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: Neeley on May 10, 2013, 11:48:31 PM
-
What do you think happened to Madeleine?
-
What do you think happened to Madeleine?
Madeleine McCann more likely than not, according to the PGR, died, Neeley, it's sad because she looked like someone you'd have loved. And me too.
Nobody killed her, according to me. A monster keeps her a prisoner, according to you.
I'm not sure about the saddest.
-
What do you think happened to Madeleine?
Madeleine McCann more likely than not, according to the PGR, died, Neeley, it's sad because she looked like someone you'd have loved. And me too.
Nobody killed her, according to me. A monster keeps her a prisoner, according to you.
I'm not sure about the saddest.
maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural portugal or even spain?
-
maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural portugal or even spain?
I don't believe a loving family would steal, buy or adopt a child who has loving parents.
-
maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural portugal or even spain?
I don't believe a loving family would steal, buy or adopt a child who has loving parents.
not necessarily.there are all sorts of families in the world from many ethnic backgrounds and beliefs and many would go to extreme lengths to have a child like maddie.
-
Listen to Bridget OD :
Madeleine must have been there, but I couldn't distinguish her from the others. They all looked the same - all blonde, all pink and pretty.
Madeleine turned into a special child only because she vanished.
-
Really no idea
Every theory and possibility throws up more questions than answers
-
Really no idea
Every theory and possibility throws up more questions than answers
Thought-provoking post, icabod. We just do not know. I do believe now that Madeleine was abducted, and I will hold my hand up and admit that I was influenced in 2007 by UK newspaper stories and have learnt a lesson from my mistake. Those headlines made me think that Madeleine's Mum and Dad were involved, but I soon realised that it was just not possible, logistically or otherwise.
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile offender (having more than a type of crime in his repertory). He acted alone, on the opportunity, without a car or similar. The crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", or the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile thief. He acted alone, after seeing the opportunity, without a car or similar, and the crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
Good post, Heriberto. Like Milly, I am also hoping that Madeleine is living with a new family and being cared for and loved. But of course this is not right, and I am hoping against hope that one day Madeleine will return home to her real Mum and Dad, brother and sister, and loving extended family.
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile thief. He acted alone, after seeing the opportunity, without a car or similar, and the crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
Good post, Heriberto. Like Milly, I am also hoping that Madeleine is living with a new family and being cared for and loved. But of course this is not right, and I am hoping against hope that one day Madeleine will return home to her real Mum and Dad, brother and sister, and loving extended family.
Of course the hypothetical loving family commited a crime (taking or buying Madeleine). I always believe they would be persons of a very low educational background, rural and excluded people ...
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile thief. He acted alone, after seeing the opportunity, without a car or similar, and the crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
Good post, Heriberto. Like Milly, I am also hoping that Madeleine is living with a new family and being cared for and loved. But of course this is not right, and I am hoping against hope that one day Madeleine will return home to her real Mum and Dad, brother and sister, and loving extended family.
Of course the hypothetical loving family commited a crime (taking or buying Madeleine). I always believe they would be persons of a very low educational background, rural and excluded people ...
Yes, the hypothetical loving family did commit a terrible crime by taking Madeleine away from her Mummy and Daddy but the alternative is too horrible to countenance. Sorry if that is a bit graphic, but just clinging to some hope that Madeleine is with a caring family.
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile thief. He acted alone, after seeing the opportunity, without a car or similar, and the crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
Good post, Heriberto. Like Milly, I am also hoping that Madeleine is living with a new family and being cared for and loved. But of course this is not right, and I am hoping against hope that one day Madeleine will return home to her real Mum and Dad, brother and sister, and loving extended family.
Of course the hypothetical loving family commited a crime (taking or buying Madeleine). I always believe they would be persons of a very low educational background, rural and excluded people ...
Yes, the hypothetical loving family did commit a terrible crime by taking Madeleine away from her Mummy and Daddy but the alternative is too horrible to countenance. Sorry if that is a bit graphic, but just clinging to some hope that Madeleine is with a caring family.
Poor you that you have to countenance such a horrific existence. Poorer still is Madeleine who may have to endure it due to her parents 'mistake'.
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile thief. He acted alone, after seeing the opportunity, without a car or similar, and the crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
Good post, Heriberto. Like Milly, I am also hoping that Madeleine is living with a new family and being cared for and loved. But of course this is not right, and I am hoping against hope that one day Madeleine will return home to her real Mum and Dad, brother and sister, and loving extended family.
Of course the hypothetical loving family commited a crime (taking or buying Madeleine). I always believe they would be persons of a very low educational background, rural and excluded people ...
Yes, the hypothetical loving family did commit a terrible crime by taking Madeleine away from her Mummy and Daddy but the alternative is too horrible to countenance. Sorry if that is a bit graphic, but just clinging to some hope that Madeleine is with a caring family.
Poor you that you have to countenance such a horrific existence. Poorer still is Madeleine who may have to endure it due to her parents 'mistake'.
Can you not find it in your heart to have a modicum of basic decent human empathy for Kate and Gerry McCann? Are you going to use the "neglect" stick to beat them for ever and ever?
-
I believe she was abducted as Heri does but I do not go with the opportunistic approach as there is evidence that the apartment was being carefully watched. The question as to whether one abductor or more was involved is a difficult one to solve because of a lack of evidence in Praia da Luz but we know that there were gangs operating in Portugal who were snatching children. I also don't go with the abductor carrying a child across town for nearly an hour scenario.
-
I believe she was abducted as Heri does but I do not go with the opportunistic approach as there is evidence that the apartment was being carefully watched. The question as to whether one abductor or more was involved is a difficult one to solve because of a lack of evidence in Praia da Luz but we know that there were gangs operating in Portugal who were snatching children. I also don't go with the abductor carrying a child across town for nearly an hour scenario.
I wasn't aware that there were gangs snatching children in Portugal when Madeleine went missing
What do you know about them ?
-
The ones which didn't get away...
(http://i.imgur.com/SNKqrQ4.jpg)
27 February 2011
MADELEINE McCann’s parents hope a major police breakthrough against human trafficking in Portugal’s Algarve might lead them to their missing daughter. We can reveal how, in a huge bust earlier this month, 12 men were arrested on suspicion of trafficking women and children and forcing them into the sex trade. And it is hoped they could have vital information on Madeleine’s case and may even know who took her from the resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.
Last night Madeleine’s parents, doctors Kate and Gerry McCann, both 42, were anxiously waiting to hear of any new lines of inquiry.
The raid, codenamed Operation Roadbook, saw immigration officials from Portugal’s SEF border security agency and police join forces to smash the network. According to detectives, 30 young women, including several under-age girls, were rescued as eight properties and 11 cars were raided across the Algarve and Aveiro, in the north of Portugal. The SEF said they believe the ring to be responsible for the sexual exploitation of “many” young women in the Algarve. In a statement they said: “The network used very violent physical and psychological coercion to force dozens of young women into prostitution. “Some of the women were found to be under-age while others had been the victims of the forced administration of narcotics.” According to the SEF, the gang constantly moved the girls to different locations, both in Portugal and outside the country, where they would be sold and traded. “The movement of the prostitutes between different networks hindered the police and judicial authorities in being able to conduct a criminal investigation. “But authorities in Spain, Italy, the UK and Germany co-operated with us with the assistance of Europol in this case.”
A police source said missing persons cases in the Algarve were being looked at as a result of the sting. Madeleine, from Rothley, Leics, was just three when she vanished from the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in the Algarve nearly four years ago. Investigators trying to track down the missing girl have long suspected her to be the victim of a professional human trafficking network. A source said: “Even if these men were not involved they may have information about who was and the channels used.” The 12 men, who are all EU citizens, are being held in custody with court hearings taking place in the main Algarve tourist city of Albufeira.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/178759NEW-MADDIE-HOPENEW-MADDIE-HOPE
-
The ones which didn't get away...
MADELEINE McCann’s parents hope a major police breakthrough against human trafficking in Portugal’s Algarve might lead them to their missing daughter. We can reveal how, in a huge bust earlier this month, 12 men were arrested on suspicion of trafficking women and children and forcing them into the sex trade. And it is hoped they could have vital information on Madeleine’s case and may even know who took her from the resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.
Last night Madeleine’s parents, doctors Kate and Gerry McCann, both 42, were anxiously waiting to hear of any new lines of inquiry.
The raid, codenamed Operation Roadbook, saw immigration officials from Portugal’s SEF border security agency and police join forces to smash the network. According to detectives, 30 young women, including several under-age girls, were rescued as eight properties and 11 cars were raided across the Algarve and Aveiro, in the north of Portugal. The SEF said they believe the ring to be responsible for the sexual exploitation of “many” young women in the Algarve. In a statement they said: “The network used very violent physical and psychological coercion to force dozens of young women into prostitution. “Some of the women were found to be under-age while others had been the victims of the forced administration of narcotics.” According to the SEF, the gang constantly moved the girls to different locations, both in Portugal and outside the country, where they would be sold and traded. “The movement of the prostitutes between different networks hindered the police and judicial authorities in being able to conduct a criminal investigation. “But authorities in Spain, Italy, the UK and Germany co-operated with us with the assistance of Europol in this case.”
A police source said missing persons cases in the Algarve were being looked at as a result of the sting. Madeleine, from Rothley, Leics, was just three when she vanished from the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in the Algarve nearly four years ago. Investigators trying to track down the missing girl have long suspected her to be the victim of a professional human trafficking network. A source said: “Even if these men were not involved they may have information about who was and the channels used.” The 12 men, who are all EU citizens, are being held in custody with court hearings taking place in the main Algarve tourist city of Albufeira.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/178759NEW-MADDIE-HOPENEW-MADDIE-HOPE
Thanks John ... that's quite scarey !
