|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 10:49:58 GMT
But wasn't Maddies DNA in the sampling both in the car and the appartment once both dogs had confirmed the presence of cadaver and blood particles? Can't DNA be transferred from one surface to another in the same way as odours? If so, wouldn't it be MORE strange if Maddie's DNA was NOT found all over the place due to cross-contamination ? If you research Keela and Eddie it becomes obvious that these two extraordinary dogs are trained only to sniff out human cadaver and human blood and to ignore other purifying animal flesh and animal blood.
The dogs extra-ordinary ability allows them to detect infinitesimal amounts of odour from items that have been in contact with items that have been in contact with items (ad infinitum?) that have been in contact with cadavers. Mrs had been in contact with 6 cadavers prior to the holiday (see posts above). Now Gerry McCann explained the presence of cadaver and blood in the hire car as coming from meat that had fallen out of a shopping bag. If you were asked "how did blood get in your car boot?" and you hadn't killed your daughter, but you had spilled meat on a shopping trip, what would you answer? The cadaverine odour can be explained by cross-contamination as above. Same with the blood as it appears that Maddie cut her leg on holiday. Why has all this evidence collected by these dogs just been brushed under the carpet I think the fact that the dogs are so incredibly sensitive works against them. They seem able to detect evidence so far removed from the scene that it becomes inconclusive. And their use around people who deal with the dead and bleeding for a living seems questionable IMO. Or has it, as previous poster said, the police may be setting the McCanns up If so I hope it works at £5Million that Cameron's pledged! The photo-fits do seem like a piss-take and just add another layer of confusion to the whole thing. I'm no great fan of the McCann's and if they're innocent then they've been the victims of an unfortunate series of circumstances that points fingers at them. But for now (and in light of the Chamberlain story above) I think they should get the benefit of the doubt. The points you make are the reasons they havent been able to pin it on the parents yet. Your explainations are a stretch but would be enough to get then off in court under reasonable doubt. The dogs indicated blood that matched her DNA and cadaver smell in the car they hired 3 Weeks after she 'dissappeared'. Both were also found on her favorite toy that the mother claimed was there because she took it to work with her? Why would you regularly take your daughters favourite toy to work and why the hell would you have it on you when dealing with dead bodies? As for Maddie cutting her leg on holiday, from the files she grazed it on the plane on the way there.Highly unlikely that it would be bleeding for more than an hour or two at most, and for it to bleed enough to get into corner of a room AND seep under the tiles? why the hell would you have it on you when dealing with dead bodies?I think the point here is that she didn't NEED to have it on her when dealing with dead bodies - the scent could be transferred from her hands or clothes onto the toy. Highly unlikely that it would be bleeding for more than an hour or two at most, and for it to bleed enough to get into corner of a room AND seep under the tiles? I agree - if this is true, it seems a weak point in their defence to me - but if it is correct that the blood found under the tiles was Maddie's and they couldn't explain adequately why it was there ....then surely that would be enough evidence to bring charges? Your explainations are a stretch
As big a stretch as "a dingo kidnapped my baby?!"
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2013 11:00:21 GMT
the problem is they are good actors
good enough to deflect the attention from their woeful, cuntish behaviour as parents
no abduction evidence found circumstantial foul play evidence and innuendo
in both cases the facts cannot be proved or edisproved
a guilty verdict will never be proved but in the eyes of many neither will their innocence
we are at a crossroads until evidence to the contrary is found, one of the tapas lot cracks or maddie turns up safe and sound
there is plenty of incosistencies in their version of events, other version of events, irrational behaviour, publicity whoring, lies, refusal to answer questions and a great big fucking PR machine up to the higher echelons that says its FUCKING DODGY
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 11:06:10 GMT
the problem is they are good actors good enough to deflect the attention from their woeful, cuntish behaviour as parents no abduction evidence found circumstantial foul play evidence and innuendo in both cases the facts cannot be proved or edisproved a guilty verdict will never be proved but in the eyes of many neither will their innocence we are at a crossroads until evidence to the contrary is found, one of the tapas lot cracks or maddie turns up safe and sound there is plenty of incosistencies in their version of events, other version of events, irrational behaviour, publicity whoring, lies, refusal to answer questions and a great big fucking PR machine up to the higher echelons that says its FUCKING DODGY Who would benefit "in the higher echelons" Salop? I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2013 11:30:11 GMT
i didnt say the higher echelons would benefit mate
but their pr machine has gone through the higher echelons of blair, brown, the pope, the us secretary of state, and others
you do not get an interview with usa government offiials without help from the UK government
im not saying the british government has covered stuff up im saying they have had more help than most people would
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 11:48:59 GMT
i didnt say the higher echelons would benefit mate but their pr machine has gone through the higher echelons of blair, brown, the pope, the us secretary of state, and others you do not get an interview with usa government offiials without help from the UK government im not saying the british government has covered stuff up im saying they have had more help than most people would Point taken. I'm not sure they were in control of the PR in the immediate aftermath though - it seemed to gather a momentum of it's own. As I said earlier, I'm not a fan and I actually don't warm to them at all - but with the stakes being so incredibly high I will give them the benefit of the doubt until it is proven otherwise. If it does turn out that they're guilty then they will deserve all they get after carrying out this charade. In terms of notoriety they would be up there with Hindley and Brady.
