What's highly implausible, according to forensic results, is abduction from bed.
One of the biggest myths built up falsely by the McCann doubters was 'Abduction is impossible'.
Opinions are polarised. There is no legally admissible evidence either way. It then falls to the credibility each person puts on those involved in the case.
For me, the dogs are the biggest obstacle to the abduction theory.
What's highly implausible, according to forensic results, is abduction from bed.
Why is it the only type of abduction admitted by the parents ? That is the real question.
You are of course free to believe that, however erroneous your belief may be, but to rebut it, all I need to say is that there are well referenced scientific sources showing that dogs make errors; you have no way to disprove that, other than to cast doubt on the findings, whereas my case is supported with minimal effort- my case being that there is too little information for anyone to make a rational or legal decision.
Once again, you do not know the dogs got it wrong.
[/quotExactly. I do not have to prove that the dogs got it wrong, merely introduce evidence that they are nowhere near a definitive test. If you rely on the dogs, you have to show that they are highly accurate- a situation for which there is no convincing evidence!
That is what this thread is about.
Once again, you do not know the dogs got it wrong.
Exactly. I do not have to prove that the dogs got it wrong, merely introduce evidence that they are nowhere near a definitive test. If you rely on the dogs, you have to show that they are highly accurate- a situation for which there is no convincing evidence!
That is what this thread is about.
Exactly. I do not have to prove that the dogs got it wrong, merely introduce evidence that they are nowhere near a definitive test. If you rely on the dogs, you have to show that they are highly accurate- a situation for which there is no convincing evidence!
That is what this thread is about.
There is no "evidence" either way. The only indications are Smithman and the dogs, which may not be mutually exclusive.
Once again, you do not know the dogs got it wrong.
[/quotExactly. I do not have to prove that the dogs got it wrong, merely introduce evidence that they are nowhere near a definitive test. If you rely on the dogs, you have to show that they are highly accurate- a situation for which there is no convincing evidence!
That is what this thread is about.
Irrelevant.
You accuse others of bias, yet yours as always is very apparent.
Dogs are used extensively because of their reliability around the world as you know, but you and your fellow believers would have it otherwise. Especially in all things mccann.
Again, you miss the point. There is no evidence to throw doubt on the McCann's. I need no evidence to support my belief that the McCann's are not legally or forensically responsible for what happened to Madeleine. If you want to successfully cast real doubt on the McCann's, you need to produce evidence.
No, I think you miss the point. Someone is responsible for Maddies disappearance. No evidence either way, just sightings and dog alerts. We all put our own interpretations on it.
I will agree it is much safer to believe the McCanns.
The McCann's being uninvolved is the moral, rational and legal assumption, and no evidence is necessary to maintain this. If one believes in the possible guilt of the McCann's, one needs to produce evidence; I do not have to do so for my belief.
My beliefs require no evidence, my mind is free.
Yours is hindered by morals & political correctness it would seem.
Not political correctness, merely moral, legal and scientific model.
I dont get angry with people who believe the McCanns no way.
I just get frustrated because in general the people who believe the McCanns only come onto the forums to disrupt the threads.
When you ask them a question it is usally answered by another question. They dont seem to have a mind of their own sadly and just go on verbatim all the time about the dogs and the DISGRACED AMARAL.
It does get tiring.
What really annoys me is I am on the fence and would quite like to have a proper grown up discussion sometimes with people who support them, but it never works that way, as the pros always end up being rude in the end.
Again your subject: Why People who suspect the McCanns get so angry at People who do not.
IS INCITFUL as usual.
Why?
I end up ignoring most of you as you cant have a decent discussion without be personal.
Its YOU or nothing...pro McCann or nothing.
There must be no room for doubters...its almost like a cult or relgion it is quite bizarre.
Even though i am on the fence, I am still open minded to evidence and ideas etc, and could be swayed if the right arguement was used.
Hindered nonetheless.
The McCann's being uninvolved is the moral, rational assumption... Snip
I dont get angry with people who believe the McCanns no way.
I just get frustrated because in general the people who believe the McCanns only come onto the forums to disrupt the threads.
When you ask them a question it is usally answered by another question. They dont seem to have a mind of their own sadly and just go on verbatim all the time about the dogs and the DISGRACED AMARAL.
It does get tiring.
What really annoys me is I am on the fence and would quite like to have a proper grown up discussion sometimes with people who support them, but it never works that way, as the pros always end up being rude in the end.
Again your subject: Why People who suspect the McCanns get so angry at People who do not.
IS INCITFUL as usual.
Why?
I end up ignoring most of you as you cant have a decent discussion without be personal.
Its YOU or nothing...pro McCann or nothing.
There must be no room for doubters...its almost like a cult or relgion it is quite bizarre.
Even though i am on the fence, I am still open minded to evidence and ideas etc, and could be swayed if the right arguement was used.
The McCann's being uninvolved is the moral, rational and legal assumption, and no evidence is necessary to maintain this. If one believes in the possible guilt of the McCann's, one needs to produce evidence; I do not have to do so for my belief.
Define which 'morals' hinder my view and define what you mean by 'political correctness.'
Well said!
The thread title could be taken to suggest that those who believe the mccanns do not get angry....funny....
@)(++(*
and quite right you are, people can believe and thnk what they want, its within their rights, but if they start throwing out rubbish, disinformation as fact, unsolicited personal abuse,constant indiscriminate name calling, stomping their feet and pontificating from some moral highground at others then of course people will get annoyed....its the attitude and words not the beliefs....you talk about civil debate, very hard with some....nigh on impossible wih others...
8)-)))
Well said!
The thread title could be taken to suggest that those who believe the mccanns do not get angry....funny....
@)(++(*
and quite right you are, people can believe and thnk what they want, its within their rights, but if they start throwing out rubbish, disinformation as fact, unsolicited personal abuse,constant indiscriminate name calling, stomping their feet and pontificating from some moral highground at others then of course people will get annoyed....its the attitude and words not the beliefs....you talk about civil debate, very hard with some....nigh on impossible wih others...also no one likes being told how and what to think and how to behave....brass neck at best
Roger, your OP says more about you and what it is you actually care about.
If you go by Amaral's version of events, Kate found Madeleine dead. He insists that because Eddie picked up certain items of her clothing.
Kate makes a gruesome discovery (the body of her loved and cherished daughter).
Gerry is oblivious and unaware in the restaurant.
Kate pulls herself together, returns to the restaurant, communicates traumatic news to Gerry (without anyone else noticing) and Gerry pulls himself together, exists the restaurant, returns to the apartment, scoops up the body of his daughter, whisks the body past the noses of Smiths, hides (Amaral's exact word) Madeleine's body on the beach, and returns to the restaurant.
Meanwhile Kate absences herself a second time from the restaurant and re-enters (before Gerry has even got down to the beach) to raise a fake alarm.
That is arrant nonsense.
The worse nonsense even Amaral himself rejects, before May 3rd.
For anything Amaral proposes to have the slightest chance of being right, there would have to be evidence of Kate and Gerry being simultaneously absent from the restaurant at some point between their joint arrival and Kate's alert.
There is none
Neither a plausible explanation of what might have happened to the remains of Madeleine between May 3rd and when the Renault was hired.
"If you go by Amaral's version of events"
I don't.
I think before May 3rd is more likely.
There had to be some reason for your username ...
Roger cares about The Rule of Law. Are you saying that you don't?
But it's produced by you, in spite of pretending it's somebody else's theory !
That is arrant nonsense.
What's the weather like up there on your high horses >@@(*&)
The day you acknowledge not a single piece of evidence exists to support your theory is the day you can consider looking over the fence at the moral high ground.
But as it is you are foot soldiers in the reputation management campaign, which, for whatever reason, continues to this day.
I don't have to acknowledge any such thing. That's the point.
There had to be some reason for your username ...
You do, if you're here (and elsewhere) for Madeleine McCann, and not for her parents.
When they found scent at 5A that was a good indication of what may have happened but when they found it again in the hire car and on the clothes then that's not merely a coincidence, there's a connection IMO. That is a misleading subject title and not the truth from what I've found on this forum, rather the opposite.
Why?
When they found scent at 5A that was a good indication of what may have happened but when they found it again in the hire car and on the clothes then that's not merely a coincidence, there's a connection IMO. That is a misleading subject title and not the truth from what I've found on this forum, rather the opposite.
It was you who spoke of morals was it not?
And for politicaly correct, see above.
"pontificating from some moral highground at others"
Quite.
Roger, your OP says more about you and what it is you actually care about.
You really don't understand, do you. I do not have to prove anything, and nor do The McCanns. I am here to support The Rule of Law against people like you who have no idea of what it means, but will be only too keen to depend on it should the need arise.
What's the weather like up there on your high horses >@@(*&)
The day you acknowledge not a single piece of evidence exists to support your theory is the day you can consider looking over the fence at the moral high ground.
But as it is you are foot soldiers in the reputation management campaign, which, for whatever reason, continues to this day.
You do, if you're here (and elsewhere) for Madeleine McCann, and not for her parents.
I am here for the truth, whatever that is.
You really don't understand, do you. I do not have to prove anything, and nor do The McCanns. I am here to support The Rule of Law against people like you who have no idea of what it means, but will be only too keen to depend on it should the need arise.
Did you ever read the book by Danny Collins?
I rarely read fiction.
I'll take that as a No then 8)-)))
Ahhh go on, it's still being sold... by Amazon.
I am here for the truth, whatever that is.
In all three for a, the person proposing the position is required to provide evidence whereas sceptics need only question that 'evidence'. This is how knowledge and justice advance.
moral and rational
Very little of that on here - mostly just people pushing their own agenda and getting angry when others disagree with them.
Agree.
The only rational agenda is doubt. All others are pretendy policemen.
I'll take that as a No then 8)-)))
Ahhh go on, it's still being sold... by Amazon.
I bought that book...theres alot of stuff in there that never got to the papers or the files..as with everything there were a few errors...the widest read are the best informed
8((()*/
8((()*/ I agree, Red, and I mention it to Roger & Co. because they only ever talk about one scenario: the one that suits their chosen vocation.
But Collins discusses another one, and there's yet another that nobody ever discusses (which happens to be the best for Madeleine herself. It's telling they never discuss the hoax possibility).
And you would point out inconsistencies where ever they arise despite the consequences ?
[snipping past the unsolicted personal attack]
You cant have that much respect for the law if you then decide arbitrarily as it suits which legal decisions are correct and which arent.....
>@@(*&)
Which Legal Decisions?
Amaral,court was right to convict him for signing off officer statements
Amaral, lower court right to ban his book
Amaral, appellant court wrong to say his book should be unbanned
Ciprianos, court was wrong to convict for murder
Ciprianos, appeal court wrong not to quash convictions
Sorry. I thought we were talking about a possible crime committed by The McCanns. If they are ever convicted then I might express an opinion.
Hoax by who?
>@@(*&)
If it was a hoax the perpetrators of it must be the cruellest maddest people on this planet......shudder
What do you mean, Lyall ? What is similar ?
It is a crazy theory (but so are the ones surrounding the similar Lindbergh case)
By person or persons who weren't a stranger to her.
It is a crazy theory (but so are the ones surrounding the similar Lindbergh case), with as little evidence for it as there is for the abduction scenario (i.e. none). But if it were some kind of hoax Madeleine could have been both alive and in good shape, and perhaps even still. There's little similar hope (logical hope anyway) provided by abduction theories, so I'm intrigued why other theories aren't discussed more often.
I think they will be in years to come if the current inconclusive state continues, which I think it will.
What do you mean, Lyall ? What is similar ?
Similarities about the locations where the children disappeared, timing of the disappearances, and reactions of those involved afterwards. Long time since I read the Lindbergh information, Anne, but when you read it some of the questions that arise are the same as the ones in the McCann case. I'll list them all one day.Have you read the very convincing hypothesis by an American historian ? No abduction, but eugenism (the child was hydrocephalus). The scale accident explains why the ransom was never claimed for, Lindbergh had to run behind the false abductor.
8((()*/ I agree, Red, and I mention it to Roger & Co. because they only ever talk about one scenario: the one that suits their chosen vocation.
But Collins discusses another one, and there's yet another that nobody ever discusses (which happens to be the best for Madeleine herself. It's telling they never discuss the hoax possibility).
YOU LIE. I never support a particular scenario.
Have you read the very convincing hypothesis by an American historian ? No abduction, but eugenism (the child was hydrocephalus). The scale accident explains why the ransom was never claimed for, Lindbergh had to run behind the false abductor.
Apart from the fact the crime scene was made a mess before the police arrived, I don't think these cases have much in common.
How utterly pathetic.
Oh, you so do. There's only one side of the case you will consider.
I shall present my case (when I've looked at my notes again 8)--)))Que bom ! 8)-)))
Haven't you a long past on this forum ?
Please provide evidence of any theory on Madeleine's disappearance that I have ever supported.
If you fail to provide such evidence, I will report you for abuse.
Over to you.
Please provide evidence of any theory on Madeleine's disappearance that I have ever supported.
If you fail to provide such evidence, I will report you for abuse.
Over to you.
I do not accept any theory at all.
As you have not produced one piece of evidence of me supporting any theory:
Reported for abuse and goading
Your obsession with the dogs is the evidence, and attempts to rubbish them. But you don't do it based on the science (nobody could have a problem with that); you do it by repeated, constant smearing of Mr Grime and his profession, masked by pseudoscientific talk of cueing and analysis of the behaviour in the PdL videos.
You should have a read (if you haven't already) of this thread started by Aiofe\Deplonker !Who doubts ?
You may find some relevant points in regards to the OP !
I do not accept any theory at all.
As you have not produced one piece of evidence of me supporting any theory:
Reported for abuse and goading
Looking at all your posts, you appear to be very much against the sedation hypothesis and against any weight being put behind the dog alerts. As these are 2 major elements in the suspicions against the McCanns, logically that would mean you believe the McCanns were not involved.
As there is no evidence of sedation and the dogs alerts are not evidence..that adds up to...no evidence
Calpol does in effect 'assuage' pain ! Confirmed by our resident Pharmacist no less !
Looking at all your posts, you appear to be very much against the sedation hypothesis and against any weight being put behind the dog alerts. As these are 2 major elements in the suspicions against the McCanns, logically that would mean you believe the McCanns were not involved.
Not according to the Oxford English dictionary !
Calpol does in effect 'assuage' pain ! Confirmed by our resident Pharmacist no less !
It assuages pain. Assuaging pain is not sedation, but is analgesia. Analgesia is not sedation.
Calm everyone please!
Try to desist from using the LIE or LIAR word when referring to other members. TY
PS Above posts edited accordingly.
What word should one use when a person tells an untruth either carelessly or with intent to abuse.
There are several examples above where LIES have been told which misrepresent my position completely.
What word should I use? If not given an alternative I shall use the phrase "Telling an untruth carelessly or purposefully"
Not according to the Oxford English dictionary !
Please produce the phrase from the OED which states that assuaging pain is sedation. I may just have to get the dictionary down myself.
Opinion.
Opinion.
And what if the opinion is an untruth, told carelessly or purposefully to mislead- that would be a lie.
And what if the opinion is an untruth, told carelessly or purposefully to mislead- that would be a lie.
I rarely read fiction.
Untruth would have to be deliberate rather than careless to be a lie.
An untruth that is careless but not corrected after the error is pointed out is also a lie.
You would know...youve posted enough lies even after corrected about mr grime LOL hypocrite extraordinaire.....oh mr grime never went to america, oh mr grime never took eddie there, oh mr grime never trained his dogs there, oh mr grime didnt and doesnt work with the fbi, mr grime doesnt have a canine training/consultancy company in the states, but someone in personnel, according to YOU, in south yorkshire police altered his cv for him ROFLMAO, etc etc etc....shameless and totally scurrilous lies
Mr Grime?