Do we know what happened following the arrests ?
-
And here is another one...
The man who appeared at the frontier control desk at Faro airport looked suspiciously familiar to the Portuguese official checking passports and travel documents as passengers waited to board a British Airways flight to London.
Dressed in the latest, most expensive, branded sports clothes, fit-looking, with a shaven head, cropped beard and accompanied by three children, the official recognised him as a passenger who had caught the same flight a week earlier.
In fact, the official realised, this was Pedro Miguel da Costa Damba, the very same Portuguese-Angolan man who had sparked a series of urgent phone calls to Gatwick airport the previous Saturday.
On that occasion, with the flight already in the air, the official had decided to double-check the documents being carried by two children travelling with Damba. A phone call to the home of one of them revealed that 12-year-old Ana Catarina Caetano Costa, who was supposedly on the plane with Damba, was actually sitting at home with her mother. The girl's ID card had gone missing two years earlier, the mother, Ana Cristina, explained over the phone. And no, her mother said, she had not signed a letter giving someone with Ana Catarina's names permission to travel to Britain.
Despite a frantic round of phone calls and faxes sent to Gatwick the previous week, Damba and his smuggler's hoard of small children managed to slip past British immigration authorities, never to be seen or heard of again.
This time, however, things would not work so well for Damba. Inspector Isabel Salgado, of the frontiers and foreigners service, arrested him after checking the papers and deciding that three Angolan children and two grown-up women with Damba all had false documents. Checking through airport records, she soon discovered he had bought 88 Faro-to-Gatwick tickets over the eight previous months.
Lucrative
He had travelled several times a month, smuggling small groups of children into the UK, pretending they were his own or were going to a British soccer training camp. With that arrest on December 16 2000, the lucrative career of a man who Portuguese authorities now suspect started sneaking children through the "EU citizens only" channels of UK airports in 1998, came to a sudden end.
"He must have made 20 to 30 trips just in those [eight] months but we managed to get information that he started doing journeys in 1998 and kept going in 1999," Inspector Salgado told the Guardian.
14 December 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/dec/14/childrensservices.childprotection
-
Do we know what happened following the arrests ?
30 Romanian women, some young butnot little girls, forced into prostitution.
http://www.algarveresident.com/0-40336/algarve/human-trafficking-network-brought-down
-
Do we know what happened following the arrests ?
30 Romanian women, some young butnot little girls, forced into prostitution.
http://www.algarveresident.com/0-40336/algarve/human-trafficking-network-brought-down
Is there a difference between under-age and little girls to your way of thinking Anne? >@@(*&)
It wasn't too long ago you were telling me that there are no children missing in Portugal?
-
Do we know what happened following the arrests ?
30 Romanian women, some young butnot little girls, forced into prostitution.
http://www.algarveresident.com/0-40336/algarve/human-trafficking-network-brought-down
Is there a difference between under-age and little girls to your way of thinking Anne? >@@(*&)
It wasn't too long ago you were telling me that there are no children missing in Portugal?
Yes, John. These "under-age" were no children nor were abducted from bed. Many young girls from the East countries of Europe are still attracted with false promises to become models or movie stars, then drugged and sent to prostitution in rich cities of West Europe.
-
It wasn't too long ago you were telling me that there are no children missing in Portugal?
Yes, Johh, I was not telling, I sent the original article which was misinterpreted by some UK tabloid.
-
I believe she was abducted as Heri does but I do not go with the opportunistic approach as there is evidence that the apartment was being carefully watched. The question as to whether one abductor or more was involved is a difficult one to solve because of a lack of evidence in Praia da Luz but we know that there were gangs operating in Portugal who were snatching children. I also don't go with the abductor carrying a child across town for nearly an hour scenario.
Interesting points, John
1. "Apartment was being carefully watched"
I think Carole Tranmer's suspect and TS's suspect behaviours were too dangerous for a person who would commit a crime hours later, exposing themselves or himself, by entering the Oldfields back gate and stairs, and the another (or the same?) man touching the 5A patio wall and looking inside, the two in daylight. Very near.
Lizelle Marais suspect and Purser suspect (the same?) were far enough 5A. But they (he?) were very near forthcoming Smiths sighting place (in special Lizelle suspect) ... Also Lizelle said he seems to be the same person that the one in Flack's identikit.
Flack's suspect is more important, but he could be a man waiting for someone in the car park. Who knows?
Also (not in the PJ files) is the JW suspect (Kate's book). He was in the same place that Flack suspect. And he was in Rua do Ramalhete also, looking at ...
(1) a possible escape?
(2) the kindergarten at Ramalhete and Primeiro de Maio streets intersection some 150 meters from there?
(3) other?
Most important: the man had also to know that the children were alone after 21:00 to 23:30 approximately... How could he known this?
2. "I also don't go with the abductor carrying a child across town for nearly an hour scenario"
It is very strange to me an abductor would be 35 minutes later at a 5-7 minutes walk with the child in arms, just walking ... And given that the Smiths had a good approximation of the time (22:00-22:05), I thought Tanner saw the abductor at 21:45- 21:50, and then found that it was possible ...
Heri.
-
What do you think happened to Madeleine?
I didn't start this thread.
I posted this comment on a different thread.
I don't understand why my name is here as starting this.
Can someone explain this please? (mods) ?
It's called a spin off Neeley when someone poses a question taking an existing topic off track. You asked the question and now you have answers.
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile offender (having more than a type of crime in his repertory). He acted alone, on the opportunity, without a car or similar. The crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", or the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
good points
I still believe that woke and wandered and met with a tragic accident - followed by her being spirited away - is the most likely scenario
But the abduction theory has validity too - but to my mind NOT abduction by a stranger to the family:
These are the words of Justice Hogg - they made me shiver when I first read them 5 years ago and still do so today, the judge 'appears' to address a 'known' person directly, unusual for a judge in the rather stiff upper lip realms of the British judiciary - such a passionate plead.
She said: "There is, of course, one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine and where she may be found.
"I ponder about that person – whether that person has a heart and might understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been taken and secreted from her parents and siblings and those she loved and felt secure with.
"I ponder whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt or remorse or even cares about the hurt that has been caused to an innocent little girl, and whether that person has a faith or belief and what explanation or justification they might give to God.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2262153/Madeleine-McCann-parents-to-access-police-files.html
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile offender (having more than a type of crime in his repertory). He acted alone, on the opportunity, without a car or similar. The crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", or the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
good points
I still believe that woke and wandered and met with a tragic accident - followed by her being spirited away - is the most likely scenario
But the abduction theory has validity too - but to my mind NOT abduction by a stranger to the family:
These are the words of Justice Hogg - they made me shiver when I first read them 5 years ago and still do so today, the judge 'appears' to address a 'known' person directly, unusual for a judge in the rather stiff upper lip realms of the British judiciary - such a passionate plead.
She said: "There is, of course, one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine and where she may be found.
"I ponder about that person – whether that person has a heart and might understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been taken and secreted from her parents and siblings and those she loved and felt secure with.
"I ponder whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt or remorse or even cares about the hurt that has been caused to an innocent little girl, and whether that person has a faith or belief and what explanation or justification they might give to God.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2262153/Madeleine-McCann-parents-to-access-police-files.html
That is clearly addressing any indefinite person who knows what happened. I do not believe that she knew anything special about the case.
It is undeniable that there must be at least one person who knows the real story.
-
Something not good.
-
Today I believe that Madeleine was abducted by a versatile offender (having more than a type of crime in his repertory). He acted alone, on the opportunity, without a car or similar. The crime was unplanned (you saw my hypothesis in my blog).
Today I am sure she was abducted by a stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group.
She may be killed, or she may be living with a monster, but as Milly said "maybe she is also part of a loving family hidden well away from prying eyes in most rural Portugal or even Spain", or the same outside Spain and Portugal ... It is no scientific to assign "probabilities" to any of these scenarios => she may be alive and well.
Heri.
good points
I still believe that woke and wandered and met with a tragic accident - followed by her being spirited away - is the most likely scenario
I always leaned towards the woke and wandered possibility too
The open window and shutters element is a real sticking point in that theory though
-
I always leaned towards the woke and wandered possibility too
The open window and shutters element is a real sticking point in that theory though
Yes, Icabodcrane, but there's some explanation for this. The worst element is Eddie, imo.
-
I always leaned towards the woke and wandered possibility too
The open window and shutters element is a real sticking point in that theory though
Yes, Icabodcrane, but there's some explanation for this. The worst element is Eddie, imo.
Eddie adds no information.
-
Thanks to Eddie, the last straw, "any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside" and RM's fate a question of time because, unfortunately, he had to remain arguido up to the end, though his situation having nothing to do with the two asked extensions (the last one in hope of a reconstruction).
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
-
Good grief ...... And what "tapas bar saga?"
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
As this is a 'Justice' forum and you are a senior member, perhaps you would share the logic and evidence that let's you reach that libellous conclusion.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
That is an appalling suggestion for which there is not one shred of evidence, and as Debunker has pointed out, is libellous to boot.
-
If I had to place a large bet ...
Some people like squandering their money ...
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
That is an appalling suggestion for which there is not one shred of evidence, and as Debunker has pointed out, is libellous to boot.
It's nothing but a bet and betting isn't prohibited or is it ?
