A letter has flooded in from some half-witted twat by the name of Isabel, who posted the following on Textusa
I really am sick and tired of explaining this to the thicky sisters. All this information is IN THE FILES, with the exception of the explanation of what the Phadebas test actually tests for, which comes from my personal knowledge
I have left the following reply, which Textusa probably won't publish, hence my publishing it here too
"No, you are wrong.The stain was tested in situ initially using a phosphatase test, which gave a weakly positive result. That is NOT an absolute indication of semen; saliva can provoke a similar response.The DNA analysis yielded a full DNA profile which was a 100% match to the young child in question. A child that age does not produce semen, therefore the stain was judged, in the opinion of the expert, not to be semen. A further test, a Phadebas test, which specifically tests for the enzyme amylase present in saliva, gave a positive result. This is confirmed in the PJ files, which you have either not read or did not understand.I will take your full apology and retraction as confirmed"
The non-saga continues
The dozy cow reappeared and posted a long extract from the Lowe report
Here is my answer
''Are you attempting to make a point, Isabel? Because if you are, you are failing miserably.
Why don't you come back when you have read the files properly, dear.
You and Textusa seem utterly incapable of realising that without the entirety of the reports on this sample, it is like switching a football match on with 15 minutes to go and assuming that the scoreline at that instant is the final score.
You claimed no test was done to determine the origin of the body fluid. That is a complete lie. As I stated, the Phadebas test gave a positive result for saliva.
There is no mystery about this, other than the one Mrs Loonypants has tried to engineer''
Since then the dozy trollop has posted another interminable comment which I can't be arsed to copy over, although this bit did amuse me
" All I wanted you to have done was to actually write what you now wrote here as a reply . Chasing the adventurous itinerary of sample 5, which you had not done properly. If anything, my comment made you write a more accurate account of the sample's analysis."I can't be arsed getting into a war of words with some no-mark. Had she or Textusa read my earlier piece on this the last time Textusa tried to bullshit them she would have realised I covered it all in depth at the time.
Amazingly, Isabel, from stating:
"In fact, there was no test done to determine the origin of body fluid"....now seems to have located it in the files. Amazing what a quick word search can do, isn't it?
As for the rest - she thinks I get angry, you see, bless her - she is welcome to fuck off at her earliest possible convenience
Oh FFS, the vacant cow is back again
Right. Let's get this straight
This is what Textusa said:
12. Is it the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva)? No, we don’t think the DNA is from him.
This is what I said
No, it is from him, as confirmed by DNA analysis by the FSS. The bed cover did not contain semen; you are well aware of this.
Then the silly tramp Isabel appeared on the scene and said
I said nothing about Lowe conducting the test. I clearly stated a further test for saliva showed a positive result. Textusa initially claimed that the DNA, in her uneducated opinion, did not belong to CG
Textusa also claimed, without stating that it was her uneducated opinion, that it contained both saliva and semen.
It did not
Now do fuck off, again.
(Much of this has already been covered in this post here)