I'm satisfied that everything I've ever said about him is true.
Sure, no problem -
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sedative
noun
a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect:
your satisfaction in your lies and proven ones is not a measure of anything except, well, satisfaction in your lies......oh and constant libel.....
That thorn in your side must be excruciatng by now....oh dear, aspirin helps...a bit
How many alerts did the dogs make in jersey and what were the findingsLol the old jersey fall back. I suggest you read the voice of Jersey blog regarding the so called coconut which was never shown to be a coconut.
Then you don't understand what lies are; and neither what libel is.
Cop out to cover up your disastrous and shameful and shameless activities here.....
Lol the old jersey fall back. I suggest you read the voice of Jersey blog regarding the so called coconut which was never shown to be a coconut.
I can post the links if you're willing to out your bias to one side.
Right oh!
The report of Wiltshire police is the one.
Confirmation that Eddie reacted to a coconut.
The report of Wiltshire police is the one.
Confirmation that Eddie reacted to a coconut.
Which anthropologist was that then?
Not ms Brock was it?
In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
That is how many people view the mccann book.
Sure, no problem -
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sedative
noun
a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect:
That is not the OED.Whatever dictionary it is, read the header:
Whatever dictionary it is, read the header:
Definition of sedative in English
Who is arguing?
Er we are waiting for your the name of your anthropologist from the Wiltshire report you cited just to make sure it's not the same technician (note not an anthropologist) quoted in the voice for Jersey blog who thought it looked like a coconut....
I think you'll find that it is -
Publishers of http://www.oxforddictionaries.com are the Oxford University Press,
who are -
http://www.ox.ac.uk/ - Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Page 320 (link to follow)
In an e-mail to OFFICER X
and others, CO POWER states ‘my
understanding of the rules is that we should not
commit to non budgeted expenditure until the
proposition is passed by the States’.
X completes X report in respect of
Exhibit JAR/6. In it X states that the sample was
not bone and not human, appearing instead to be
more like part of a large seed casing or part of
something like a small piece of coconut.
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
Wiltshire Police seem to have totally ignored the e mails from the Oxford Lab in respect of what they found when the examined JAR/6. It is worth remembering that these people are only qualified to date material, NOT to give an expert view on what it is. Only an anthropologist can do that and the only anthropologists who examined JAR/6 said it was a piece of child’s skull.
Thank you for proving my point.
You see rational scientific, moral and forensic requirement for proof as disruption because we have no need to prove anything to support our beliefs whereas you do need this proof. I only need the proof of their innocence because as far as I can see there is NON. The dogs have proven to me they are guilty of some crime. I would like however to have some PROOF of their innocence but sadly you have not given me ANY. The DOGS NEVER LIE woof woof.
Thank you for an excellent practical demonstration of this effect.
sedative - noun;
a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect:
No dispute with the definition of the Oxford English dictionary definition of 'sedative' as far as I am concerned, in a contextual matter !
No sadly you have proved mine. What did you answer a load of physco babble to try and prove how clever you are (or not). 8-)(--)
I have typed my answer in red for you to read.
Your not worthy I am afraid of genuine debate and sadly I have to bid you adieu AGAIN, as I cannot be bothered to read your posts anymore. IGNORED.
I think you'll find that it is -
Publishers of http://www.oxforddictionaries.com are the Oxford University Press,
who are -
http://www.ox.ac.uk/ - Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Just to assist those who may not be aware of it, Rogerandout is debunker back here again, causing trouble as usual. Even after his last pm-based spectacular flounce he's back in here once more pretending to be someone else. You have to wonder why he keeps on bothering to do this.
Mods/Admin - why do you persistently let this disruptive person come on here causing trouble?
Hmm, where have I seen this before? Oh yes:
Just look at who wrote it. He's hopeless at hiding behind these digital masks.
Debunker says a lot of things that are interesting. But some people are too thick to realize.
It's an intellect thing. Some people want to learn and some people don't.
The problem with this forum is there are too many ego's, all fighting to score points.
Debunker might well have been expelled, but I look at the posts not the poster. It seems to me that Debunker seems to go off the rails when provoked and I think this is done on purpose by some people.
Debunker has a lot of very interesting information, that some of us would like to hear.
Likewise.
This matter of posting using different I.D's has gone on far too long.
As usual your limited logic, intelligence and general competence let you down. What you state does not support what you claim.
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
As usual your limited logic, intelligence and general competence let you down. What you state does not support what you claim.
I follow the Holmes school...From the very beginning the opposite was applied : Once you eliminate the possible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
Why don't you just apologise for whatever it was you did to get yourself banned and ask to be reinstated with your original user name, then play by the rules?
This vague pretending to be someone else is just silly!
Why don't you just apologise for whatever it was you did to get yourself banned and ask to be reinstated with your original user name, then play by the rules?
This vague pretending to be someone else is just silly!
I second that 8((()*/Wishful thinking, I'm afraid, people don't change and the nurse isn't a good actor.