Curiously enough, this "bet" is similar to the fiction novel a young French wrote, inspired by this case (Madeleine is a boy and the names are different but easy to recognize). There's a fatal accident (kids left alone), the mother knows it was her fault, it's too much reality so she denies and gets rid of the body first in a dumpster and then into the sea. Her husband ignores everything. There's a huge media circus. Months later, he discovers the truth, hesitates and ends up keeping quiet.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
Thankfully I've not read anything in the official files; in the forensic report that supports your opinion.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
That is a possibility, yes ... and it offers a rational explanation for the window/shutters being opened from the inside ( staged abduction ) , whilst also making sense of the dogs' alerts
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
That is a possibility, yes ... and it offers a rational explanation for the window/shutters being opened from the inside ( staged abduction ) , whilst also making sense of the dogs' alerts
Could you perhaps offer a rational explanation for why the McCanns' friends would agree to support Kate after she killed her child in a fit of rage?
No I can't
As I said earlier in the thread, every theory/possibility throws up more questions than answers
-
It is my understanding from reading the police statements that some of the so called Tapas "friends" were no more than what I would call acquaintances of the couple. The idea that anyone could convince a group of friends to cover up the death of a child is implausible enough, so where does that leave people you've only recently met & don't know very well?
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
That is a possibility, yes ... and it offers a rational explanation for the window/shutters being opened from the inside ( staged abduction ) , whilst also making sense of the dogs' alerts
so a wild guess - nah a large bet, with no explanation offered at all gives you a rational explanation for the windows/shutters and dog alerts.
It seems to suit your agenda.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
That is a possibility, yes ... and it offers a rational explanation for the window/shutters being opened from the inside ( staged abduction ) , whilst also making sense of the dogs' alerts
I've heard that theory before. Way back in the "blood spatter on wall" myth era - which turned out to be untrue. And I don't see how it would make sense of Eddie's alerts so long afterwards.
-
Eddie's alerts in the flat need certainly some explanation since he alerted in 4 places.
But it's not only Eddie, the tracker dogs' route needs an explanation as well.
-
No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:
"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?
-
No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:
"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?
Mr Grime doesn't say uncorroborated alerts must be discarded, Mr Harrison says the dog is EVRD, it means he detects molecules, no collectable substance, i.e no possible forensic test. It's intelligence and a curious mind is founded to try and find some explanation.
-
No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:
"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?
Good question, Mrs B.
Concidering the flower beds were the other side of the wall.
Then again, how many other dogs could have cocked their leg up, in that area?.
Don't forget there were eight other dogs involved in the search, months before Grime turned up. Can't remember now, how many dog hairs were found in 5A, along with the cigarette ash, from GNR chaps.
-
It is my understanding from reading the police statements that some of the so called Tapas "friends" were no more than what I would call acquaintances of the couple. The idea that anyone could convince a group of friends to cover up the death of a child is implausible enough, so where does that leave people you've only recently met & don't know very well?
This is true Mrs. B. Also the reason sometimes put forward that the group would agree because they were scared of being accused of 'neglect' for leaving their sleeping children is also completely illogical as the first thing they all did was to tell the police that that they were dining at the Tapas and returning to the apartments at intervals to check on their sleeping children! And what about Diane Webster - she had no children to be responsible for? And would Fiona urge her own elderly mother, her children's grandmother to put herself in the position of risking arrest and imprisonment for being an accomplice in the disposal of a child's body? Not a chance. IMO
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
So, why do you think the McCanns' friends have all decided to support Kate and Gerry in this elaborate cover up? Would you support an acquaintance who had accidentally killed their chid in a fit of rage?
Where did I say I think McCann's friends knew and were party to a cover up? I didn't and I don't!
8-)(--)
-
Pardon, but how on earth do you go about to find an explanation for uncorroborated dog alerts? As they are uncorroborated, nobody can explain what the dog alerted to, we simply don't know & most likely, we never will. What we're left with is speculation, which is OK, as long as one is aware that's all it is.
-
Tim Invictus
Where did I say I think McCann's friends knew and were party to a cover up? I didn't and I don't!
Tim Invictus
I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
-
The "flowerbed" (a bougainvilliers) isn't visible from the street. One passing the grade could have his/her eye attracted, at night, by a whitish form lying there.
-
No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:
"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?
Mr Grime doesn't say uncorroborated alerts must be discarded, Mr Harrison says the dog is EVRD, it means he detects molecules, no collectable substance, i.e no possible forensic test. It's intelligence and a curious mind is founded to try and find some explanation.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no forensic test to substantiate the dog's alerts? And because there is no "possible forensic test" to determine the reliability of the dogs alerts, one must rely on "a curious mind is founded to try and find some explanation". No need for forensics then, just a need for someone who will ask the 'correct questions' and supply the 'alerts as standalone proof positive of guilt' to fit the anti McCann's theory.
-
It is my understanding from reading the police statements that some of the so called Tapas "friends" were no more than what I would call acquaintances of the couple. The idea that anyone could convince a group of friends to cover up the death of a child is implausible enough, so where does that leave people you've only recently met & don't know very well?
This is true Mrs. B. Also the reason sometimes put forward that the group would agree because they were scared of being accused of 'neglect' for leaving their sleeping children is also completely illogical as the first thing they all did was to tell the police that that they were dining at the Tapas and returning to the apartments at intervals to check on their sleeping children! And what about Diane Webster - she had no children to be responsible for? And would Fiona urge her own elderly mother, her children's grandmother to put herself in the position of risking arrest and imprisonment for being an accomplice in the disposal of a child's body? Not a chance. IMO
I agree. As far as I am concerned Mrs. Webster is as an independent witness as you will get. She had no dealings with the McCann family before the holiday AFAIK & no reason to cover anything up at all.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
As this is a 'Justice' forum and you are a senior member, perhaps you would share the logic and evidence that let's you reach that libellous conclusion.
The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.
As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion. You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!
-
my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion
that will certainly make a few people very happy
it is what some people have relied on for over 6 years
-
No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:
"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?
Good question, Mrs B.
Concidering the flower beds were the other side of the wall.
Then again, how many other dogs could have cocked their leg up, in that area?.
Don't forget there were eight other dogs involved in the search, months before Grime turned up. Can't remember now, how many dog hairs were found in 5A, along with the cigarette ash, from GNR chaps.
That's true. And after that debacle the apartment was released to be let out no less than four times to different sets of holiday makers before the dogs were brought in & forensic samples taken....& people wonder why there wasn't much forensic evidence found.
-
Pardon, but how on earth do you go about to find an explanation for uncorroborated dog alerts? As they are uncorroborated, nobody can explain what the dog alerted to, we simply don't know & most likely, we never will. What we're left with is speculation, which is OK, as long as one is aware that's all it is.
Oh yes, pure speculation, based though on the fact Eddie is an EVRD (that provides speculating with a certain justification). Mr Grime, in the film, even says that Eddie's alert in the parents' bedroom doesn't necessarily indicate a corpse was there, a draught could have sent the volatile molecules, trapped in the corner.
When someone disappears leaving no trace, no sign, no clue, one is entitled to wonder why the EVRD alerted in this flat and not in the others. Wonder, nothing else.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
That is a possibility, yes ... and it offers a rational explanation for the window/shutters being opened from the inside ( staged abduction ) , whilst also making sense of the dogs' alerts
Could you perhaps offer a rational explanation for why the McCanns' friends would agree to support Kate after she killed her child in a fit of rage?
No I can't
As I said earlier in the thread, every theory/possibility throws up more questions than answers
Therefore on balance how plausible do you think Tim Invictus' theory actually is, bearing in mind it relies on the complicity of ALL the McCanns' friends, who would ALL have to buy into the idea of protecting a violent child killer?
Why would all of the McCann friends had to have been complicit ?
-
icabodcrane
Why would all of the McCann friends had to have been complicit ?
do any of their statements give a completely different stories of event?
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
As this is a 'Justice' forum and you are a senior member, perhaps you would share the logic and evidence that let's you reach that libellous conclusion.
The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.
As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion. You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!
I am of the opinion that you had something to do with the abduction of Madeleine because contrary to forensic reports you are still of the opinion that Madeleine's parents have something to do with her death. I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is, just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong.
See it works both ways.
-
Tim Invictus
Where did I say I think McCann's friends knew and were party to a cover up? I didn't and I don't!
Tim Invictus
I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
Ok here it is in black and white; I do not believe and have not suggested anyone other than Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in the disappearance. Now kindly stop suggesting I have said otherwise. TY.
-
Tim Invictus
Where did I say I think McCann's friends knew and were party to a cover up? I didn't and I don't!
Tim Invictus
I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
Ok here it is in black and white; I do not believe and have not suggested anyone other than Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in the disappearance. Now kindly stop suggesting I have said otherwise. TY.
so what was the elaborate coverup in the tapas bar?
-
Why would the McCanns need an accomplice ?
-
Pardon, but how on earth do you go about to find an explanation for uncorroborated dog alerts? As they are uncorroborated, nobody can explain what the dog alerted to, we simply don't know & most likely, we never will. What we're left with is speculation, which is OK, as long as one is aware that's all it is.
Oh yes, pure speculation, based though on the fact Eddie is an EVRD (that provides speculating with a certain justification). Mr Grime, in the film, even says that Eddie's alert in the parents' bedroom doesn't necessarily indicate a corpse was there, a draught could have sent there the volatiles molecules, trapped in the corner.
When someone disappears leaving no trace, no sign, no clue, one is entitled to wonder why the EVRD alerted in this flat and not in the others. Wonder, nothing else.
