Author Topic: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence  (Read 19246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2018, 11:24:02 PM »
The cadavar dog Eddie also alerts to the dried blood from a living person.  That could have caused it. 
Also the brought home from hospital clothes and belongings from a deceased resident who was Tasmin Silences Grandpa could have caused the alerts ... as could his ashes if his widow stored them at home.
 
ETA:  And as Misty pointed out, Eddie was trained on dead piglets


Do you have any evidence that the grandparents of Tamsin Silence were even living in 5a when her grandfather died ?

Further if Eddie had alerted in the bedroom to dried blood Keela would have alerted too.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 11:51:48 AM by John »
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2018, 11:24:25 PM »
You'll find some tools here which are quite good at hitting a nail on the head.  ?>)()<

A Brummagem Screwdriver ?

At least I passed up on the "skiving tool" joke.....oops it appears I didn't. ?{)(**
We shall now have tea and speak of absurdities.

Offline sadie

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2018, 11:29:31 PM »
The cadavar dog Eddie also alerts to the dried blood from a living person.  That could have caused it. 
Also the brought home from hospital clothes and belongings from a deceased resident who was Tasmin Silences Grandpa could have caused the alerts ... as could his ashes if his widow stored them at home.
 
ETA:  And as Misty pointed out, Eddie was trained on dead piglets


But as Davel demonstrates from Grimes reports,  the alleged alerts need to be confirmed by corroborating  evidence.  There was no corraborating evidence, so the alerts are NOT confirmed

So to claim the alerts, were to cadaver odour is incorrect.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 11:52:15 AM by John »

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2018, 11:35:26 PM »
But as Davel demonstrates from Grimes reports,  the alleged alerts need to be confirmed by corroborating  evidence.  There was no corraborating evidence, so the alerts are NOT confirmed

So to claim the alerts, were to cadaver odour is incorrect.

Please do not repost claims you can not substantiate.
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline misty

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2018, 11:37:06 PM »
There is absolutely no forensic evidence linking the alerts in any way to the disappearance of Madeleine.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2018, 11:41:21 PM »
There is absolutely no forensic evidence linking the alerts in any way to the disappearance of Madeleine.

Logic dictates that when a cadaver dog alerts in an apartment where a child has disappeared those alerts and the disappearance are statistically more likely to be connected than not.
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15733
  • Total likes: 2431
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2018, 11:46:27 PM »
Logic dictates that when a cadaver dog alerts in an apartment where a child has disappeared those alerts and the disappearance are statistically more likely to be connected than not.
Even DNA results are expressed in statistical terms, so why not dog alerts, except there will be no science backing up your conclusion.
What are you doing to find Madeleine?

Offline misty

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2018, 11:48:23 PM »
Logic dictates that when a cadaver dog alerts in an apartment where a child has disappeared those alerts and the disappearance are statistically more likely to be connected than not.

In this case, statistics & logic are not backed up by forensic evidence & circumstances.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2018, 11:59:11 PM »
In this case, statistics & logic are not backed up by forensic evidence & circumstances.

What forensics would verify death if Madeleine had met with an accident in or outside the apartment where she had lived for six days ? As to circumstances, until we know the truth of what happened that night we can make no judgement on whether a death was possible in or outside the apartment.
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline sadie

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #39 on: March 04, 2018, 12:00:39 AM »
Do you have any evidence that the grandparents of Tamsin Silence were even living in 5a when her grandfather died ?

Further if Eddie had alerted in the bedroom to dried blood Keela would have alerted too.

Could have been to the scent of Tasmins Grandpas ashes, which a widow in a foreign country would probably find very comforting if by her bedside.  She would feel his presence near her IMO

As Davel reminded us ... No forensic back up, anyway and that is what matters.

You are clutching at straws Faith.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #40 on: March 04, 2018, 12:13:25 AM »
Snip......Could have been to the scent of Tasmins Grandpas ashes, which a widow in a foreign country would probably find very comforting if by her bedside.  She would feel his presence near her IMO


Again do you have any evidence that Tamsin Silenceís grandfather was even in Portugal when he died ?
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline misty

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #41 on: March 04, 2018, 12:34:44 AM »
What forensics would verify death if Madeleine had met with an accident in or outside the apartment where she had lived for six days ? As to circumstances, until we know the truth of what happened that night we can make no judgement on whether a death was possible in or outside the apartment.

How can you therefore apply logic & statistics to unverified circumstances & absence of evidence relating to any accident or unlawful incident?

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #42 on: March 04, 2018, 12:51:29 AM »
How can you therefore apply logic & statistics to unverified circumstances & absence of evidence relating to any accident or unlawful incident?

I said nothing about statistics. Logic dictates that if a cadaver dog alerts in a certain location and in that location a child has gone missing then the two are more probably than not linked. There may be no collectible forensics to prove that the death occurred but the alert is nonetheless indicative and will certainly be given its due weight by any investigating police force.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 01:05:22 AM by Faithlilly »
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline misty

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2018, 01:22:02 AM »
I said nothing about statistics. Logic dictates that if a cadaver dog alerts in a certain location and in that location a child has gone missing then the two are more probably than not linked. There may be no collectible forensics to prove that the death occurred but the alert is nonetheless indicative and will certainly be given its due weight by any investigating police force.

You referred to statistics in post #35.
How can you apply logic & statistics to any alert in a residence over a decade old contaminated by multiple unknown occupants?

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #44 on: March 04, 2018, 01:32:42 AM »
You referred to statistics in post #35.
How can you apply logic & statistics to any alert in a residence over a decade old contaminated by multiple unknown occupants?

The above was also true of Muratís villa and the various other locations Eddie was taken to yet at none of those did he alert to the scent he was trained to find. Can you give a logical explanation for that ?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 01:35:54 AM by Faithlilly »
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson