and is apparently willing to say that DNA is NOT INDIVIDUAL but could relate to more than one family member - WHY THE HELL HAS HE NOT SPOKEN OUT BEFORE ? We have all been fed the line that it is individual, and no doubt many people are in prison as we speak - still claiming to be innocent, but damned by DNA.!!
Where are his morals to allow the lie to perpetuate and should he not be prosecuted for wasting police time? How many thousands of Police hours are used collecting and administering samples?
2007-09-12 19:57:28 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
This seems to make a mockery of the Governments push for a DNA database.
We are constantly fed lies by the power that be so they can manipulate and control us.
Government is a country's servant - not its master.
2007-09-12 20:30:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
He does not know what the samples are or any details. If he is speaking against them now then he is hardly an independent professional witness is he?
I wonder if he would say the same things about the evidence against Huntley and other murderers.
This illustrates that it has become a McCann cult now and that the hunt for Madeleine is increasingly becoming sidelined.
Whilst he may have said he would give his professional opinion WHEN he has seen the evidence, I suspect that this is yet another example of the McCann family missinformation machine!!!
When will this family stop playing the spin game and get the focus back on finding Madeleine?
2007-09-12 20:08:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think what he is saying is that you need to test Madeleine's DNA & compare it to the forensic evidence to see if they match. At the moment, the police can only be sure that McCann DNA was in the car because they do not have Madeleine's DNA. They can be sure it is McCann DNA because they will have samples from the parents, but the DNA could have come from one of the twins (but what would they be doing in the boot of the car ?).
As for the people in prison, their DNA has been taken & matched against forensic evidence from crime scenes in just this way, so they are guilty & I am afraid you have missed the point completely.
If DNA evidence was so unreliable, there are these people called lawyers who would have noticed some time ago...
2007-09-12 20:13:36 · answer #3 · answered by Well, said Alberto 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
To quote "DNA doesn't have the words innocence or guilt in it - that is a legal concept. What it seeks to establish is connections and identifications."
DNA is not like a bar code; it's a very complicated science. Why not find out more about DNA profiling and the considerations to be taken into account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fingerprinting#Considerations_when_evaluating_DNA_evidence
2007-09-12 20:28:21 · answer #4 · answered by Skidoo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What I don't get is why is it these people that are getting all this hype? Why is it only these people that get the backing of Alex? Why only these parents of a missing child who get to meet the Pope? What is so bloody special about them? They're only doctors!!!
2007-09-13 00:59:52 · answer #5 · answered by blondietinks 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
*lmfao*
Sir Roy Meadows was a so-called Independant Witness too wasn't he? He expressed his 'opinions' on Sally Clark and it turned out that they were fundamentally flawed and basically just made up.
Sally Clark spent years in prison for a crime that she didn't commit. It destroyed her and she's dead now.
Independant Witness aka Arrogant Pr*ckhead Middle Class Male!
2007-09-12 21:37:03 · answer #6 · answered by Tesco - very little help 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He must have been offered a chunk of the fund.
Even if the DNA isn't enough evidence there will be something else.
2007-09-12 20:10:53 · answer #7 · answered by ♥ Mummy ♥ 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Children are slimy slobbering leaking creatures. The original reports implied blood but recent reports suggest the dna could come from urine or any number of other "events".
DNA "evidence" is as unreliable as explosives "evidence".
2007-09-12 20:21:27 · answer #8 · answered by Johnny 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
you must be joking he/s as thick as 2 short planks.just a big name thats all.
2007-09-13 00:33:10 · answer #9 · answered by country bumpkin [sheep nurse] 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you kept up with the news you would have seen this a couple of days ago.
2007-09-12 20:02:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