One is always entitled to wonder about things in this world, I fully agree ?{)(**
One thing I personally wonder about is the following; you have two dogs, both who are said to be trained to alert to the scent of minuscule traces of human blood. Then you have a large holiday resort where thousands upon thousands of people pass through every year & have done so for a number of years and the ONLY apartment both these dogs alerted to was Apt 5A. That, if anything, needs some explaining....... >@@(*&)
-
Pardon, but how on earth do you go about to find an explanation for uncorroborated dog alerts? As they are uncorroborated, nobody can explain what the dog alerted to, we simply don't know & most likely, we never will. What we're left with is speculation, which is OK, as long as one is aware that's all it is.
Oh yes, pure speculation, based though on the fact Eddie is an EVRD (that provides speculating with a certain justification). Mr Grime, in the film, even says that Eddie's alert in the parents' bedroom doesn't necessarily indicate a corpse was there, a draught could have sent there the volatiles molecules, trapped in the corner.
When someone disappears leaving no trace, no sign, no clue, one is entitled to wonder why the EVRD alerted in this flat and not in the others. Wonder, nothing else.
IMO it's to do with the amount of time spent searching I watched a TV prog on sniffer dogs at Airports a while back where a dog had alerted to drugs in a holdall, which were subsequently discovered in there. The dog handler said how pleased she was with the dog, especially as she (the dog) had alerted very quickly - whereas sometimes she could take up to 15 mins 'inspecting' an item before deciding to alert or not.
I also wonder if Eddie had been made to spend the same amount of time on the other cars, instead of only a quarter of the time that he was made to spend on the Renault - then would he have alerted to some of those cars? We shall never know.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
As this is a 'Justice' forum and you are a senior member, perhaps you would share the logic and evidence that let's you reach that libellous conclusion.
The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.
As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion. You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!
I am of the opinion that you had something to do with the abduction of Madeleine because contrary to forensic reports you are still of the opinion that Madeleine's parents have something to do with her death. I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is, just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong.
See it works both ways.
You're entitled to your opinion however infantile and wrong that may be! Wrong in as much as I can easily prove I was not in Portugal at the time thereby proving your opinion is wrong!
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
As this is a 'Justice' forum and you are a senior member, perhaps you would share the logic and evidence that let's you reach that libellous conclusion.
The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.
As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion. You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!
I am of the opinion that you had something to do with the abduction of Madeleine because contrary to forensic reports you are still of the opinion that Madeleine's parents have something to do with her death. I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is, just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong.
See it works both ways.
You're entitled to your opinion however infantile and wrong that may be! Wrong in as much as I can easily prove I was not in Portugal at the time thereby proving your opinion is wrong!
you said
I do not believe the McCanns and evidence
I do not believe your alibi.
I don't need any evidence to form that opinion - according to you
-
No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:
"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?
Mr Grime doesn't say uncorroborated alerts must be discarded, Mr Harrison says the dog is EVRD, it means he detects molecules, no collectable substance, i.e no possible forensic test. It's intelligence and a curious mind is founded to try and find some explanation.
Please quote exactly what he says about the meaning of a dog alert.
You have conflated to different statements and made it look like Grime made a statement that he did not in fact make.
Cite please, else we shall assume you are making this factoid into a myth.
-
see how stupid it is when people start placing large bets just on an opinion.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
As this is a 'Justice' forum and you are a senior member, perhaps you would share the logic and evidence that let's you reach that libellous conclusion.
The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.
As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion. You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!
'Opinion', depending on context, may be defamatory.
-
Pardon, but how on earth do you go about to find an explanation for uncorroborated dog alerts? As they are uncorroborated, nobody can explain what the dog alerted to, we simply don't know & most likely, we never will. What we're left with is speculation, which is OK, as long as one is aware that's all it is.
Oh yes, pure speculation, based though on the fact Eddie is an EVRD (that provides speculating with a certain justification). Mr Grime, in the film, even says that Eddie's alert in the parents' bedroom doesn't necessarily indicate a corpse was there, a draught could have sent there the volatiles molecules, trapped in the corner.
When someone disappears leaving no trace, no sign, no clue, one is entitled to wonder why the EVRD alerted in this flat and not in the others. Wonder, nothing else.
One is always entitled to wonder about things in this world, I fully agree ?{)(**
One thing I personally wonder about is the following; you have two dogs, both who are said to be trained to alert to the scent of minuscule traces of human blood. Then you have a large holiday resort where thousands upon thousands of people pass through every year & have done so for a number of years and the ONLY apartment both these dogs alerted to was Apt 5A. That, if anything, needs some explaining....... >@@(*&)
I'm sure an expert will be along shortly to put me right, but this is my understanding of it Mrs B
If Keela, the blood dog had been trailed through the resort independently, then yes, she would have been alerting frequently
She was not though. She was, in effect, a 'check' to Eddie, the cadavour dog
Where Eddie had already alerted, there was a possibility that he was alerting not to the 'scent of death' but merely to blood
Consequently, Keela was brought in and used to establish whether or not it was blood that Eddie had alerted to
Where Keela 'jointly' alerted it was suggestive of blood being present
Where Keela did not alert to an area in which Eddie had alerted, it was suggestive that he had, indeed, detected the scent of death ( there being no blood present )
-
see how stupid it is when people start placing large bets just on an opinion.
I didn't place any bet stupid nor did I ever suggest any of the friends were involved. The fact I can prove I wasn't in Portugal makes your opinion wrong but you cannot prove my opinion is wrong can you?
Why are the McCann Fan Club so hostile? People are entitled to express their opinions and many people do find the McCann's untrustworthy especially with how they have handled the money good people have given to help the search for Madeliene. I don't think anyone who gave money expected that to be used to pay Kate and Gerry's mortgage!
The McCannettes remind me of the Bamberettes!
-
Don't forget there were eight other dogs involved in the search, months before Grime turned up. Can't remember now, how many dog hairs were found in 5A, along with the cigarette ash, from GNR chaps.
Where did you read that?
-
see how stupid it is when people start placing large bets just on an opinion.
I didn't place any bet stupid nor did I ever suggest any of the friends were involved. The fact I can prove I wasn't in Portugal makes your opinion wrong but you cannot prove my opinion is wrong can you?
Why are the McCann Fan Club so hostile? People are entitled to express their opinions and many people do find the McCann's untrustworthy especially with how they have handled the money good people have given to help the search for Madeliene. I don't think anyone who gave money expected that to be used to pay Kate and Gerry's mortgage!
The McCannettes remind me of the Bamberettes!
I note that you as a mod have used the epithet 'stupid' which I shall be pleased to use in future.
-
Yes, thank you, I'm fairly familiar with the theory of the two dogs in tandem. But as BOTH dogs had been trained to alert to dried blood from live people, Eddie (the now sadly dead dog) SHOULD have alerted all over the place, IF he had been deployed through the resort, but there is no evidence at all of that having happened from what I can see in the files. My hypothetical question to Mr. Grime & the PJ would therefore have been, why wasn't that done?
-
see how stupid it is when people start placing large bets just on an opinion.
I didn't place any bet stupid nor did I ever suggest any of the friends were involved. The fact I can prove I wasn't in Portugal makes your opinion wrong but you cannot prove my opinion is wrong can you?
Why are the McCann Fan Club so hostile? People are entitled to express their opinions and many people do find the McCann's untrustworthy especially with how they have handled the money good people have given to help the search for Madeliene. I don't think anyone who gave money expected that to be used to pay Kate and Gerry's mortgage!
The McCannettes remind me of the Bamberettes!
The difference is that Bamber was a convicted crim nal with no defensible reputation. The McCanns still have a reputation to defend.
-
see how stupid it is when people start placing large bets just on an opinion.
I didn't place any bet stupid nor did I ever suggest any of the friends were involved. The fact I can prove I wasn't in Portugal makes your opinion wrong but you cannot prove my opinion is wrong can you?
Why are the McCann Fan Club so hostile? People are entitled to express their opinions and many people do find the McCann's untrustworthy especially with how they have handled the money good people have given to help the search for Madeliene. I don't think anyone who gave money expected that to be used to pay Kate and Gerry's mortgage!
The McCannettes remind me of the Bamberettes!
The difference is that Bamber was a convicted crim nal with no defensible reputation. The McCanns still have a reputation to defend.
there is a missing child that someone refers to betting on the outcome FGS
-
Yes, thank you, I'm fairly familiar with the theory of the two dogs in tandem. But as BOTH dogs had been trained to alert to dried blood from live people, Eddie (the now sadly dead dog) SHOULD have alerted all over the place, IF he had been deployed through the resort, but there is no evidence at all of that having happened from what I can see in the files. My hypothetical question to Mr. Grime & the PJ would therefore have been, why wasn't that done?
I don't think that is correct Mrs B
Eddie was not 'trained' to alert to blood, he was trained to alert to death scent
There was a possibility that he would alert to blood alone, and that is why Keela was deployed as a backup
-
Yes, thank you, I'm fairly familiar with the theory of the two dogs in tandem. But as BOTH dogs had been trained to alert to dried blood from live people, Eddie (the now sadly dead dog) SHOULD have alerted all over the place, IF he had been deployed through the resort, but there is no evidence at all of that having happened from what I can see in the files. My hypothetical question to Mr. Grime & the PJ would therefore have been, why wasn't that done?
I don't think that is correct Mrs B
Eddie was not 'trained' to alert to blood, he was trained to alert to death scent
There was a possibility that he would alert to blood alone, and that is why Keela was deployed as a backup
NO! Grime is quite clear that Eddie was trained to alert to blood.