I second that 8((()*/
Page 255:
The sample was logged into the ORAU system in the usual manner
and, as in all cases, a sample of bone powder was drilled from the
underside of the specimen using a tungsten carbide drill. The powder
weighed 440 mg. The technician performing this procedure noted that
the material did not behave as bone ordinarily would and did not have
the texture that normal bone exhibits. The technician has a great deal
of experience in the sampling of bone (almost 30 years). Because of
this uncertainty, and as a precaution, a small amount of the sample
was combusted to measure the % nitrogen remaining. % N is a good
correlate for protein, which is dominated in bone by collagen, and the
measurement of nitrogen offers a simple test concerning whether the
sample is dateable or not. Low % N means that the material is
essentially un-dateable using radiocarbon.
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had
0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any
quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller
chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a
result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably
not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material,
the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so
the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified
Certainly, the density of the
material is most unlike bone, it is too light. Our conclusion is that this
sample is: a) not bone and b) not human. We are very surprised that
the forensic archaeologist could be so confident and differ in X
identification. We suggested at the time that a further opinion would be
required, but this not considered by X .
So the anthropologists differ in their opinion?? I have quoted the email exchange and Lenny Harper's view on the subject and given the depths of the cover ups, back biting and vested interests going on in Jersey it is not difficult to see why this item caused so much disagreement.
But you miss a very important point.
Let us say for the sake of argument it was a coconut or a piece of wood.
What is to prevent that implement being used to strike someone and kill them and for it to rest next to the victim?
Eddie did not alert because it was bone, he alerted because whatever the item was (and clearly there is a difference in opinion between the experts as to what it is in fact is) had cadaver scent on it.
it only proves too that in their hearts of hearts they know there was no abductor and they know the mcanns are guilty of child neglect at least imo
I follow the Holmes school...
Trouble is, there is still a lot of "anti" indications that haven't been eliminated and only Smithman for the "pros"
Or, alternatively, he alerted in error, or it was an alert to blood (was Keela deployed on the coconutskull?)
So the anthropologists differ in their opinion?? I have quoted the email exchange and Lenny Harper's view on the subject and given the depths of the cover ups, back biting and vested interests going on in Jersey it is not difficult to see why this item caused so much disagreement.
But you miss a very important point.
Let us say for the sake of argument it was a coconut or a piece of wood.
What is to prevent that implement being used to strike someone and kill them and for it to rest next to the victim?
Eddie did not alert because it was bone, he alerted because whatever the item was (and clearly there is a difference in opinion between the experts as to what it is in fact is) had cadaver scent on it.
It's nice to see you being nice Eleanor, I'm sure your encouraging words will lift many !
Dogs are reliable
In his report, Mark Harrison listed cases of success that offered a guarantee of reliability. And he asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie's death, then it would be a fact.
Details
High costs - Mark Harrison stressed the high cost of the dogs. Their daily rate amounted to one thousand euros; the cost of the trip for them and their handlers was of 2750. There was also the cost of the passport for the animals (450 euros), adding to the lodging, the food and the transportation of the vehicles that were necessary for the animals.
False positives – Eddie, the dog that specialized in cadaver odour detection, has never given a false alert. He has participated in approximately 200 searches in homicide scenarios in Great Britain and never signalled any products that derived from meat or any other food item.
Human blood – Keela was trained exclusively with human blood; blood that is subject to strict testing and which comes from hospitals. She locates contaminated guns, smells vehicles and clothing items, and accurately detects residues, even if the locations are subject to cleaning.
Do please keep trying !
Read what that says carefully.
In 200 searches he never alerted to foodstuffs. It does not say that he never alerted to other substances as the empirical scientific research shows that all scent dogs do.
No you read this very carefully - "He asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie's death, then it would be a fact."
That is totally and scientifically impossible. Even Grime does not claim that. This is why such evidence can only be used if surrounded by caveats about uncertainty.
No responsible dog handler claims 100% accuracy because they know the science.
"'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal." (Martin Grime)
"'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal." (Martin Grime)
Or, alternatively, he alerted in error, or it was an alert to blood (was Keela deployed on the coconutskull?)
"'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal." (Martin Grime)
I merely asked a question, no insult was inferred !
I can gauge the level of your intelligence from your musings on, and, by the company you keep on other fora !
Human bones were found which help to account for the alerts.
Yet Martin Grimes also said he covered a piece of pork in petrol, set fire to it and Eddie alerted to it. In my opinion a piece of pork that has been burnt, would have been cooked. So don't understand what he is saying. Does Eddie alert to food stuff or not?
That is truly a tragedy !
So the anthropologists differ in their opinion?? I have quoted the email exchange and Lenny Harper's view on the subject and given the depths of the cover ups, back biting and vested interests going on in Jersey it is not difficult to see why this item caused so much disagreement.
But you miss a very important point.
Let us say for the sake of argument it was a coconut or a piece of wood.
What is to prevent that implement being used to strike someone and kill them and for it to rest next to the victim?
Eddie did not alert because it was bone, he alerted because whatever the item was (and clearly there is a difference in opinion between the experts as to what it is in fact is) had cadaver scent on it.
Dogs are reliable
In his report, Mark Harrison listed cases of success that offered a guarantee of reliability. And he asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie's death, then it would be a fact.
Details
High costs - Mark Harrison stressed the high cost of the dogs. Their daily rate amounted to one thousand euros; the cost of the trip for them and their handlers was of 2750. There was also the cost of the passport for the animals (450 euros), adding to the lodging, the food and the transportation of the vehicles that were necessary for the animals.
