Thursday, 8 February 2018

Shoot the messenger

Evening all

I notice Textusa is getting a bit shirty with the estimable Anne Guedes, this time over the FSS reports on the swabs taken from Apt 5A.

This has culminated in the following rude and abrupt reply from the mad cow

Anne Guedes,

Pardon the language but it seems that you are confusing "inconclusive" with rubbish.

What Lowe has said in the final report is rubbish because it's absurd.

However, the same Lowe had no doubt in saying in the interim report that it belonged to Maddie.
To explain what the fuckwitted sow is on about, Anne, I have copied this from her post about the FSS reports 

An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.

A low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3B). In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.

Excuse me?!?

So, according to Lowe, it could be from Maddie (if single source) or it could be linked to Kate and Gerry(if more than one person) BUT it’s in no way linked to the McCann family?!?

Where is the logic in that?

Note that no other hypothesis is raised as to the origin of the stain 3’s DNA.

And this is the problem - the stupid bitch is too dimwitted to notice that Lowe is referring to two DIFFERENT swabs.

Swab 3A
Swab 3B

Swab 3A contained a tiny amount of DNA which could have come from a McCann.
Swab 3B also contained tiny amounts of DNA, but with no indication that it came from a McCann.

She has known about this for years, but refuses to amend her error.

Just ignore the mad bitch 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email