-
Yes, thank you, I'm fairly familiar with the theory of the two dogs in tandem. But as BOTH dogs had been trained to alert to dried blood from live people, Eddie (the now sadly dead dog) SHOULD have alerted all over the place, IF he had been deployed through the resort, but there is no evidence at all of that having happened from what I can see in the files. My hypothetical question to Mr. Grime & the PJ would therefore have been, why wasn't that done?
I don't think that is correct Mrs B
Eddie was not 'trained' to alert to blood, he was trained to alert to death scent
There was a possibility that he would alert to blood alone, and that is why Keela was deployed as a backup
you didn't know that what you typed was wrong.
Incredible - but understandable from you.
-
Don't forget there were eight other dogs involved in the search, months before Grime turned up. Can't remember now, how many dog hairs were found in 5A, along with the cigarette ash, from GNR chaps.
Where did you read that?
Read what?
-
No, I'm pretty sure he was trained to do that. Dogs in general don't alert to minuscule traces of dried blood.
Martin Grime "The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Surely it would do no good for the reputation of a dog handler to use a cadaver dog that alerts to dried blood from live people by pure chance or whenever he feels like it?
-
see how stupid it is when people start placing large bets just on an opinion.
I didn't place any bet stupid nor did I ever suggest any of the friends were involved. The fact I can prove I wasn't in Portugal makes your opinion wrong but you cannot prove my opinion is wrong can you?
Why are the McCann Fan Club so hostile? People are entitled to express their opinions and many people do find the McCann's untrustworthy especially with how they have handled the money good people have given to help the search for Madeliene. I don't think anyone who gave money expected that to be used to pay Kate and Gerry's mortgage!
The McCannettes remind me of the Bamberettes!
Actually I think you will find that most people, including myself and my friends didn't mind what the McCanns did with the money we donated. It was sent to show them we cared and to help them in any way they saw fit.
They were in a foreign country and quite obviously wanted to stay there until their daughter was found. To do that meant they could not return to their jobs - and so would lose their income. If any of my money was used towards paying a couple of mortgage payments - then that pleases me.
When you think of how much of the McCanns OWN money which they could have put into their OWN bank accounts i.e. the £500,000 compensation for libel, and the proceeds from Kate's book - but which they chose instead to put into the fund, then a couple of months mortgage payments is a drop in the ocean in comparison. And anyway, didn't they replace it?
-
Yes, Icabodcrane, and only Eddie was deployed in Robert M's property. As he didn't alert, there was no use to send Keela.
-
Someone who has an experience of cadaver scent knows that dried blood doesn't smell the same.
-
Don't forget there were eight other dogs involved in the search, months before Grime turned up. Can't remember now, how many dog hairs were found in 5A, along with the cigarette ash, from GNR chaps.
Where did you read that?
Read what?
I'm pretty sure the cigarette ash is mentioned here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9226205/Madeleine-McCann-unanswered-questions.html
-
Someone who has an experience of cadaver scent knows that dried blood doesn't smell the same.
Do you have a source for that assertion or is it just an opinion?
-
Someone who has an experience of cadaver scent knows that dried blood doesn't smell the same.
No disrespect intended - but you asked for it:
Are you a dog then?
-
Yes, thank you, I'm fairly familiar with the theory of the two dogs in tandem. But as BOTH dogs had been trained to alert to dried blood from live people, Eddie (the now sadly dead dog) SHOULD have alerted all over the place, IF he had been deployed through the resort, but there is no evidence at all of that having happened from what I can see in the files. My hypothetical question to Mr. Grime & the PJ would therefore have been, why wasn't that done?
I don't think that is correct Mrs B
Eddie was not 'trained' to alert to blood, he was trained to alert to death scent
There was a possibility that he would alert to blood alone, and that is why Keela was deployed as a backup
NO! Grime is quite clear that Eddie was trained to alert to blood.
In the absence of a body the whole rationale of deploying a cadaver dog is to look for blood so that it may be analysed.
In the Attracta Harron case, Eddie found blood that cracked the case and put Ms Harron's murderer behind bars.
-
Don't forget there were eight other dogs involved in the search, months before Grime turned up. Can't remember now, how many dog hairs were found in 5A, along with the cigarette ash, from GNR chaps.
Where did you read that?
Read what?
I'm pretty sure the cigarette ash is mentioned here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9226205/Madeleine-McCann-unanswered-questions.html
Thanks, it is mentioned there, but I will take that with a pinch of salt as in the same paragraph the writer of that article misleads the reader as regards contamination of the flat by dozens being allowed by the police, when its a fact this happened before police arrived.
British detectives have expressed dismay over flaws in the Portuguese police’s investigation, in which dozens of people were allowed to trample over the crime scene and evidence was found to be contaminated with cigarette ash.
-
Someone who has an experience of cadaver scent knows that dried blood doesn't smell the same.
Do you have a source for that assertion or is it just an opinion?
Not an opinion, just my experience. I've stayed in a flat where somebody died and, though now corpses receive very quickly a special treatment, I smelt death once in a while but for months. In my flat, where I've been living for ages and where nobody died yet, where spots of blood have dried here and there before being cleaned (cleaning doesn't trick Keela), I've never smelt death.
-
Don't think you can blame the McCanns or their friends for trampling the crime scene with dogs nor do I think they were spreading finger print powder all over the apartment.
"Initially the search began for latent shoe-prints it being verified that dozens existed on the floor, in the various rooms of the apartment, which invalidated the attempt of identifying those of the perpetrator. Also, innumerable tracks [footprints] that were taken to be canine in origin mixed with red- and white-coloured chemical products, as used to see fingerprints, and an enormous quantity of hairs probably of animal (dog) origin that made it difficult to find possible traces, especially in the bedroom of two single beds and two children's cots from
where the minor disappeared, and next to the aluminium window/door leading from inside the living room to the exterior area behind the apartment."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
-
Don't think you can blame the McCanns or their friends for trampling the crime scene with dogs nor do I think they were spreading finger print powder all over the apartment.
I wasn't aware anyone was.
-
Someone who has an experience of cadaver scent knows that dried blood doesn't smell the same.
Do you have a source for that assertion or is it just an opinion?
Not an opinion, just my experience. I've stayed in a flat where somebody died and, though now corpses receive very quickly a special treatment, I smelt death once in a while but for months. In my flat, where I've been living for ages and where nobody died yet, where spots of blood have dried here and there before being cleaned (cleaning doesn't trick Keela), I've never smelt death.
Yes, that may be, but you are not a CSI dog nor a Cadaver dog I'm sure. A dog's sense of smell is very different from that of humans.
-
see how stupid it is when people start placing large bets just on an opinion.
I didn't place any bet stupid nor did I ever suggest any of the friends were involved. The fact I can prove I wasn't in Portugal makes your opinion wrong but you cannot prove my opinion is wrong can you?
Why are the McCann Fan Club so hostile? People are entitled to express their opinions and many people do find the McCann's untrustworthy especially with how they have handled the money good people have given to help the search for Madeliene. I don't think anyone who gave money expected that to be used to pay Kate and Gerry's mortgage!
The McCannettes remind me of the Bamberettes!
I note that you as a mod have used the epithet 'stupid' which I shall be pleased to use in future.
Feel free to use the epithet stupid when appropriate. By appropriate I suggest the point/post you are addressing should be blatantly stupid and at least bordering on the offensive. Most of Officeboy's posts stand as good examples!
-
IMO it's to do with the amount of time spent searching I watched a TV prog on sniffer dogs at Airports a while back where a dog had alerted to drugs in a holdall, which were subsequently discovered in there. The dog handler said how pleased she was with the dog, especially as she (the dog) had alerted very quickly - whereas sometimes she could take up to 15 mins 'inspecting' an item before deciding to alert or not.
I also wonder if Eddie had been made to spend the same amount of time on the other cars, instead of only a quarter of the time that he was made to spend on the Renault - then would he have alerted to some of those cars? We shall never know.
The more scents mixed on a determined item, the more time for the dog to discriminate.
I do rely on the dog's operation because it was supervised by Mr Harrison who is a top guy in the UK. I really can't and will not believe that he and Mr Grime could have been corrupted.
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
-
Someone who has an experience of cadaver scent knows that dried blood doesn't smell the same.
Do you have a source for that assertion or is it just an opinion?
Not an opinion, just my experience. I've stayed in a flat where somebody died and, though now corpses receive very quickly a special treatment, I smelt death once in a while but for months. In my flat, where I've been living for ages and where nobody died yet, where spots of blood have dried here and there before being cleaned (cleaning doesn't trick Keela), I've never smelt death.
Yes, that may be, but you are not a CSI dog nor a Cadaver dog I'm sure. A dog's sense of smell is very different from that of humans.
Oh you're sure I'm not a CSI nor an HRD !
Humans have much less receptors, but whoever smelt cadaver once always will detect it, in "human" quantity.
-
I can never understand why the PJ refused the offer of the dogs earlier 8()(((@#
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
I never ever said they stated this ! Neither categorically nor vaguely !
I was answering Benice's post, about not enough time given to the dog to inspect the other cars. I'm confident that the operation was correctly done.
-
I can never understand why the PJ refused the offer of the dogs earlier 8()(((@#
When please, DCI ?
-
I can never understand why the PJ refused the offer of the dogs earlier 8()(((@#
When please, DCI ?
May 2007, Anne.
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
There is one place where Grime expresses an opinion (that I don't think he had any business expressing) that Eddie might be alerting to a cadaver scent.
Harrison emphatically not.
-
Someone who has an experience of cadaver scent knows that dried blood doesn't smell the same.
Do you have a source for that assertion or is it just an opinion?