False positives – Eddie, the dog that specialized in cadaver odour detection, has never given a false alert. He has participated in approximately 200 searches in homicide scenarios in Great Britain and never signalled any products that derived from meat or any other food item.
Human blood – Keela was trained exclusively with human blood; blood that is subject to strict testing and which comes from hospitals. She locates contaminated guns, smells vehicles and clothing items, and accurately detects residues, even if the locations are subject to cleaning.
There is no evidence of death at Haut de la Garene.
That's why the enquiry never became a murder enquiry.
"'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal." (Martin Grime)
I thought he said that Eddie did NOT react to it.
Confirmed by South Yorkshire Police in an Freedom of information answer, Eddie participated in exactly 37 cases.
And there is evidence from the files that at Praia da Luz Harrison distanced himself from several of the searches.
PdL certainly blotted Eddie's record.
Cuddle-cat (at least) was either an error of omission or an error of commission.
37 cases?
And?
.....over 200 case searches.....
Not cases
Each case can involve more than one search/search area
E.g. Mccann case = 1 case = multiple searches
As well you know too......
We have all seen the Videos, and what a dog's breakfast they were. Should anyone have had the temerity to produce those in Court.
However, anything is possible in Portugal wherein the lead detective gained a Conviction on a tortured confession.
But this won't ever happen again. For this we must be truly thankful.
Has Amaral called Grime to testify for him at the libel trial?
Where have I ever stated that the McCann's or anybody else were responsible for the death of their daughter ?
In 6 years operational deployment and over 200 cases the dog has never alerted ...
(Martin Grime)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME_IXprocesso_2265.jpg
No, there's nothing of that kind except in your dreams.
And there is evidence from the files that at Praia da Luz Harrison distanced himself from several of the searches.
No he said he did -Could you please give the reference for this "quote".
> In training the dog has accurately alerted to a 1 cm cube of pork soaked in
petrol for 1 week and then burnt until only a residue remains.
We have all seen the Videos, and what a dog's breakfast they were. Should anyone have had the temerity to produce those in Court.
However, anything is possible in Portugal wherein the lead detective gained a Conviction on a tortured confession.
But this won't ever happen again. For this we must be truly thankful.
No, there's nothing of that kind except in your dreams.
Vol IX p. 2481
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2481.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Until it can be proved otherwise yes I do !
E.T.A. You're forgiven, it would be unchristian of me not to do so !
Yet Martin Grimes also said he covered a piece of pork in petrol, set fire to it and Eddie alerted to it. In my opinion a piece of pork that has been burnt, would have been cooked. So don't understand what he is saying. Does Eddie alert to food stuff or not?
No
Pig meat treated for human consumption is entirely different to decaying pig meat that Eddie was trained on......the 1cm cube training exercise was obviously using the latter, Id imagne for the purposes of detecting totally burnt bodies (not burnt sausages eg)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME_IXprocesso_2266.jpg
If it were not the case Eddie would have reacted to meat based foods all the time, which Mr Grime says does not happen
There Montclair, link......
Different quote from a different place.
Grime is on record as saying that Eddie was involved in over 200 cases.
The true figure is 37.
It is the people that pretend that they believe the McCann that are aggressive towards those that question the McCann's fairy tale.
Yes, we have seen all the videos and it was very enlightening how the dogs behaviour was quite positive on their identifications.
In Portugal there are no detectives in Polícia Judiciária, and only the Public Ministry (judge or judges) can charge anyone.
It would be nice for those wanting to keep insulting Portugal and its legal system to inform themselves, at least for not making fools of themselves (or at least not so much).
You pay far too much attention to the word of Mr Grime ...
No one is insulting the country of Portugal, and probably not The PJ in general. But there has been much wrong on The Algarve. That is now quite obvious.
... moderated ...
I'd doubt it somewhat ! I prefer the company of people who highlight injustice where ever it occurs irregardless of the consequences rather than upsetting the apple cart ! I think you know what I'm referring to !
Perhaps you should refrain from making any comments about the Portuguese judicial system and also the Algarve until you have learned something.
Perhaps you should mind your own business rather than my opinions of Goncalo Amaral and The Algarve. I know a bit more of this than you seem to think I do. Been there and seen what was going on quite some time ago, several times.
But have it your way. I don't really care. The McCanns are never going to be indicted.
As I said, educate yourself. You only reveal ignorance each time you try to insult Dr. Amaral.
It is in your remit to ask as to the veracity of the offending item !
Cite for human bones in the same area please.
By the end of the excavations and investigations at Haut de la Garenne in July 2008,[4] police had sifted over 150 tonnes of earth. 65 human milk teeth were found, coming from between 10 to 65 individuals aged between 6–12 years and generally seeming to have been shed naturally. Discounting a large quantity of animal bones, only three bone fragments (the largest 25 mm = 1 inch long) were identified as possibly human; two of them have been dated to a range from 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950.[9]
.... moderated ... None of us hate Portugal. Some of us even like it.
But never mind. There won't be any more stitch ups or beatings to gain confessions. Those days are done.
Such a pity about Madeleine.
You pay far too much attention to the word of Mr Grime ...
