UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: registrar on May 01, 2013, 11:01:39 AM
-
Quite a few threads now seem to contain discussions about linguistic acrobatics rather than the facts of the case of a disappeared child in the Algarve.
If you had the opportunity to ask just ONE question of Goncalo Amaral and/or Kate and Gerry McCann today -what would it be?
Seriously - just a straightforward question pertaining to the facts of the case - not a diatribe dressed up as question - we have enough of those already.
-
What have Carter Ruck said about the feasibility of reigning-in people on Twitter and Forums in light of the McAlpine case?
-
Question to Amaral: Why as the co-ordinator of the investigation did you not follow up on the witness statement of Antonio Castela?
Question to the McCanns: Why as intelligent professionals did you ask Mr. Krügel to bring his miracle machine to the Algarve to locate Madeleine?
-
Registrar - who was Antonio Castela? Sorry - name doesn't ring a bell.
-
Registrar - who was Antonio Castela? Sorry - name doesn't ring a bell.
That's the original story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-520929/Madeleine-police-come-Britain-interview-Tapas-Nine.html
which last year turned to this:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/317837/Madeleine-McCann-was-in-my-taxi-but-police-ignored-me
-
Thank you, Registrar.
ETA: Ahh - the taxi driver. Yes, good question.
-
Thanks Martha,
I was not aware of this at all - like the Taxi Driver's sighting these hold more potential relevance than any NZ/Bosnia etc sightings - months/years after the event IMO
Because they happened close to the time of disappearance
and
on Portuguese soil
-
Debunker - this thread unlike myriad others you have created is NOT about YOU and your precious dictionaries
Do read the OP
I did read the OP and as the first to respond with a clear question:
"What have Carter Ruck said about the feasibility of reigning-in people on Twitter and Forums in light of the McAlpine case?"
-
To Amaral.
If as you claim Jane Tanner positively identified Murat as the man she saw abducting Madeleine, then why did you not feel it was vital to record this momentous/crucial evidence in a Witness statement signed by her as a matter of urgency - when you must have known that without a written, signed statement it was only 'Hearsay' and of no legal use to the investigation. Why, when your officers rang you to ask if she needed to sign anything the answer was 'no' - and she was sent home?
-
To Amaral.
If as you claim Jane Tanner positively identified Murat as the man she saw abducting Madeleine, then why did you not feel it was vital to record this momentous/crucial evidence in a Witness statement signed by her as a matter of urgency - when you must have known that without a written, signed statement it was only 'Hearsay' and of no legal use to the investigation. Why, when your officers rang you to ask if she needed to sign anything the answer was 'no' - and she was sent home?
lack of follow up - quite
-
You asked:
"If you had the opportunity to ask just ONE question of Goncalo Amaral and/or Kate and Gerry McCann today -what would it be?
Seriously - just a straightforward question pertaining to the facts of the case - not a diatribe dressed up as question - we have enough of those already."
One of the 'Facts' of this case is the McCanns stoic and sensible approach to libel and harassment in choosing only the most egregious cases- The Express Group and Tony Bennett amonst them.
You asked what question I would like to ask. I answered.
Simples.
-
To Amaral:
Admittedly your colleague PJ Inspector Dias wrote these words after you had been removed. But he clearly drew on the same source material as was available to you and said:
Eddie, the dog with an advanced training to detect mortal victims (E.V.R.D.), searches and locates human remains and body fluids, including blood, in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was done with human blood and decaying piglets that were born dead. The importance of this training is that the dog learnt to identify the odour of a decaying body that is not food. This guaranties that the dog ignores the 'bacon sandwich' and the 'kebab', etc. that are always present in the environment. Besides that the dog will not alert to a meal prepared at home or on any other place. For instance, the dog will be efficient on searching a cadaver in café where the clients can be seated eating a bacon sandwich. As a complement of this training, the dog receives an additional training in the USA, in association with the FBI, in which will be used exclusively human remains' (sic) (page 2493 and 2494).
This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'
These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.
It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.
In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
Inspector Dias clearly understood what he read.
Why didn't you?
-
To Amaral.
If as you claim Jane Tanner positively identified Murat as the man she saw abducting Madeleine, then why did you not feel it was vital to record this momentous/crucial evidence in a Witness statement signed by her as a matter of urgency - when you must have known that without a written, signed statement it was only 'Hearsay' and of no legal use to the investigation. Why, when your officers rang you to ask if she needed to sign anything the answer was 'no' - and she was sent home?
Good question Benice. I wouldn't expect an answer from Amaral though as his crystal ball is indisposed at the moment. He had a great knack of putting 4 and 4 together and getting 44 instead of 8. Alas and it was all going so well for him at one time.