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Oct 16, 2013 12:18:12 GMT
Whilst admitting that I'm no authority on this, I have a problem with Kate McCann's "dealing with dead bodies" defence.
If cadaverine can be easily transferred between multiple locations in sufficient concentration for the dog to identify it (and bear in mind that they're capable of indicating whether the odour is strong or faint), then the "smell of death" would be detectable in lots of places not directly connected with the presence of a corpse.
My understanding is that the dog marked a few specific locations in only one apartment and one car, despite checking several others, including those apartments where other doctors amongst the "Tapas 9" had holidayed. When one of the marked locations is between the back of a sofa and a wall, it does make me wonder how the innocent transfer of the odour occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 16, 2013 12:39:24 GMT
But wasn't Maddies DNA in the sampling both in the car and the appartment once both dogs had confirmed the presence of cadaver and blood particles? If you research Keela and Eddie it becomes obvious that these two extraordinary dogs are trained only to sniff out human cadaver and human blood and to ignore other purifying animal flesh and animal blood. Now Gerry McCann explained the presence of cadaver and blood in the hire car as coming from meat that had fallen out of a shopping bag. Why has all this evidence collected by these dogs just been brushed under the carpet? Or has it, as previous poster said, the police may be setting the McCanns up. This would partly explain the piss taking e-fit photos that incriminate Gerry McCann and the detective in charge of the British investigation. But wasn't Maddies DNA in the sampling both in the car and the appartment once both dogs had confirmed the presence of cadaver and blood particles? Can't DNA be transferred from one surface to another in the same way as odours? If so, wouldn't it be MORE strange if Maddie's DNA was NOT found all over the place due to cross-contamination ? If you research Keela and Eddie it becomes obvious that these two extraordinary dogs are trained only to sniff out human cadaver and human blood and to ignore other purifying animal flesh and animal blood.
The dogs extra-ordinary ability allows them to detect infinitesimal amounts of odour from items that have been in contact with items that have been in contact with items (ad infinitum?) that have been in contact with cadavers. Mrs had been in contact with 6 cadavers prior to the holiday (see posts above). Now Gerry McCann explained the presence of cadaver and blood in the hire car as coming from meat that had fallen out of a shopping bag. If you were asked "how did blood get in your car boot?" and you hadn't killed your daughter, but you had spilled meat on a shopping trip, what would you answer? The cadaverine odour can be explained by cross-contamination as above. Same with the blood as it appears that Maddie cut her leg on holiday. Why has all this evidence collected by these dogs just been brushed under the carpet I think the fact that the dogs are so incredibly sensitive works against them. They seem able to detect evidence so far removed from the scene that it becomes inconclusive. And their use around people who deal with the dead and bleeding for a living seems questionable IMO. Or has it, as previous poster said, the police may be setting the McCanns up If so I hope it works at £5Million that Cameron's pledged! The photo-fits do seem like a piss-take and just add another layer of confusion to the whole thing. I'm no great fan of the McCann's and if they're innocent then they've been the victims of an unfortunate series of circumstances that points fingers at them. But for now (and in light of the Chamberlain story above) I think they should get the benefit of the doubt. Taken from Tony Bennett's research: "The dogs alerted to the smell of death/blood, separately, in exactly the same places in the apartment. Eddie the cadaver dog only alerted to the smell of death to the McCanns’ apartment, out of all the other ones he was taken to.
Similarly, the McCanns’ car was the only one in the car compound that Eddie alerted to. Let us be very clear about where the dogs’ evidence takes us. Records have been checked by the Portuguese police, going back years. No-one else has ever died in Apartment 5A. No-one else has ever died in the Renault Scenic. There was a dead body in Apartment 5A. There was a dead body in the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns. That dead body could only be one individual - already dead - who could have been in both Apartment 5A and in the Renault Scenic. It must have been Madeleine McCann."
"We might add here that when the British police cross-check the DNA of a suspect with its database (said to consist of 2.5 million people) of people who have been arrested on suspicion of a crime, they use only 10 markers out of 19 in order to establish a DNA ‘match’.