No
Pig meat treated for human consumption is entirely different to decaying pig meat that Eddie was trained on......the 1cm cube training exercise was obviously using the latter, Id imagne for the purposes of detecting totally burnt bodies (not burnt sausages eg)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME_IXprocesso_2266.jpg
If it were not the case Eddie would have reacted to meat based foods all the time, which Mr Grime says does not happen
There Montclair, link......
Burnt pig meat is burnt pig meat, whether decaying or notl.
So if someone killed someone and the body was decomposing, they then thought they would set fire to the house, the dog wouldn't alert to the body?
Burnt pig meat is burnt pig meat, whether decaying or notl.In English you have two different words : pig and pork. You've never seen a pork in a farm, have you ?
So if someone killed someone and the body was decomposing, they then thought they would set fire to the house, the dog wouldn't alert to the body?
And then the dog is trained to discard decomposing pig's scent, a task which is favoured by the actual search and find of human remains.
The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets.
Could you please give the reference for this "quote".
All I can say is that those who criticise the dogs would be praising their amazing skills if they had only reacted to Robert Murat's houses, car and other objects relating to him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008)
In English you have two different words : pig and pork. You've never seen a pork in a farm, have you ?
???
Yes its would
And no, a decayng pig is not the same as one processed into food
The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I.
You posted the quote yourself earlier! Not sure what the problem is, but no, Eddie does not alert to food.
Be a bit pointless, wouldnt it.....
I can understand bacon, sausages, ham, but not a chunk of pig meat, that would be the same as human meat when burnt. So Grime introduces decomposing pig meat, but what if a body had been decomposing before it was burnt?
The dog would react in either case, sorry, but I still dont understand what point you are tryng to make.....if it is , apologies if second guessing wrongly,that the dog might be reacting to burnt pig, then Ive never heard of any burnt pigs around any missing person case the dog has worked on
>@@(*&)
The point is that Martin Grime said the dogs wouldn't alert to foodstuff, well we eat pork don't we, he burnt pork Eddie alerted to it. So what the heck is he talking about the dog won't alert to foodstuff.
No there is no burnt pig around dead missing people, BUT if someone were to be cooking pork then what is there stopping the dog from alerting to the smell of that pork?
Because its different....a treated and processed slaughtered pig for consumption is not the same as a rotting decaying pig! The dog is trained on the scent of decay/decomposition
The pork we store cook and eat is not decayed or decomposed.....cant explain it any better....sorry
Oh well, really off topic as someone said, Im leaving it there, here.....
The pork we store cook and eat is cured. Or smoked, thats how I like my joints.@)(++(*
The pork we store cook and eat is cured. Or smoked, thats how I like my joints.
I have never seen a beef in a farm either Anne, but pig meat burned is the same as human meat burned, the dog wouldn't be able to tell the difference.There is the mistake, Lace. The scent compounds aren't the same in decaying pig and in decaying pork.
There is the mistake, Lace. The scent compounds aren't the same in decaying pig and in decaying pork.
There is the mistake, Lace. The scent compounds aren't the same in decaying pig and in decaying pork.
More about the process those poor little piggies go through before they reach the dinner table:You see that and stop eating meat. The pig is a clever animal, he smells blood and death, he's horrified and tries to escape. How did I eat pork two days back ? Just blocking imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_slaughter
The pork we store cook and eat is cured. Or smoked, thats how I like my joints.
You see that and stop eating meat. The pig is a clever animal, he smells blood and death, he's horrified and tries to escape. How did I eat pork two days back ? Just blocking imagination.
There is the mistake, Lace. The scent compounds aren't the same in decaying pig and in decaying pork.
There a rough similarity between decaying pig and decaying human.
Decaying pork is decaying pig meat.No.
No.
No.
YesNo,not the same,only in semantic terms...which rarely have much to do with reality.....why dont you understand the difference? between a rotting corpse and the ham in your fridge,fresh or left to rot?
No,not the same,only in semantic terms...which rarely have much to do with reality.....why dont you understand the difference? between a rotting corpse and the ham in your fridge,fresh or left to rot?
No,not the same,only in semantic terms...which rarely have much to do with reality.....why dont you understand the difference? between a rotting corpse and the ham in your fridge,fresh or left to rot?
Ham is cured. Pork fillet, joints, mine, chops decay like any pig meat and in a similar fashion to human flesh.You're spreading ludicrous disinformation.
They are then hoisted on a rail, after which they are exsanguinated, usually via the carotid artery and the jugular vein. After the blood is gone, the carcass is drenched in hot water in a device called a pig scalder which helps in the removal of hair, which is subsequently completed by using scissor-like devices and then if necessary with a torch.
The pig is then eviscerated...
That's why decaying pork has nothing to do with decaying pig.
Nurses are no vets.
Pig is pork AnneNo.
Ham is cured.
Rotting meat when burnt would be the same as a human when burnt.
Yes, a rotting pig corpse, not a rotting joint of ham....correct....humans are not cured or smoked...dogs alert to decomposition scent from dead pigs ...can you still not see the difference?
Never mind.....
Cite
> In training the dog has accurately alerted to a 1 cm cube of pork soaked in
petrol for 1 week and then burnt until only a residue remains.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Note that Grime says PORK not pig meat!
So what?It might be difficult to find a decaying pig, even a wild boar. So likely handlers get left overs of pork, like blood, viscera, lymph etc. that they will let decay.