-
To Amaral:
Admittedly your colleague PJ Inspector Dias wrote these words after you had been removed. But he clearly drew on the same source material as was available to you and said:
Eddie, the dog with an advanced training to detect mortal victims (E.V.R.D.), searches and locates human remains and body fluids, including blood, in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was done with human blood and decaying piglets that were born dead. The importance of this training is that the dog learnt to identify the odour of a decaying body that is not food. This guaranties that the dog ignores the 'bacon sandwich' and the 'kebab', etc. that are always present in the environment. Besides that the dog will not alert to a meal prepared at home or on any other place. For instance, the dog will be efficient on searching a cadaver in café where the clients can be seated eating a bacon sandwich. As a complement of this training, the dog receives an additional training in the USA, in association with the FBI, in which will be used exclusively human remains' (sic) (page 2493 and 2494).
This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'
These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.
It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.
In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
Inspector Dias clearly understood what he read.
Why didn't you?
The simple answer is that he did but didn't want to ruin his credibility as a master investigator. Amaral wanted the McCanns to be guilty, he craved the publicity. His bosses could see how he had misread the evidence, he crossed the line and put his own theories before that of the evidence.
One thing I will add to those stated comments above. The PJ are wrong to state that Eddie only alerted to human blood and corpses. There are many other substances that he would also react to. Time for a new myth?
-
This might not be palatable to some
but faeces is another substance the pooches react to
-
quote
Decomp Dog
The term "decomposition dog" was started by the NecroSearch group. They felt it better describes how dogs will indicate decomposed human scent which includes blood, feces, urine or other material with human scent on it.
unquote
http://www.k9forensic.org/faq.html
-
Why were you so certain on May 4th, they were guilty of harming Madeleine?
Why didn't you once meet the McCann's?
Why did you lie in your book?
-
Why were you so certain on May 4th, they were guilty of harming Madeleine?
Why didn't you once meet the McCann's?
Why did you lie in your book?
IMO - as plain and simple as machoism - still rife in these parts
pretty female English person - with a proper doctorate (Kate) taking no BS from alpha male, Amaral
that's where the hatred lies in my view
simple human urges - Amaral lost the plot on the night he took the call
and lashed out
under Salazar that would have earned him a medal - every time
shame the entire media of the 21st century were watching his every move - and he couldn't get away with the m-word
Not getting biblical on you guys - but pride comes before the fall
And Amaral fell mightily
A victim of hubris
-
Is it correct to state that dogs like the former Eddie will or should react to any human waste material regardless of whether it came from a live or a dead body?
So any poo left behind by children on an apartment floor will cause a reaction??
-
Is it correct to state that dogs like the former Eddie will or should react to any human waste material regardless of whether it came from a live or a dead body?
So any poo left behind by children on an apartment floor will cause a reaction??
No.
I am skeptical about the dogs abilities, but such a criticism is not supported by evidence.
It is an unsupported and incorrect belief.
-
Is it correct to state that dogs like the former Eddie will or should react to any human waste material regardless of whether it came from a live or a dead body?
So any poo left behind by children on an apartment floor will cause a reaction??
No.
I am skeptical about the dogs abilities, but such a criticism is not supported by evidence.
It is an unsupported and incorrect belief.
Oh dear, debunker,
you have not done your homework
here, just for you in simple English:
http://www.rsc.org/images/TM0512-putrescine-cadaverine_tcm18-221656.pdf
-
To Amaral.
If as you claim Jane Tanner positively identified Murat as the man she saw abducting Madeleine, then why did you not feel it was vital to record this momentous/crucial evidence in a Witness statement signed by her as a matter of urgency - when you must have known that without a written, signed statement it was only 'Hearsay' and of no legal use to the investigation. Why, when your officers rang you to ask if she needed to sign anything the answer was 'no' - and she was sent home?
Good question Benice. I wouldn't expect an answer from Amaral though as his crystal ball is indisposed at the moment. He had a great knack of putting 4 and 4 together and getting 44 instead of 8. Alas and it was all going so well for him at one time.
Indeed. IMO he didn't ask for JT to be brought to the police station PDQ because his officers told him that she had NOT been able to identify Murat and a statement confirming that fact was not what he wanted and was of no use to him. However, without a statement he could say anything he liked to Murat during interrogation and I strongly suspect Murat was told that JT HAD positively identified him - just as Gerry was falsely told that 100% DNA match to Madeleine in the car had been found by the dogs.
Amaral has continued to make this claim about JT during TV interviews and in his book, but has never explained why he did not think it necessary for what was probably THE most important evidence obtained against Murat to justify making him an Arguido - to be recorded in a formal witness statement.
There is no mention of this alleged positive identification by JT in the AG's report - in the section where all the evidence gathered against Murat was listed. That can only be because it does not - and never did exist.