The scientist who invented DNA fingerprinting two decades ago, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, said however that using 10 markers to obtain a sufficiently reliable ‘match’ was insufficient proof. He went on to state that 15 markers would provide sufficient evidence to be conclusive. He said: “The current DNA database uses 10 distinct markers to obtain a match and this means there is still a residual risk of a false match. They should use about 15 markers; 15 markers would close the possibility that the match from a crime scene sample is genuine but a fluke”.
To find 15 out of Madeleine’s 19 markers present means that the chances that the traces of blood in the hired car came from anyone other than Madeleine were fewer than only 1 in 1,000.
The key point to be made is this. These initial FSS results, on their own, showed a better than 99.9% chance that the blood in the McCanns’ hired car was Madeleine’s. For some experts, and under Portuguese law, 15 markers out of 19 - bearing in mind the high level of proof required in a criminal trial - stops just short of providing absolute proof that the blood is that person’s. But we must take these strongly indicative results (with all 5 markers in one sample and 15 in another that could not have come from Madeleine) together with all the other evidence in this case. We can surely say with confidence that the chance of those 15 markers belonging to someone other than Madeleine is next-to-nothing, especially when we take into account other significant forensic and circumstantial evidence. These initial DNA results, then, amount to more evidence in the case pointing very strongly in the direction of Madeleine being dead in her holiday apartment on 3rd May 2007, the day she ‘disappeared’, and then her body being transported in the Renault Scenic at least three weeks later. "
EDIT: (I should probably include the following also). It must be said, however, that this first analysis, given to the Portuguese and Leicestershire detectives in June, was overridden a month later when the FSS issued a more detailed report. By now, as the former senior investigating officer Goncalo Amaral confirms in his book, political interference in the case had begun, with successful attempts being made to get the FSS to water down their initial conclusions. By July, the initial samples had been re-tested and were now found to contain 37 markers, or ‘alleles’, not just the original 19. The sample appeared to have been contaminated by staff of the FSS laboratory. Though there were now reported to be 37 ‘markers’, there were still, of course, 15 that were a match to Madeleine’s DNA. That fact that the FSS appear to have contaminated the sample does not negate the match. It simply makes it somewhat less certain that the blood was Madeleine’s.
By the time they issued their more detailed report, the FSS said that they were only able to confirm that the results of the analysis were ‘indicative’ that the blood found was Madeleine’s. They later added that the results were ‘too complex for meaningful analysis’. We need to bear in mind that whilst the Portuguese police have released some FSS analyses and statements, they have not yet released others to the public, including the reports of their first tests, which gave the strongest indications that the blood was Madeleine’s. The leading Portuguese detective on the case is clear that intense political pressure was successfully brought on the FSS to modify its earlier results, whilst the leading British detective on the case, Stuart Prior, was overheard to be ‘furious’ with the FSS when he learnt of their watered-down opinion. It seems he also believed that there had been political interference to secure a less conclusive result."
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 12:43:43 GMT
Whilst admitting that I'm no authority on this, I have a problem with Kate McCann's "dealing with dead bodies" defence. If cadaverine can be easily transferred between multiple locations in sufficient concentration for the dog to identify it (and bear in mind that they're capable of indicating whether the odour is strong or faint), then the "smell of death" would be detectable in lots of places not directly connected with the presence of a corpse. My understanding is that the dog marked a few specific locations in only one apartment and one car, despite checking several others, including those apartments where other doctors amongst the "Tapas 9" had holidayed. When one of the marked locations is between the back of a sofa and a wall, it does make me wonder how the innocent transfer of the odour occurred. I think it's the capabilities of these dogs that is clouding the issue. They're held up as being amazing and a smoking gun against the McCanns - but when their brilliance is used to doubt the evidence, all of a sudden 'they're not THAT good'! I don't remember reading a report that suggests they can indicate different levels of cadaverine (link?) - but if they can then it adds another layer to the case against.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 12:51:03 GMT
But wasn't Maddies DNA in the sampling both in the car and the appartment once both dogs had confirmed the presence of cadaver and blood particles? Can't DNA be transferred from one surface to another in the same way as odours? If so, wouldn't it be MORE strange if Maddie's DNA was NOT found all over the place due to cross-contamination ? If you research Keela and Eddie it becomes obvious that these two extraordinary dogs are trained only to sniff out human cadaver and human blood and to ignore other purifying animal flesh and animal blood.