Not an opinion, just my experience. I've stayed in a flat where somebody died and, though now corpses receive very quickly a special treatment, I smelt death once in a while but for months. In my flat, where I've been living for ages and where nobody died yet, where spots of blood have dried here and there before being cleaned (cleaning doesn't trick Keela), I've never smelt death.
Yes, that may be, but you are not a CSI dog nor a Cadaver dog I'm sure. A dog's sense of smell is very different from that of humans.
Oh you're sure I'm not a CSI nor an HRD !
Humans have much less receptors, but whoever smelt cadaver once always will detect it, in "human" quantity.
I can assure you that I meant no offence at all by my statement & I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were a dog & I'm sorry if you took it that way. But I still doubt very much that any human would be able to detect the smell of a dead body if that dead body had been removed from a crime scene within a short period after death.
-
I can never understand why the PJ refused the offer of the dogs earlier 8()(((@#
When please, DCI ?
May 2007, Anne.
Thank you, DCI, is it in the files ?
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
No he didn't, he said if the EVRD dog alerted it might suggest that there may have been one and removed:
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim
Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
There is one place where Grime expresses an opinion (that I don't think he had any business expressing) that Eddie might be alerting to a cadaver scent.
Harrison emphatically not.
Thanks, must have missed that - the only part I read was where he said "it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant." Which really could mean anything given that the dog is also known to alert to 2nd hand furniture from homes where original owners had died. But I'll go read through his statements again. 8((()*/
-
I can never understand why the PJ refused the offer of the dogs earlier 8()(((@#
When please, DCI ?
May 2007, Anne.
Thank you, DCI, is it in the files ?
Its in the http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html
Portuguese police turned down offer of dog help, 23 May 2007
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
No he didn't, he said if the EVRD dog alerted it might suggest that there may have been one and removed:
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim
Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
(Oops - wrongly included in quote) Thanks, do you have a link to the relevant part in the files where this is stated? Much appreciated.
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
There is one place where Grime expresses an opinion (that I don't think he had any business expressing) that Eddie might be alerting to a cadaver scent.
Harrison emphatically not.
Wasn't their job to deploy Eddie and observe ? As I said, obviously there was no residue of human nature in a flat which had been cleaned many times after the disappearance. So they weren't expecting to find any. Keela was the chance, if there was blood, to determine whose blood it was. But, imagine Keela had found Madeleine's blood, Eddie's alerts to death wouldn't have been evidence of her death, just presumption.
-
If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.
The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.
As this is a 'Justice' forum and you are a senior member, perhaps you would share the logic and evidence that let's you reach that libellous conclusion.
The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.
As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion. You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!
I am of the opinion that you had something to do with the abduction of Madeleine because contrary to forensic reports you are still of the opinion that Madeleine's parents have something to do with her death. I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is, just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong.
See it works both ways.
You're entitled to your opinion however infantile and wrong that may be! Wrong in as much as I can easily prove I was not in Portugal at the time thereby proving your opinion is wrong!
And you, as wrong about the McCann's involvement in as much as the Attorney General stated that they had committed no such crime as you accuse them of.
There is a fine line between having an opinion, for example: you are an arsehole (which does not breach any of your rights and is not based on fact) and using your right to have an opinion to state as fact, for example: "Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie." which breaches the rights of others and which you can be held accountable for under British law. Ask Tony Bennett who refused to comply with an undertaking not to libel the McCann's and ended up with a contempt of court for continuing to do so. He also thought that stating his opinion while breaching the McCann's rights was not punishable by law.
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
No he didn't, he said if the EVRD dog alerted it might suggest that there may have been one and removed:
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim
Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
Thanks, do you have a link to the relevant part in the files where this is stated? Much appreciated.
That was from the files, they were not my words.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Scroll down just short of a quarter of the way down under the title, Mccanns Apartment
-
Thanks DCI:
'Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.'
Am I right in saying that the trail was lost splap bang in the car park of Batista's supermarket?
there's Occam's razor inflicting the cut
Woke and wandered and met with tragedy
Not out of the realm at all
-
Thanks DCI:
'Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.'
Am I right in saying that the trail was lost splap bang in the car park of Batista's supermarket?
there's Occam's razor inflicting the cut
Woke and wandered and met with tragedy
Not out of the realm at all
But why would the window/shutters have been open in a woke and wandered scenario ?
-
Thanks DCI:
'Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.'
Am I right in saying that the trail was lost splap bang in the car park of Batista's supermarket?
there's Occam's razor inflicting the cut
Woke and wandered and met with tragedy
Not out of the realm at all
But why would the window/shutters have been open in a woke and wandered scenario ?
I leave all speculation about windows, shutters and locking mechanisms to
Amaral
He made those the bedrock of his far flung theories
For which he now has landed himself in plenty of hot water
Ta muchly
-
I wasn't aware that either Martin Grime or Harrison had ever categorically stated that there had been a cadaver in 5A, if so, I must have missed it. But I'll happily stand corrected if there are any reliable sources for this having happened.
No he didn't, he said if the EVRD dog alerted it might suggest that there may have been one and removed:
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further
opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim
Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
Thanks, do you have a link to the relevant part in the files where this is stated? Much appreciated.
That was from the files, they were not my words.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Scroll down just short of a quarter of the way down under the title, Mccanns Apartment
8((()*/ Found it! Many thanks.
-
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
Thanks, DCI, but hum hum, the Sun..
And the offered dogs were sniffers and they weren't useful since the GNR had good ones.
3 dogs followed the same trail. The fact they stopped after crossing FGM str. doesn't reveal insufficiency (those dogs participate regularly in international competitions), but reflects the dispersion of scents (wind, cars). Remarkably the same dogs, on the 8th (I think), followed the same route again : as explained by the handler, a very protected one (walls and not frequented).
-
Thanks DCI:
'Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.'
Am I right in saying that the trail was lost splap bang in the car park of Batista's supermarket?
there's Occam's razor inflicting the cut
Woke and wandered and met with tragedy
Not out of the realm at all
Thats news to me Registrar.
Two of the Portuguese dogs followed a scent, to block 6 car park, then nothing. Which I believe is in the direction, Jane Tanner saw the man walking. Don't know about Babtista's car park, or if there is a car park there.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PEDRO_ESTEVES.htm
-
The dogs did not track any scent along the route the man was walking that Jane Tanner saw. They tracked it around the apartments, down to the car park, the tapas bar door and back to the car park, which was somewhere Madeleine would have passed as it was part of the shortcut to her creche that Gerry had been told about.
-
Two of the Portuguese dogs followed a scent, to block 6 car park, then nothing. Which I believe is in the direction, Jane Tanner saw the man walking. Don't know about Babtista's car park, or if there is a car park there.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PEDRO_ESTEVES.htm
This car park is a public one, the block 6's private one is the one towards which JT carrier was walking.
The Baptista trail never existed, an invention of the media.
-
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
Thanks, DCI, but hum hum, the Sun..
And the offered dogs were sniffers and they weren't useful since the GNR had good ones.
3 dogs followed the same trail. The fact they stopped after crossing FGM str. doesn't reveal insufficiency (those dogs participate regularly in international competitions), but reflects the dispersion of scents (wind, cars). Remarkably the same dogs, on the 8th (I think), followed the same route again : as explained by the handler, a very protected one (walls and not frequented).
LOL, Anne, so why have them 3 months later?
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency. Do you know who Harrison worked for?
National Policing Improvement Agency
Wyboston Lakes, Great North Road,
Wybmion, Bedfordshire,
MK44 3BY,
United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)87XX XXXXXX
Web: http://www.npia.police.uk
-
Two of the Portuguese dogs followed a scent, to block 6 car park, then nothing. Which I believe is in the direction, Jane Tanner saw the man walking. Don't know about Babtista's car park, or if there is a car park there.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PEDRO_ESTEVES.htm
This car park is a public one, the block 6's private one is the one towards which JT carrier was walking.
The Baptista trail never existed, an invention of the media.
I didn't say the Baptista trail existed. I said I didn't think they had a car park!
-
The dogs did not track any scent along the route the man was walking that Jane Tanner saw. They tracked it around the apartments, down to the car park, the tapas bar door and back to the car park, which was somewhere Madeleine would have passed as it was part of the shortcut to her creche that Gerry had been told about.
After completing the search in the interior of block 5, verandas and apartment access, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route he had taken on 04/05/07, being the road between that apartment and the leisure area-pool sand restaurant, and headed toward the same parking area. There he lost the scent of the search. This situation may be explained by the fact that the biggest concentration of odours in that location have been preserved and protected from the winds due to the adjoining walls. When this dog got to the main road, he turned right where a large dispersion of odours existed. Here the dog lost the scent.
- The second dog was submitted to the same operation. He too showed interest in the door of apartment 5J. Here he got up on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head in such a way as to catch the odour. As mentioned previously, this interest may be due to various factors but it is certain that at this location the dog scented an intense odour. In the exterior, the sniffer-dog immediately took the first road, heading toward the parking area next to block 6, and there lost the scent.
-
LOL, Anne, so why have them 3 months later?
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency. Do you know who Harrison worked for?
National Policing Improvement Agency
Wyboston Lakes, Great North Road,
Wybmion, Bedfordshire,
MK44 3BY,
United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)87XX XXXXXX
Web: http://www.npia.police.uk
Lol, I don't know, DCI ! I noticed where those proposed dogs came from and I'm sure they were excellent. But they were sniffers, and the GNR had good sniffers.
I'm not doubting the PJ was offered sniffers by the NPIA, I lament the interpretation of the tabloid : the PJ didn't accept = they're dumb.