-
Is it correct to state that dogs like the former Eddie will or should react to any human waste material regardless of whether it came from a live or a dead body?
So any poo left behind by children on an apartment floor will cause a reaction??
No.
I am skeptical about the dogs abilities, but such a criticism is not supported by evidence.
It is an unsupported and incorrect belief.
Oh dear, debunker,
you have not done your homework
here, just for you in simple English:
http://www.rsc.org/images/TM0512-putrescine-cadaverine_tcm18-221656.pdf
Give me strength!!!!!
I know that there is Putrescine and Cadaverine in faeces. Of course there would be as it is decayed organic matter.
The world is full of decayed organic matter.
Different types of matter have different complexes of chemicals beyond simple Putrescine and Cadaverine (maybe 400 plus organic molecules in all)
Each substance gives off a particular profile of such a complex scent. Dogs are trained to concentrate first on the odor of rotted piglets (human and porcine solids and fluids are chemically very similar) and the dog is trained to ignore other profiles of say dead dog, or road kill or 'poo'. Finally an attempt is made to differentiate between Human and Porcine profiles.
The problem that this leaves is that semen, blood, menstrual flow, putrefying flesh and so on of humans shares a very similar series of profiles to human cadaver odor.
-
To Amaral.
If as you claim Jane Tanner positively identified Murat as the man she saw abducting Madeleine, then why did you not feel it was vital to record this momentous/crucial evidence in a Witness statement signed by her as a matter of urgency - when you must have known that without a written, signed statement it was only 'Hearsay' and of no legal use to the investigation. Why, when your officers rang you to ask if she needed to sign anything the answer was 'no' - and she was sent home?
Good question Benice. I wouldn't expect an answer from Amaral though as his crystal ball is indisposed at the moment. He had a great knack of putting 4 and 4 together and getting 44 instead of 8. Alas and it was all going so well for him at one time.
Indeed. IMO he didn't ask for JT to be brought to the police station PDQ because his officers told him that she had NOT been able to identify Murat and a statement confirming that fact was not what he wanted and was of no use to him. However, without a statement he could say anything he liked to Murat during interrogation and I strongly suspect Murat was told that JT HAD positively identified him - just as Gerry was falsely told that 100% DNA match to Madeleine in the car had been found by the dogs.
Amaral has continued to make this claim about JT during TV interviews and in his book, but has never explained why he did not think it necessary for what was probably THE most important evidence obtained against Murat to justify making him an Arguido - to be recorded in a formal witness statement.
There is no mention of this alleged positive identification by JT in the AG's report - in the section where all the evidence gathered against Murat was listed. That can only be because it does not - and never did exist.
If you read the account of the "sighting", it was a farce from start to finish. En route to the van from which Jane was to make the sighting, they actually bumped in to Robert Murat, introduced themselves and said "helo". The sighting was probably nul and void from that point.
But in further farce, at the exact point that Jane was about to make the sighting, a car pulled out and blocked her view, leaving in question whether she ever actually made a sighting at all ...
-
Is it correct to state that dogs like the former Eddie will or should react to any human waste material regardless of whether it came from a live or a dead body?
So any poo left behind by children on an apartment floor will cause a reaction??
No.
I am skeptical about the dogs abilities, but such a criticism is not supported by evidence.
It is an unsupported and incorrect belief.
Oh dear, debunker,
you have not done your homework
here, just for you in simple English:
http://www.rsc.org/images/TM0512-putrescine-cadaverine_tcm18-221656.pdf
Give me strength!!!!!
I know that there is Putrescine and Cadaverine in faeces. Of course there would be as it is decayed organic matter.
The world is full of decayed organic matter.
Different types of matter have different complexes of chemicals beyond simple Putrescine and Cadaverine (maybe 400 plus organic molecules in all)
Each substance gives off a particular profile of such a complex scent. Dogs are trained to concentrate first on the odor of rotted piglets (human and porcine solids and fluids are chemically very similar) and the dog is trained to ignore other profiles of say dead dog, or road kill or 'poo'. Finally an attempt is made to differentiate between Human and Porcine profiles.
The problem that this leaves is that semen, blood, menstrual flow, putrefying flesh and so on of humans shares a very similar series of profiles to human cadaver odor.
That's a yes then?
-
Is it correct to state that dogs like the former Eddie will or should react to any human waste material regardless of whether it came from a live or a dead body?
So any poo left behind by children on an apartment floor will cause a reaction??
No.
I am skeptical about the dogs abilities, but such a criticism is not supported by evidence.
It is an unsupported and incorrect belief.
Oh dear, debunker,
you have not done your homework
here, just for you in simple English:
http://www.rsc.org/images/TM0512-putrescine-cadaverine_tcm18-221656.pdf
Give me strength!!!!!