The dogs extra-ordinary ability allows them to detect infinitesimal amounts of odour from items that have been in contact with items that have been in contact with items (ad infinitum?) that have been in contact with cadavers. Mrs had been in contact with 6 cadavers prior to the holiday (see posts above). Now Gerry McCann explained the presence of cadaver and blood in the hire car as coming from meat that had fallen out of a shopping bag. If you were asked "how did blood get in your car boot?" and you hadn't killed your daughter, but you had spilled meat on a shopping trip, what would you answer? The cadaverine odour can be explained by cross-contamination as above. Same with the blood as it appears that Maddie cut her leg on holiday. Why has all this evidence collected by these dogs just been brushed under the carpet I think the fact that the dogs are so incredibly sensitive works against them. They seem able to detect evidence so far removed from the scene that it becomes inconclusive. And their use around people who deal with the dead and bleeding for a living seems questionable IMO. Or has it, as previous poster said, the police may be setting the McCanns up If so I hope it works at £5Million that Cameron's pledged! The photo-fits do seem like a piss-take and just add another layer of confusion to the whole thing. I'm no great fan of the McCann's and if they're innocent then they've been the victims of an unfortunate series of circumstances that points fingers at them. But for now (and in light of the Chamberlain story above) I think they should get the benefit of the doubt. Taken from Tony Bennett's research: "The dogs alerted to the smell of death/blood, separately, in exactly the same places in the apartment. Eddie the cadaver dog only alerted to the smell of death to the McCanns’ apartment, out of all the other ones he was taken to.
Similarly, the McCanns’ car was the only one in the car compound that Eddie alerted to. Let us be very clear about where the dogs’ evidence takes us. Records have been checked by the Portuguese police, going back years. No-one else has ever died in Apartment 5A. No-one else has ever died in the Renault Scenic. There was a dead body in Apartment 5A. There was a dead body in the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns. That dead body could only be one individual - already dead - who could have been in both Apartment 5A and in the Renault Scenic. It must have been Madeleine McCann."
"We might add here that when the British police cross-check the DNA of a suspect with its database (said to consist of 2.5 million people) of people who have been arrested on suspicion of a crime, they use only 10 markers out of 19 in order to establish a DNA ‘match’.
The scientist who invented DNA fingerprinting two decades ago, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, said however that using 10 markers to obtain a sufficiently reliable ‘match’ was insufficient proof. He went on to state that 15 markers would provide sufficient evidence to be conclusive. He said: “The current DNA database uses 10 distinct markers to obtain a match and this means there is still a residual risk of a false match. They should use about 15 markers; 15 markers would close the possibility that the match from a crime scene sample is genuine but a fluke”.
To find 15 out of Madeleine’s 19 markers present means that the chances that the traces of blood in the hired car came from anyone other than Madeleine were fewer than only 1 in 1,000.
The key point to be made is this. These initial FSS results, on their own, showed a better than 99.9% chance that the blood in the McCanns’ hired car was Madeleine’s. For some experts, and under Portuguese law, 15 markers out of 19 - bearing in mind the high level of proof required in a criminal trial - stops just short of providing absolute proof that the blood is that person’s. But we must take these strongly indicative results (with all 5 markers in one sample and 15 in another that could not have come from Madeleine) together with all the other evidence in this case. We can surely say with confidence that the chance of those 15 markers belonging to someone other than Madeleine is next-to-nothing, especially when we take into account other significant forensic and circumstantial evidence. These initial DNA results, then, amount to more evidence in the case pointing very strongly in the direction of Madeleine being dead in her holiday apartment on 3rd May 2007, the day she ‘disappeared’, and then her body being transported in the Renault Scenic at least three weeks later. "
All of those points can be explained by cross-contamination Paul, as outlined in previous posts. If not, why aren't the McCanns in jail?
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Oct 16, 2013 12:54:06 GMT
I don't think I've ever seen any remorse from the Mcanns. Not once have they blamed themselves. Even on that crimewatch Kate said "we're not guilty. We didn't commit this crime". Very strange. I'm also concerned about one of the questions she wouldn't answer. And that question is: Is it true or not that in England you went so far as thinking about handing over Madeleine to a relative to look after? This paints a completely different picture to that of the media.
Also, apparently, when they went to raise the alarm, they left the two twins unattended AGAIN! Come on, that doesn't strike you as peculiar? They also immediately said someone had taken her. How did they know that? For all they know she might have wandered off trying to find them.
Like I say, there's something about them that I just can't quite put my finger on. Lets hope the truth comes out. Can't see it, though.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2013 12:56:26 GMT
i didnt say the higher echelons would benefit mate but their pr machine has gone through the higher echelons of blair, brown, the pope, the us secretary of state, and others you do not get an interview with usa government offiials without help from the UK government im not saying the british government has covered stuff up im saying they have had more help than most people would Point taken. I'm not sure they were in control of the PR in the immediate aftermath though - it seemed to gather a momentum of it's own. As I said earlier, I'm not a fan and I actually don't warm to them at all - but with the stakes being so incredibly high I will give them the benefit of the doubt until it is proven otherwise. If it does turn out that they're guilty then they will deserve all they get after carrying out this charade. In terms of notoriety they would be up there with Hindley and Brady. they hired a pr guy within days gerrys brother left his job within days to run the maddie fund business why would he give up a well paid job which paid his bills and mortgage to administrate a fund for a girl that if alive is normally found within a week? like i said very dodgy
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 16, 2013 12:56:32 GMT
Taken from Tony Bennett's research: "The dogs alerted to the smell of death/blood, separately, in exactly the same places in the apartment. Eddie the cadaver dog only alerted to the smell of death to the McCanns’ apartment, out of all the other ones he was taken to.
Similarly, the McCanns’ car was the only one in the car compound that Eddie alerted to. Let us be very clear about where the dogs’ evidence takes us. Records have been checked by the Portuguese police, going back years. No-one else has ever died in Apartment 5A. No-one else has ever died in the Renault Scenic. There was a dead body in Apartment 5A. There was a dead body in the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns. That dead body could only be one individual - already dead - who could have been in both Apartment 5A and in the Renault Scenic. It must have been Madeleine McCann."
"We might add here that when the British police cross-check the DNA of a suspect with its database (said to consist of 2.5 million people) of people who have been arrested on suspicion of a crime, they use only 10 markers out of 19 in order to establish a DNA ‘match’.
The scientist who invented DNA fingerprinting two decades ago, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, said however that using 10 markers to obtain a sufficiently reliable ‘match’ was insufficient proof. He went on to state that 15 markers would provide sufficient evidence to be conclusive. He said: “The current DNA database uses 10 distinct markers to obtain a match and this means there is still a residual risk of a false match. They should use about 15 markers; 15 markers would close the possibility that the match from a crime scene sample is genuine but a fluke”.
To find 15 out of Madeleine’s 19 markers present means that the chances that the traces of blood in the hired car came from anyone other than Madeleine were fewer than only 1 in 1,000.
The key point to be made is this. These initial FSS results, on their own, showed a better than 99.9% chance that the blood in the McCanns’ hired car was Madeleine’s. For some experts, and under Portuguese law, 15 markers out of 19 - bearing in mind the high level of proof required in a criminal trial - stops just short of providing absolute proof that the blood is that person’s. But we must take these strongly indicative results (with all 5 markers in one sample and 15 in another that could not have come from Madeleine) together with all the other evidence in this case. We can surely say with confidence that the chance of those 15 markers belonging to someone other than Madeleine is next-to-nothing, especially when we take into account other significant forensic and circumstantial evidence. These initial DNA results, then, amount to more evidence in the case pointing very strongly in the direction of Madeleine being dead in her holiday apartment on 3rd May 2007, the day she ‘disappeared’, and then her body being transported in the Renault Scenic at least three weeks later. "
All of those points can be explained by cross-contamination Paul, as outlined in previous posts. If not, why aren't the McCanns in jail? I haven't suggested one thing or the other chap, I just thought it was relevant to the discussion. Personally I've got a completely open mind about it.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2013 12:58:47 GMT
I don't think I've ever seen any remorse from the Mcanns. Not once have they blamed themselves. Even on that crimewatch Kate said "we're not guilty. We didn't commit this crime". Very strange. I'm also concerned about one of the questions she wouldn't answer. And that question is: Is it true or not that in England you went so far as thinking about handing over Madeleine to a relative to look after? This paints a completely different picture to that of the media. Also, apparently, when they went to raise the alarm, they left the two twins unattended AGAIN! Come on, that doesn't strike you as peculiar? They also immediately said someone had taken her. How did they know that? For all they know she might have wandered off trying to find them. Like I say, there's something about them that I just can't quite put my finger on. Lets hope the truth comes out. Can't see it, though. and the three kids had spent the majority of their holidays in the creche during the day or unattended every night. in the immediate aftermath the twins went back in the creche - for most normal families they wouldnt let them out of their sight
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2013 13:06:02 GMT