-
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddietrail.jpg&target=tlx_picqfob
DCI this is the route that the scent trailing dogs that were given Madeleine's blanket and towel followed on 4 th May and 8th May, as you can see they did not go across the top of the road where the man was seen
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id94.html
The Mccanns apartment at the top centre of the picture is where they started, they then went to the left, around the block, down the path at the back of the apartments and down to the car park
Original page and link to statements
-
'These vital clues were never followed up by the Portuguese police, according to Isabel Duarte, the Lisbon lawyer acting for Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
Shortly after Madeleine was taken from Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz, five years ago this Thursday, a sniffer dog picked up her scent at a nearby car park.
Mrs Duarte said: “This was a significant moment at a critical time, yet there is very little about it in the police files. There doesn’t appear to have been any forensic work at the spot in the car park identified by the dog. More work should have been done.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/317111/Madeleine-McCann-The-lost-clues
-
The dogs did not track any scent along the route the man was walking that Jane Tanner saw. They tracked it around the apartments, down to the car park, the tapas bar door and back to the car park, which was somewhere Madeleine would have passed as it was part of the shortcut to her creche that Gerry had been told about.
After completing the search in the interior of block 5, verandas and apartment access, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route he had taken on 04/05/07, being the road between that apartment and the leisure area-pool sand restaurant, and headed toward the same parking area. There he lost the scent of the search. This situation may be explained by the fact that the biggest concentration of odours in that location have been preserved and protected from the winds due to the adjoining walls. When this dog got to the main road, he turned right where a large dispersion of odours existed. Here the dog lost the scent.
- The second dog was submitted to the same operation. He too showed interest in the door of apartment 5J. Here he got up on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head in such a way as to catch the odour. As mentioned previously, this interest may be due to various factors but it is certain that at this location the dog scented an intense odour. In the exterior, the sniffer-dog immediately took the first road, heading toward the parking area next to block 6, and there lost the scent.
DCI, this carpark is a public one, the block 6 private car park is on the other side (north) of the block. It has an entrance, as the block 5 car park, you see immediately it is private though there's no gate.
-
For Tim Invictus:
Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga." I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.
-
'These vital clues were never followed up by the Portuguese police, according to Isabel Duarte, the Lisbon lawyer acting for Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
Shortly after Madeleine was taken from Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz, five years ago this Thursday, a sniffer dog picked up her scent at a nearby car park.
Mrs Duarte said: “This was a significant moment at a critical time, yet there is very little about it in the police files. There doesn’t appear to have been any forensic work at the spot in the car park identified by the dog. More work should have been done.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/317111/Madeleine-McCann-The-lost-clues
Mrs Duarte is right, not much value was given to the tracker dogs. But there's a reason why and she omits it : the bizarre route followed by the dogs. Why would an abductor turn around a block ? Besides he didn't follow the route of JT carrier.
Could this mean that Madeleine went out, turned around the block, tried to enter the Tapas resort but found the door closed (as the dogs did), crossed the street and was taken near the lamp post by someone who happened to be there, had a car, etc. ?
So it's not the spot that should have been examined, it is the whole situation. And with a bit of hypothetico-deductive method.
-
For Tim Invictus:
Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga." I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.
Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone. A cover story.
I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.
-
For Tim Invictus:
Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga." I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.
Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone. A cover story.
I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.
Thank you for finally answering.
There is loads of evidence that Madeleine was abducted, but closed-minded people like you choose to ignore it. There is none whatsoever for the lurid theory you have proposed.
-
Let's all keep calm guys, opinion can be expressed without the need for bad language.
-
For Tim Invictus:
Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga." I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.
Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone. A cover story.
I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.
Thank you for finally answering.
There is loads of evidence that Madeleine was abducted, but closed-minded people like you choose to ignore it. There is none whatsoever for the lurid theory you have proposed.
Lurid? Strange word to use!
I freely admit I am no expert on the McCann case; why don't you state the 'loads of evidence' and enlighten me? I was of the opinion that Maddy's disappearance was a mystery!
-
For Tim Invictus:
Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga." I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.
Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone. A cover story.
I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.
Thank you for finally answering.
There is loads of evidence that Madeleine was abducted, but closed-minded people like you choose to ignore it. There is none whatsoever for the lurid theory you have proposed.
Lurid? Strange word to use!
I freely admit I am no expert on the McCann case; why don't you state the 'loads of evidence' and enlighten me? I was of the opinion that Maddy's disappearance was a mystery!
I'm no expert either, and I'd like to know what this load of evidence consists of too
-
For Tim Invictus:
Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga." I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.
Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone. A cover story.
I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.
That doesn't mean no evidence ever existed - it means no evidence was found. Whether that is because it wasn't there or because it was overlooked - we shall never know.
-
For Tim Invictus:
Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga." I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.
Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone. A cover story.
I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.
That doesn't mean no evidence ever existed - it means no evidence was found. Whether that is because it wasn't there or because it was overlooked - we shall never know.
There is evidence Madeleine was abducted.
There is DNA recovered from the apartment that could not be ascribed to the profiles of anyone known. Of course, it might have been the DNA of previous visitors. Or it might have been the DNA of the abductor.
Most crucially, there is the sighting of Jane Tanner and there is the sighting of the Smith family, at a time when Gerry was in the restaurant. Aofe Smith stated that the little girl the man was carrying could have been Madeleine.
-
For Tim Invictus:
Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga." I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.
Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone. A cover story.
I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.
That doesn't mean no evidence ever existed - it means no evidence was found. Whether that is because it wasn't there or because it was overlooked - we shall never know.
There is evidence Madeleine was abducted.
There is DNA recovered from the apartment that could not be ascribed to the profiles of anyone known. Of course, it might have been the DNA of previous visitors. Or it might have been the DNA of the abductor.
Most crucially, there is the sighting of Jane Tanner and there is the sighting of the Smith family, at a time when Gerry was in the restaurant. Aofe Smith stated that the little girl the man was carrying could have been Madeleine.
I take you point Ferryman, but as the mantra of 'there is no evidence of abduction' is usually referring to the apartment - I was only commenting on that - but I confess I had forgotten about the unidentified DNA .
Personally I would also include the open shutters and window as evidence - as I believe one hotel employee (Amy Tierney) also saw them open - and I cannot believe the McCanns would be so dimwitted as to NOT realise that they would need to make it look as if the shutters had been forced and that marks would have to be made on the window ledge - if it was part of a 'cover plan' to convince the Pj that an abductor had broken in in that way.
-
With all due respect at best those points could be considered indicators of a possible abduction; there appears to be no direct evidence of abduction.
I am not being deliberately obtuse; I hope you're right and Maddy was abducted (however appalling that maybe) as that is the only possible way I see she can still be alive!
-
The blood DNA didn't belong to a single person, hence no hope of identification. No evidence.
-
Tim - did you ever address my question regarding the man seen carrying a child by Jane Tanner? I can't find your response. I ask because you say you don't believe the McCann friends are involved in a cover-up so do you not see this piece of evidence as rather important considering the time and place of the sighting and the fact that no onehas ever come forward to be eliminated?
Please excuse me Martha I missed your question.
I was just answering an overall question about what I 'think' happened to Madeleine. I used the term "if I had to place a large bet" which is a not very good way of saying "if I had to express an opinion". I freely admit I am by no means an expert on this case.
I don't believe any friend would lie to help coverup the disappearance of a child by the parents; shame on anyone who would do that. I am not sure what to think of Jane Tanner's sighting; I tend to believe her but have no idea if this sighting is sinister or something completely innocent.
You could shorten this post to "i do not have a clue"! 8-)(--)
-
The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.
As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion. You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!
Why don't you believe them Tim when the child was clearly there one minute and gone by the next as both parents enjoyed a night out?? I cannot understand your logic in making such a statement. Maybe you can explain??
-
The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.
As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion. You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!
Why don't you believe them Tim when the child was clearly there one minute and gone by the next as both parents enjoyed a night out?? I cannot understand your logic in making such a statement. Maybe you can explain??
Well my first comment on your post is they shouldn't have been 'enjoying a night out' and left those kiddies alone.
I freely admit I know little about this case and I further admit that my thoughts are based upon little more than a gut feeling. This is the reaction I had watching the case develop at the time and watching the McCann's being interviewed. In short, I just didn't believe them.
I may well be completely wrong. I am not trying to upset McCann supporters and quite frankly I am shocked at the open hostility displayed by some of their 'fans'. It is just my opinion on a case that is widely debated in the public domain.
The McCann's should never have left those kiddies alone. They should never have used the Maddy fund to pay their own mortgage and for jaunts to Rome, etc. The management of the fund should have been independent and transparent and it hasn't been. Kate's book has been criticised for mentioning things to do with Maddy that should never have been addressed and there have been questions again about who has benefited from the proceeds of this book.
These things do not paint the McCann's in a very favourable light and I think it is quite legitimate for even casual observers who have not studied the case to have and express their suspicions. It's about time some of the McCann's more ardent supporters learned to accept this fact.
And before you ask, no I haven't read Kate McCann's book. I would rather use the money to pay my own mortgage, not hers!
-
Tim-I agree.
-
What is odd here is that for some people it is a total anathema, akin to a moral crime being committed that anyone could even begin to suspect that either parent could have been responsible, IMO that is nothing less than cultish or personal delusion for some reason
In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime
And historical reality has proved exactly the opposite in many cases.
To others it is a moral crime to ask questions. Sad and ridiculous state of affairs overall.
-
Do the police usually discuss their suspicions in public on the internet for the whole world to read? In a snide, bitchy, p......y style?
