with no clear reason for buying them, had been spotted on CCTV in total contradiction to previous assertions... hadn't actually been in contact with anyone from the family for the past ten years, then the case builds up.

(I'm obviously hypothetically mixing elements of different cases, but it's the general idea.)

The DNA then takes on greater significance within the whole.
Last edited by Carana on Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Whiterose » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:49 am

Totally agree Carana. They would have to have other reasons why the person is a suspect. For example say it is one of the burglars, they had the telephone conversations, the fact that they admitted to doing burglaries in the area, then if DNA is found on Madeleine's sheet it is a big coincidence isn't it? Don't know if the Portuguese police agreed for any of the burglars to have their DNA taken though did they?
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19848
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Carana » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:50 am

Whiterose wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:49 am
Totally agree Carana. They would have to have other reasons why the person is a suspect. For example say it is one of the burglars, they had the telephone conversations, the fact that they admitted to doing burglaries in the area, then if DNA is found on Madeleine's sheet it is a big coincidence isn't it? Don't know if the Portuguese police agreed for any of the burglars to have their DNA taken though did they?
LOL. Our posts crossed... I'd gone on prior to seeing yours.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Whiterose » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:59 am

:s_biggrin
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19848
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by Carana » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:03 pm

Whiterose wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:49 am
Totally agree Carana. They would have to have other reasons why the person is a suspect. For example say it is one of the burglars, they had the telephone conversations, the fact that they admitted to doing burglaries in the area, then if DNA is found on Madeleine's sheet it is a big coincidence isn't it? Don't know if the Portuguese police agreed for any of the burglars to have their DNA taken though did they?
Not as far as I know, but I'm not aware that any of the burglars were ever identified. There were a few people with "furto" written next to their names, but that's not burglary, could be just suspicion of petty theft from a till.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

User avatar
catkins
Posts: 31319
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: NUTTERS otherwise known as Haverns....

Post by catkins » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:05 pm

Whiterose wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:49 am
Totally agree Carana. They would have to have other reasons why the person is a suspect. For example say it is one of the burglars, they had the telephone conversations, the fact that they admitted to doing burglaries in the area, then if DNA is found on Madeleine's sheet it is a big coincidence isn't it? Don't know if the Portuguese police agreed for any of the burglars to have their DNA taken though did they?
Reading through yours and Carana's posts....I agree mostly...... but I'm thinking if there was DNA samples.......and they did tie in with someone who was seen hanging around....then found that it matched. Whilst it wouldn't necessarily mean he was guilty, but would surely make it worth looking into him more deeply.
I'm thinking that PT didn't have a DNA base back then (not 100% sure)....so maybe this tactic wasn't familiar to them, as was the not guarding/stopping the 'crime scene' from any more contamination. :s_scratchhead
Madeleine McCann- Abducted May 2007 from Praia Da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.
DCI Redwood of Scotland Yard - stated that Madeleine could still be found - alive.
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find. ... ign?_rdr=p

Post Reply