I know that there is Putrescine and Cadaverine in faeces. Of course there would be as it is decayed organic matter.
The world is full of decayed organic matter.
Different types of matter have different complexes of chemicals beyond simple Putrescine and Cadaverine (maybe 400 plus organic molecules in all)
Each substance gives off a particular profile of such a complex scent. Dogs are trained to concentrate first on the odor of rotted piglets (human and porcine solids and fluids are chemically very similar) and the dog is trained to ignore other profiles of say dead dog, or road kill or 'poo'. Finally an attempt is made to differentiate between Human and Porcine profiles.
The problem that this leaves is that semen, blood, menstrual flow, putrefying flesh and so on of humans shares a very similar series of profiles to human cadaver odor.
That's a yes then?
It's a no. Human faces (unless from a cannibal) would not have the human profile of odor, but the profile of the odors of the animals consumed.
-
btw it's faeces (British spelling)
or feces (US spelling)
you don't read many books I take it?
-
Isn't odour a British word and odor a US one?
-
Isn't odour a British word and odor a US one?
correct
-
btw it's faeces (British spelling)
or feces (US spelling)
you don't read many books I take it?
Only sitting in a study with maybe 30,000 of the b....rs.
You are silly.
-
btw it's faeces (British spelling)
or feces (US spelling)
you don't read many books I take it?
your post makes no sense - but this isn't the first time
.
-
Is it correct to state that dogs like the former Eddie will or should react to any human waste material regardless of whether it came from a live or a dead body?
So any poo left behind by children on an apartment floor will cause a reaction??
No idea. It may depend on whether the dog was desensitised or not and whether he was in focused work mode or not.
Eddie clearly reacted to the sex clean-up tissues in Jersey.
-
Question to the McCann: why 'Team McCann' - what's the wider issue?
Question to Amaral: you gave Murat a hard time - you never spoke to G&K - WHY
-
Is it correct to state that dogs like the former Eddie will or should react to any human waste material regardless of whether it came from a live or a dead body?
So any poo left behind by children on an apartment floor will cause a reaction??
No idea. It may depend on whether the dog was desensitised or not and whether he was in focused work mode or not.
Eddie clearly reacted to the sex clean-up tissues in Jersey.
Sec cleanup tissue have human profile breakdown odor- similar to human profile putrefaction odor.
-
I'd like to ask Kate why she thought the brown stain she discovered on Madeleine's pyjama top on Thursday morning was relevent
She has mentioned it repeatedly, and also recounts it in her book
Why would, what she assumed to be a simple tea stain, be of concern to her since ?
What does she think the stain may have been that could be of such relevence that it bears repeating ?
I don't why that troubles me ... but it does
-
I'd like to ask Kate why she thought the brown stain she discovered on Madeleine's pyjama top on Thursday morning was relevent
She has mentioned it repeatedly, and also recounts it in her book
Why would, what she assumed to be a simple tea stain, be of concern to her since ?
What does she think the stain may have been that could be of such relevence that it bears repeating ?
I don't why that troubles me ... but it does
She's obviously given a lot of thought to that stain. I think that's because she has not been able to establish exactly - i.e. 100% - in her mind what it was or how it got there. In her circumstances you would go over and over anything - (no matter how small) for which you were not able to find a reason which proved conclusively to yourself that it was an 'innocent' occurrence. IMO
-
I'd like to ask Kate why she thought the brown stain she discovered on Madeleine's pyjama top on Thursday morning was relevent
She has mentioned it repeatedly, and also recounts it in her book
Why would, what she assumed to be a simple tea stain, be of concern to her since ?
What does she think the stain may have been that could be of such relevence that it bears repeating ?
I don't why that troubles me ... but it does
She's obviously given a lot of thought to that stain. I think that's because she has not been able to establish exactly - i.e. 100% - in her mind what it was or how it got there. In her circumstances you would go over and over anything - (no matter how small) for which you were not able to find a reason which proved conclusively to yourself that it was an 'innocent' occurrence. IMO
I always got the feeling when Kate repeatedly mentioned the 'brown stain' that she noticed that morning, she was implying it was was of significance
I know that the McCanns have suggested the abductor may have been in the apartment the night before ( and had been the cause of Madeleine ans Sean waking and crying ) and I had the feeling that the 'brown stain' was being tied in with that in some way
In what way though ? ... what does Kate think the stain was ? ... blood ?
-
Doubt it was blood. How could that be? Unless it was from a noseblood, which the Mccanns have said Madeleine did have, that might fit.
To relate it to a dry run abduction the night before, would suggest a use of drugging. Do any of these leave brown stains? Chloroform I thought was colourless? If a drug was used, then Madeleine wouldn't have woke up crying and the abductor would have been away with her? Pass.