Author Topic: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?  (Read 11246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9595
Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« on: July 27, 2014, 02:15:34 PM »
I have asked the question many times and have never been given an answer; so as this thread is about dogs I shall ask it again ...

Does anyone know why the internet videos we have seen of the dogs working in the apartment, the villa, the garage and the gymnasium ... do not have a time and date stamp?

Some have Levy's copyright imprinted and some have been edited by a well known poster.

If these were the tapes filmed at the time which would be used for evidence ... why is there no PJ stamp on them?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 05:15:01 PM by Admin »
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Faithlilly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2014, 02:53:50 PM »
I have asked the question many times and have never been given an answer; so as this thread is about dogs I shall ask it again ...

Does anyone know why the internet videos we have seen of the dogs working in the apartment, the villa, the garage and the gymnasium ... do not have a time and date stamp?

Some have Levy's copyright imprinted and some have been edited by a well known poster.

If these were the tapes filmed at the time which would be used for evidence ... why is there no PJ stamp on them?

Why do you think they have no date stamp Brietta ?

Do you think they've been doctored ?
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'

Online ferryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2014, 02:58:51 PM »
Why do you think they have no date stamp Brietta ?

Do you think they've been doctored ?

There's no question that the video of the inspection at the villa was doctored.

At one time, it showed Eddie, literally, playing with the toy, picking it up, tossing it in the air.

Then that sequence disappeared ...
Why is Victoria Derbybshire persona non grata on this board?

Offline Faithlilly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2014, 03:12:42 PM »
There's no question that the video of the inspection at the villa was doctored.

At one time, it showed Eddie, literally, playing with the toy, picking it up, tossing it in the air.

Then that sequence disappeared ...

The PJ and SY have all the footage ferryman so I wouldn't worry too much.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'

Online ferryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2014, 03:20:15 PM »
The PJ and SY have all the footage ferryman so I wouldn't worry too much.

So you agree that what Levy got hold of has been doctored?
Why is Victoria Derbybshire persona non grata on this board?

Offline Faithlilly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2014, 03:22:42 PM »
So you agree that what Levy got hold of has been doctored?

No I don't. I'm saying that it doesn't matter either way.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'

Offline Brietta

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9595
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2014, 06:04:17 PM »
Why do you think they have no date stamp Brietta ?

Do you think they've been doctored ?

I have asked why there is nothing on these videos which authenticates them as the property of the PJ.

If making a presentation to a criminal court would such tapes be admissible as evidence without an original date and time stamp data?
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Faithlilly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2014, 06:10:49 PM »
I have asked why there is nothing on these videos which authenticates them as the property of the PJ.

If making a presentation to a criminal court would such tapes be admissible as evidence without an original date and time stamp data?

The AG must have seen the originals and been perfectly happy with their provenance so I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about their admissibility in a criminal trial Brietta.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'

Online davel

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 19025
  • oh Lord its hard to be humble
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2014, 06:14:04 PM »
The AG must have seen the originals and been perfectly happy with their provenance so I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about their admissibility in a criminal trial Brietta.

The videos are unimportant ...grime has made an official report to the police saying that without forensic corroboration the alerts have no evidential reliability
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Offline Faithlilly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2014, 06:19:33 PM »
The videos are unimportant ...grime has made an official report to the police saying that without forensic corroboration the alerts have no evidential reliability

Perhaps then you should let Brietta know. He/she seems to feel they are.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'

Offline Brietta

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9595
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2014, 06:30:06 PM »
The AG must have seen the originals and been perfectly happy with their provenance so I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about their admissibility in a criminal trial Brietta.

Neither the originals or the tapes we have seen will ever be seen in a criminal trial Faithlilly, but how on earth did you know I am pretty?
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Online davel

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 19025
  • oh Lord its hard to be humble
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2014, 06:33:08 PM »
Perhaps then you should let Brietta know. He/she seems to feel they are.

I'M not bothered what others think
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Offline Faithlilly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2014, 06:36:51 PM »
Neither the originals or the tapes we have seen will ever be seen in a criminal trial Faithlilly, but how on earth did you know I am pretty?

Aren't all supporters pretty Brietta, and moral ?
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'

Offline John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11862
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2014, 04:07:27 AM »
I have asked the question many times and have never been given an answer; so as this thread is about dogs I shall ask it again ...

Does anyone know why the internet videos we have seen of the dogs working in the apartment, the villa, the garage and the gymnasium ... do not have a time and date stamp?

Some have Levy's copyright imprinted and some have been edited by a well known poster.

If these were the tapes filmed at the time which would be used for evidence ... why is there no PJ stamp on them?

bump
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Jean-Pierre

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • Newbie
Re: Was the video footage of the dog inspections 'doctored'?
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2014, 06:41:07 AM »
I have asked the question many times and have never been given an answer; so as this thread is about dogs I shall ask it again ...

Does anyone know why the internet videos we have seen of the dogs working in the apartment, the villa, the garage and the gymnasium ... do not have a time and date stamp?

Some have Levy's copyright imprinted and some have been edited by a well known poster.

If these were the tapes filmed at the time which would be used for evidence ... why is there no PJ stamp on them?

The tapes circulating on the internet are clearly doctored, and have the name "Duarte Levy" which should ring alarm bells even in the most dedicated "anti". 

I have no doubt there will be an official, unedited tape (much longer of course and showing the true sequence of events), with proper date and time stamps and where the provenance is certain.  (if you look at one of the Levy tapes of the appartment search there is another video camera being used, by what looks like an official)

And it is possible that this is one of the reasons why the McCanns have been released from their arugido status and are apparently no longer persons of interest to the enquiry as far as the PJ and NSY are concerned.

Meanwhile, the Levy tapes will continue to be trotted out as "evidence" by gullible posters who fondly imagine that conclusions can be drawn from them.