I don't think I've ever seen any remorse from the Mcanns. Not once have they blamed themselves. Even on that crimewatch Kate said "we're not guilty. We didn't commit this crime". Very strange. I'm also concerned about one of the questions she wouldn't answer. And that question is: Is it true or not that in England you went so far as thinking about handing over Madeleine to a relative to look after? This paints a completely different picture to that of the media. Also, apparently, when they went to raise the alarm, they left the two twins unattended AGAIN! Come on, that doesn't strike you as peculiar? They also immediately said someone had taken her. How did they know that? For all they know she might have wandered off trying to find them. Like I say, there's something about them that I just can't quite put my finger on. Lets hope the truth comes out. Can't see it, though. and while kirsty young is shaking her head at the ubsurd notion that people think they are guilty she doesnt ask about neglect did you know the mccans vet the questions interviewers are allowed to ask acceptable for tom cruise at an interview about MI4 but over the top for people with a missing kid and apparently nothing to hide
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Oct 16, 2013 13:12:11 GMT
Whilst admitting that I'm no authority on this, I have a problem with Kate McCann's "dealing with dead bodies" defence. If cadaverine can be easily transferred between multiple locations in sufficient concentration for the dog to identify it (and bear in mind that they're capable of indicating whether the odour is strong or faint), then the "smell of death" would be detectable in lots of places not directly connected with the presence of a corpse. My understanding is that the dog marked a few specific locations in only one apartment and one car, despite checking several others, including those apartments where other doctors amongst the "Tapas 9" had holidayed. When one of the marked locations is between the back of a sofa and a wall, it does make me wonder how the innocent transfer of the odour occurred. I think it's the capabilities of these dogs that is clouding the issue. They're held up as being amazing and a smoking gun against the McCanns - but when their brilliance is used to doubt the evidence, all of a sudden 'they're not THAT good'! I don't remember reading a report that suggests they can indicate different levels of cadaverine (link?) - but if they can then it adds another layer to the case against. It's here, Count: "According to the official police summary report released in July this year - and confirmed by video evidence of the dogs in action in Praia da Luz, widely available on the Internet - Eddie, the cadaver dog, found the ‘smell of death’ in the following places. We quote the exact words of the report: a) in the McCanns’ apartment, Apartment 5A, Eddie the cadaver dog detected the scent of a human corpse (human cadaverine): in the couple’s bedroom, in a corner, around a wardrobe, and in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment. Also, a ‘lighter’ scent of death was found in the flower beds in the back yard, near the foot of the steps leading down from the patio." www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 13:17:53 GMT
Point taken. I'm not sure they were in control of the PR in the immediate aftermath though - it seemed to gather a momentum of it's own. As I said earlier, I'm not a fan and I actually don't warm to them at all - but with the stakes being so incredibly high I will give them the benefit of the doubt until it is proven otherwise. If it does turn out that they're guilty then they will deserve all they get after carrying out this charade. In terms of notoriety they would be up there with Hindley and Brady. they hired a pr guy within days gerrys brother left his job within days to run the maddie fund business why would he give up a well paid job which paid his bills and mortgage to administrate a fund for a girl that if alive is normally found within a week? like i said very dodgy Fair enough mate..... but wouldn't this require the McCanns to confess their guilt to the brother? (or was the brother in the Tapas 9?). Have any of the other parents of abducted children had PR advice? Or is it just the McCanns?
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Oct 16, 2013 13:18:09 GMT
Another thing, you've just been told the scent of a human corpse has been detected in the apartment. Your reaction is surely to weep uncontrollably and think the worst? The McCanns? "Cadaver dogs are unreliable".
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 16, 2013 13:25:06 GMT
I don't think I've ever seen any remorse from the Mcanns. Not once have they blamed themselves. Even on that crimewatch Kate said "we're not guilty. We didn't commit this crime". Very strange. I'm also concerned about one of the questions she wouldn't answer. And that question is: Is it true or not that in England you went so far as thinking about handing over Madeleine to a relative to look after? This paints a completely different picture to that of the media. Also, apparently, when they went to raise the alarm, they left the two twins unattended AGAIN! Come on, that doesn't strike you as peculiar? They also immediately said someone had taken her. How did they know that? For all they know she might have wandered off trying to find them. Like I say, there's something about them that I just can't quite put my finger on. Lets hope the truth comes out. Can't see it, though. and while kirsty young is shaking her head at the ubsurd notion that people think they are guilty she doesnt ask about neglect did you know the mccans vet the questions interviewers are allowed to ask acceptable for tom cruise at an interview about MI4 but over the top for people with a missing kid and apparently nothing to hide the problem is that as a result of the likes of Hugh Grant and Levenson, papers that might have been looking into this a bit more or providing a more balanced view won't dare to touch this story. There is no way the poor girl is still alive if she had been abducted the press interest generated would have meant the person or people who took her would have disposed of her very quickly for fear of being caught. One thing that always struck me as odd that the one out of 49 questions that she did answer (Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?) her answer was 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.' - No indignation or anger you would surely expect at least something along the lines of "while you are wasting time interviewing me the guilty person / people are getting further away / harder to find" but nothing.....
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 13:29:53 GMT
I think it's the capabilities of these dogs that is clouding the issue. They're held up as being amazing and a smoking gun against the McCanns - but when their brilliance is used to doubt the evidence, all of a sudden 'they're not THAT good'! I don't remember reading a report that suggests they can indicate different levels of cadaverine (link?) - but if they can then it adds another layer to the case against. It's here, Count: "According to the official police summary report released in July this year - and confirmed by video evidence of the dogs in action in Praia da Luz, widely available on the Internet - Eddie, the cadaver dog, found the ‘smell of death’ in the following places. We quote the exact words of the report: a) in the McCanns’ apartment, Apartment 5A, Eddie the cadaver dog detected the scent of a human corpse (human cadaverine): in the couple’s bedroom, in a corner, around a wardrobe, and in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment. Also, a ‘lighter’ scent of death was found in the flower beds in the back yard, near the foot of the steps leading down from the patio." www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm Cheers Dex - I missed that. But 'lighter' than what? Lighter than the scent elsewhere in the apartment/car brought over from England on KMc clothes (as stated). Or lighter than the place behind the sofa where a dead body must have lay? The report assumes the latter without discounting the former. EDIT.... I was thinking more along the lines of the dog being able to indicate the difference between the (past)presence of a body in direct contact with the surface and a secondary source (cross-contamination).
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2013 13:37:56 GMT
they hired a pr guy within days gerrys brother left his job within days to run the maddie fund business why would he give up a well paid job which paid his bills and mortgage to administrate a fund for a girl that if alive is normally found within a week? like i said very dodgy Fair enough mate..... but wouldn't this require the McCanns to confess their guilt to the brother? (or was the brother in the Tapas 9?). Have any of the other parents of abducted children had PR advice? Or is it just the McCanns? generally missing kids in the western world fall into four catorgories with only 3 being after kidnapping (child selling is normally third world and eastern european) teenage runaways - lets discard this in maddies case marital disputes - not applicable hospitals with deranged childless mothers who snatch kids - maybe murders - strong possibility yes im sure there are others but they are most common of the murders mostly they are found to be committed by parents, other family inc boyfriends, local nutters lets look at some of the high profile child murder cases of recent years 1. numerous cases of child neglect, baby p, that polish couple recentl - google them and others like it 2. april stevens - local nutter 3. derby fire - family 4. that girl found in attic in london - grand mother boyfriend (mothers ex boyfriend) 5. milly dowler and sarah payne - random stranger 6. holly and jessica - local nutter usally the police have a rough idea and target that person, including allowing them on tv. how many non marital or runaway missing kids have been on the news in the last 10 years - not many not many unsolved cases either this case is totally different to them all the mccanns seem to be more about publicity and spin than finding their daughter its been done to death now but all their actions seem to be the opposite of the behaviour of what sarah payne, holly and jessica and milly dowlers family did and because of this crocodile tear stuff extraordinary behaviour leads some including me to doubt their innocence and integrity but unfortunatly they have not slipped up yet or crucially given any evidence to support their claims at best all evidence points to a couple that liked to put their kids in creche whist they enjoyed themselves, left their children unattended and behaviour opposite to a couple that wants to find their child
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Oct 16, 2013 13:48:29 GMT
It's here, Count: "According to the official police summary report released in July this year - and confirmed by video evidence of the dogs in action in Praia da Luz, widely available on the Internet - Eddie, the cadaver dog, found the ‘smell of death’ in the following places. We quote the exact words of the report: a) in the McCanns’ apartment, Apartment 5A, Eddie the cadaver dog detected the scent of a human corpse (human cadaverine): in the couple’s bedroom, in a corner, around a wardrobe, and in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment. Also, a ‘lighter’ scent of death was found in the flower beds in the back yard, near the foot of the steps leading down from the patio." www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm Cheers Dex - I missed that. But 'lighter' than what? Lighter than the scent elsewhere in the apartment/car brought over from England on KMc clothes (as stated). Or lighter than the place behind the sofa where a dead body must have lay? The report assumes the latter without discounting the former. I don't pretend to understand exactly how the process works, and there's clearly sufficient "reasonable doubt" to preclude charges being brought; if it was clear-cut, the McCanns would already be banged-up, wouldn't they? However, while I'm capable of ignoring their manifold strange behaviour on the basis that some people are just a bit weird, I'm unable to similarly reconcile the evidence of a cadaver dog with a reportedly impeccable hit-rate.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 14:05:54 GMT
Cheers Dex - I missed that. But 'lighter' than what? Lighter than the scent elsewhere in the apartment/car brought over from England on KMc clothes (as stated). Or lighter than the place behind the sofa where a dead body must have lay? The report assumes the latter without discounting the former. I don't pretend to understand exactly how the process works, and there's clearly sufficient "reasonable doubt" to preclude charges being brought; if it was clear-cut, the McCanns would already be banged-up, wouldn't they? However, while I'm capable of ignoring their manifold strange behaviour on the basis that some people are just a bit weird, I'm unable to similarly reconcile the evidence of a cadaver dog with a reportedly impeccable hit-rate. ..... but the dog still has an impeccable hit-rate. It has apparently detected cadaverine on Kate McCann's clothing and other associated surfaces. It's just not been established if it's from Maddie or KMc's workplace. Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Oct 16, 2013 14:16:06 GMT
I don't pretend to understand exactly how the process works, and there's clearly sufficient "reasonable doubt" to preclude charges being brought; if it was clear-cut, the McCanns would already be banged-up, wouldn't they? However, while I'm capable of ignoring their manifold strange behaviour on the basis that some people are just a bit weird, I'm unable to similarly reconcile the evidence of a cadaver dog with a reportedly impeccable hit-rate. ..... but the dog still has an impeccable hit-rate. It has apparently detected cadaverine on Kate McCann's clothing and other associated surfaces. It's just not been established if it's from Maddie or KMc's workplace. Or am I missing something? I don't know - It depends to what degree the odour diminishes on subsequent transfers. Is it reasonable for Kate McCann to assert that cadaverine picked-up by her clothing during the examination of dead bodies in the UK could lead to such a strong positive result behind the sofa, but not in other more obvious areas of the flat? As I said, I'm no expert, but it just doesn't seem logical.
|
|
|
Post by Pedropotter on Oct 16, 2013 14:19:33 GMT
Lets keep this thread going - I reckon we are on to something.
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor Sexualchocolate on Oct 16, 2013 14:21:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 14:27:52 GMT
..... but the dog still has an impeccable hit-rate. It has apparently detected cadaverine on Kate McCann's clothing and other associated surfaces. It's just not been established if it's from Maddie or KMc's workplace. Or am I missing something? I don't know - It depends to what degree the odour diminishes on subsequent transfers. Is it reasonable for Kate McCann to assert that cadaverine picked-up by her clothing during the examination of dead bodies in the UK could lead to such a strong positive result behind the sofa, but not in other more obvious areas of the flat? As I said, I'm no expert, but it just doesn't seem logical. I think that's the rub mate - it's the dogs that seem to provide the most compelling evidence against the McCanns but we really don't know how that info should be interpreted. Those in the know obviously don't think there's enough for a conviction, so for now...... the show goes on.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Oct 16, 2013 14:31:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Oct 16, 2013 14:39:54 GMT
I don't know - It depends to what degree the odour diminishes on subsequent transfers. Is it reasonable for Kate McCann to assert that cadaverine picked-up by her clothing during the examination of dead bodies in the UK could lead to such a strong positive result behind the sofa, but not in other more obvious areas of the flat? As I said, I'm no expert, but it just doesn't seem logical. I think that's the rub mate - it's the dogs that seem to provide the most compelling evidence against the McCanns but we really don't know how that info should be interpreted. Those in the know obviously don't think there's enough for a conviction, so for now...... the show goes on. Gives us something to talk about on a wet Wednesday though. It'd be interesting to find out whether this kind of evidence alone has ever secured a conviction. I doubt it - I expect it's usually just one of a number of pieces of forensic.
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Oct 16, 2013 14:45:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 16, 2013 14:45:46 GMT
Clarence Mitchell is a former BBC news reporter, and now official spokesman for the family of Madeleine McCann.
Mitchell began his career as a journalist as a local reporter for the Barnet & Potters Bar Times in South Hertfordshire before leaving to join a BBC training scheme.[citation needed] He later joined the BBC as a regional reporter in Leeds. In the early 1990s he moved to BBC Breakfast News and then as a reporter on the main national BBC TV and radio bulletins. [1], reporting on the death of Michael Hutchence in 1997 and as royal correspondent in 1999 on the death of Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana.[2] Between 2003 and 2005 he covered stories in the Middle East including the Iraq conflict.[3]
After 20 years as a journalist[4], in April 2006 he joined the government's Central Office of Information as director of the Media Monitoring Unit and in May 2007 was sent to Portugal on behalf of the UK Foreign Office to provide temporary consular assistance to the McCanns with handling the media following the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine McCann who disappeared on 3 May 2007 while on holiday with her family in the resort of Praia da Luz in the Algarve, Portugal. On 17 September, he resigned as director of the Central Office of Information's media monitoring unit to become the McCanns' media spokesman.[5][
|
|