Why are you leaping into unrelated different pastures? Totally unrelated to the crux of my post which you obviously either did not understand or more probably chose to ignore.
Start a new thread about horrible *.........* on the internet, would be more appropriate
-
What is odd here is that for some people it is a total anathema, akin to a moral crime being committed that anyone could even begin to suspect that either parent could have been responsible, IMO that is nothing less than cultish or personal delusion for some reason
In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime
And historical reality has proved exactly the opposite in many cases.
To others it is a moral crime to ask questions. Sad and ridiculous state of affairs overall.
Well said Red .... why McCann fans take any questioning as a personal affront is quite beyond me!
-
Redblossom, perhaps you could explain what you meant by this (rather strange) sentence then?
In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime
It was to that which I was responding, but granted I may have misunderstood your meaning.
The simple point is that it seems to be an anathema to suspect or voice this, and if you do you are x y z, that is all and you know it.
-
Well said Red .... why McCann fans take any questioning as a personal affront is quite beyond me!
Beyond me too. Who or what are they protecting actually ?
-
What is odd here is that for some people it is a total anathema, akin to a moral crime being committed that anyone could even begin to suspect that either parent could have been responsible, IMO that is nothing less than cultish or personal delusion for some reason
In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime
And historical reality has proved exactly the opposite in many cases.
To others it is a moral crime to ask questions. Sad and ridiculous state of affairs overall.
Well said Red .... why McCann fans take any questioning as a personal affront is quite beyond me!
Me too, and its also as a personal affront to two former suspects, couldnt make it up really
-
Redblossom, perhaps you could explain what you meant by this (rather strange) sentence then?
In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime
It was to that which I was responding, but granted I may have misunderstood your meaning.
The simple point is that it seems to be an anathema to suspect or voice this, and if you do you are x y z, that is all and you know it.
It IS anathema to accuse, to libel, to post crude photoshopped photos, to pore over pictures of Madeleine and make outrageous assumptions about the poor child, to imagine that you know better than the police about what happened, to think you are contributing to the solving of this case by recruiting a raggle-taggle army of "sceptics" on facebook - all of these things and more are anathema to me, sure.
You claimed that for "some people" that if the police suspect the parents that we would view that as anathema too but you're wrong - provided the police are not taking part in the above activities we see so often on the net then they are just doing their job - if they have evidence that the parents are guilty of some crime then I am quite happy for them to gather it all up and present it to the Public Prosecutor. I don't think it's very likely that this is happening mind you.
Still avoiding the issue and turning it elsewhere
the ISSUE here IS that people who do not believe the family and ask questions are villified, yes, no? Miles before they do any bitchng and all the rest of the stuff you post about, I repeat it is NOT a crime of any sort to not believe people involved in any case, to think so, to have an opinion, and to say so.....its anametha that it should be
-
It IS anathema to accuse, to libel, to post crude photoshopped photos, to pore over pictures of Madeleine and make outrageous assumptions about the poor child, to imagine that you know better than the police about what happened, to think you are contributing to the solving of this case by recruiting a raggle-taggle army of "sceptics" on facebook - all of these things and more are anathema to me, sure.
Excuse-me, Martha, but your words sound like anathema.
PS : I never saw crude photoshopped pictures of Madeleine, fortunately, I wonder which sites you frequent.
-
If you say so Redblossom.
Did you do know that I have spent the last 6 years being vilified as a "McCann apologist" and "child neglect supporter" and worse? Do you hear me bleating about it?
no and thats sad but has nothing to do with the main issue i was on about, ie the right to not have thought police,end of, see you later, hogging the board
-
"to post crude photoshopped photos"
What's that, Martha ?
-
If you say so Redblossom.
Did you do know that I have spent the last 6 years being vilified as a "McCann apologist" and "child neglect supporter" and worse? Do you hear me bleating about it?
no and thats sad but has nothing to do with the main issue i was on about, ie the right to not have thought police,end of, see you later, hogging the board
Who's hogging the board?
You seem to be complaining about McCann supporters' right to criticise the behaviour of McCann "sceptics" whilst wishing to preserve your own right to carry on "doubting" the McCanns - you can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
ME, I seemed to be hogging it! and I was not complaining anyones rights to criticise various behaviours, how those behaviours have anything to do with anyones right to not believe the Mccanns is beyond me, in effect you are saying you cant doubt the Mccanns cos x y z person has said something awful about them get a grip Martha, I have every right always to doubt them, its called freedom of thought!!! and not something you or anyone can encroach into in anywayshape or form
now, seeing as I still seem to be overposting and HOGGING the board I shall see you later
-
"to post crude photoshopped photos"
What's that, Martha ?
Whic bit don't you understand Anne?
What are those "crude photoshopped photos" ? Martha, I had not idea of this, but now I have to know. Will you believe that it's authentic ? I respect you as a supporter, I'd be sorry it the McCanns were on their own. I only wish you let people doubt. Doubting is reflecting, not accusing. Let's forget this last one for the sake of meditation !
-
"to post crude photoshopped photos"
What's that, Martha ?
Whic bit don't you understand Anne?
What are those "crude photoshopped photos" ? Martha, I had not idea of this, but now I have to know. Will you believe that it's authentic ? I respect you as a supporter, I'd be sorry it the McCanns were on their own. I only wish you let people doubt. Doubting is reflecting, not accusing. Let's forget this last one for the sake of meditation !
Google images of Kate McCann. The 8th picture is a crude photoshopped image. Hope this helps you, though god knows how it helps Madeleine.
Help me ? I'm certainly not going to search. Beurk !
-
You did ask.
Yes I did. Thanks for the information, but... I believe you and that's enough for me !
-
Redblossom, perhaps you could explain what you meant by this (rather strange) sentence then?
In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime
It was to that which I was responding, but granted I may have misunderstood your meaning.
The simple point is that it seems to be an anathema to suspect or voice this, and if you do you are x y z, that is all and you know it.
It IS anathema to accuse, to libel, to post crude photoshopped photos, to pore over pictures of Madeleine and make outrageous assumptions about the poor child, to imagine that you know better than the police about what happened, to think you are contributing to the solving of this case by recruiting a raggle-taggle army of "sceptics" on facebook - all of these things and more are anathema to me, sure.
You claimed that for "some people" that if the police suspect the parents that we would view that as anathema too but you're wrong - provided the police are not taking part in the above activities we see so often on the net then they are just doing their job - if they have evidence that the parents are guilty of some crime then I am quite happy for them to gather it all up and present it to the Public Prosecutor. I don't think it's very likely that this is happening mind you.
Try not to tar everyone with the same brush Martha. I have no idea what the photos of Madeliene are you refer to and don't want to know. I don't use facebook and I am not a member of a ' raggle~taggle army' of sceptics; I am just a sceptic with every right to express my opinion!
The other distasteful implication in a number of your posts is that you have a monopoly in caring about the fate of the 'poor child' and anyone who doubts the McCann's story has an unhealthy interest in Madeliene! Your "pore over pictures" comment above is a perfect example.
You appear somewhat hostile and obsessive at times and it doesn't make for healthy debate!
-
Why the personal attack on me Tim? What makes you think I was tarring you specifically with any brush? I did not attack you and have always been courteous towards you.
Frankly, I don't think you really have any idea how extreme the campaign directed at Madeleine's parents has been over the last 6 years. I also think you are mistaking my posts for someone else's as I rarely (if ever) make posts claiming that I care for Madeleine more than others. The simple fact of the matter is that there are pictures of Madeleine that have been obsessively pored over for years, for example the last photo taken of her has had literally thousand upon thousands of posts from genuine obsessives who discuss how the photo has been faked. There are other pictures discussed ad nauseam which allegedly show how unhappy Madeleine was or how sexualised she was - pictures as innocent as Madeleine eating an ice cream or holding a sonic screwdriver have been slavered over by people with very strange ideas indeed. This is the sort of behaviour to which I am referring. I am not claiming that ALL "sceptics" indulge in this bizarre hobby but believe me, many do.
Tim I find your personal remarks quite uncalled for and I would like an apology please.
It was not a personal attack on you Martha. I do apologise if it came across that way.
Please reread your post I referred to; nowhere do you say these distasteful activities and quite frankly unhealthy interest in Madeliene and photos of her are things you have witnessed from from certain people on other forums, facebook, etc. From your post I took it that you believe this is typical behaviour of McCann sceptics and as such a sceptic I found that insulting.
I am sure there are deviant minds on both sides of the debate. We need to becareful not to associate all the people who hold a certain opinion with a few sickos who just happen to hold that same overall view.
I hope my point is clear. For the record; sickos you refer to would never be allowed to post on this forum and if I had seen what you describe I would be as appalled as you. Sorry there has been a misunderstanding.
-
The Maddie McCann case is one which provokes strong emotions in both camps and sometimes posters tend to get a bit over zealous. I notice that this usually happens later in the evening when the rum and wines are flowing so I tend to avoid combative debates at those times. It is my belief that the vast majority of people do sincerely wish Maddie well and do hope for a reunion for her and her parents at sometime down the line because the alternative is all too terrible to contemplate. Speech over ?{)(**
-
How very DARE you?! Not a drop of alcohol has passed these lips for many a month! @)(++(*
He probably thought you're on the sauce because you're 'Senior Member' here and yet also a 'newbie'. Somewhat befuddled that!
8-)(--)
-
How very DARE you?! Not a drop of alcohol has passed these lips for many a month! @)(++(*
He probably thought you're on the sauce because you're 'Senior Member' here and yet also a 'newbie'. Somewhat befuddled that!
8-)(--)
Well I seem to be a newbie and a hero member!