Proves nothing.....perhaps he referred to part of a dead pig as pork, and? he doesnt write or edit the Oxford dictionary, he is a cadaver dog trainer and deployer.....not anyone whose bogged down in irrelevant semantics and jiggerypokery........Eddies never alerted to foodstuffs, Grime has stated so and given the reason, its been quoted enough times, end of story......have fun though.....
8((()*/
Stillborn piglets is what Grimes dog was trained on.....later actual human cadavers in the USA....for six months...pretty well trained dog.....
Gnight, enough for one day
off to have a ham salad before bed......hope not to have nightmares
@)(++(*
It might be difficult to find a decaying pig, even a wild boar. So likely handlers get left overs of pork, like blood, viscera, lymph etc. that they will let decay.
Those who tasted it say the meat closest to human flesh is stag (it's a bit sweet).
funny how in disasters s sniffer dogs are always used like in scotland last week and the phillipines etc isnt it and the pros dont protest about what those dogs find but they trash eddie and keela??
Rescue team=Rescue dogs to rescue people not find fatalities. 8-)(--)
8 people died i would think the sniffer dogs were used to find their bodies
8 people died i would think the sniffer dogs were used to find their bodies
8 people died i would think the sniffer dogs were used to find their bodies
And then the dog is trained to discard decomposing pig's scent, a task which is favoured by the actual search and find of human remains.
Not true.I wasn't referring especially to Martin Grime, but to the cadaver dog handbook of Andrew Rebmann, Edward David and Marcella H. Sorf on the use of training aids and distractors.
Quote from Martin Grime
The result from scientific experiment and research to date would tend to support the theory that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two.
End quote
I wasn't referring especially to Martin Grime, but to the cadaver dog handbook of Andrew Rebmann, Edward David and Marcella H. Sorf on the use of training aids and distractors.
Nobody seriously supposes that a pig would have been maliciously left decaying in the 5A before calling the dogs, though Mrs Duarte wasn't far to believe so in 2010.
I wasn't referring especially to Martin Grime, but to the cadaver dog handbook of Andrew Rebmann, Edward David and Marcella H. Sorf on the use of training aids and distractors.
Nobody seriously supposes that a pig would have been maliciously left decaying in the 5A before calling the dogs, though Mrs Duarte wasn't far to believe so in 2010.
But as the dogs can detect odour from below ground and from decades ago - then who is to say pigmeat of some kind was not in the ground in the areas where the dog alerted.
It is because of these possibilities that without corroborating evidence to prove that could not have been the case - they cannot be dismissed as a reason for an alert.
What a very unfortunate pair the McCanns are. The only one of the holidaymakers to have their child go missing and the only ones to have their apartment built on the site of an old abattoir !
Get real this has no relevance to the case. Eddie alerted to human cadaver odour.
I wasn't referring especially to Martin Grime, but to the cadaver dog handbook of Andrew Rebmann, Edward David and Marcella H. Sorf on the use of training aids and distractors.
Nobody seriously supposes that a pig would have been maliciously left decaying in the 5A before calling the dogs, though Mrs Duarte wasn't far to believe so in 2010. (Yes I agree and some pro mccanns were seen to call the PJ Porco a few times......)
Flipping heck not the dogs again lol. Anne they do, they seriously believe that a pig would have been in the bin or hiding in the closet lol, their minds are so shut down and blinkered, like robots......pointless in even discussing it with them, i have them all on ignore now its so quiet its lovely lol.
Come on Anne, of course this happened, dead pigs decaying in car boots, apartments, you name it. Its a waste of time really its all they have makes me laugh.
These dogs are trained ONLY for human cadaver they can swing it around how the like it.
The dogs were right, they are always right, beware the dog lol.....Even the Mccanns scape goat Zapata finally confessed so the dog was right there too he he.
Flipping heck not the dogs again lol. Anne they do, they seriously believe that a pig would have been in the bin or hiding in the closet lol, their minds are so shut down and blinkered, like robots......pointless in even discussing it with them, i have them all on ignore now its so quiet its lovely lol.
Come on Anne, of course this happened, dead pigs decaying in car boots, apartments, you name it. Its a waste of time really its all they have makes me laugh.
These dogs are trained ONLY for human cadaver they can swing it around how the like it.
The dogs were right, they are always right, beware the dog lol.....Even the Mccanns scape goat Zapata finally confessed so the dog was right there too he he.
Do you have a copy of that publication?Yes I do.
I was told that Martim Grime trains his dogs with human cadavers and not with pigs.
Are you aware that Eddie was trained on dead pig and that Martin Grime has said that he still reacts to untreated flesh!
The dog in the Zapata case identified a place other than where the body was admitted to have been stored.
Cite please.
Zapata dug up Jeanette Zapata's remains and moved them to a storage locker in Sun Prairie with some camping equipment. Later in 2005, he disposed of the remains in several Dumpsters at the Juneau County landfill. District Attorney Brian Blanchard said Monday that although police searched the landfill in 2006, no new search for remains was made after Zapata's statement to Statz.
Although the evidence was excluded from Zapata's first trial, police said corpse-sniffing dogs indicated the scent of human remains at the Indian Trace home and two other homes occupied by Zapata as well as a storage locker and a rental car. Based on Zapata's statement, the locker and car indications were correct.
http://host.madison.com/news/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-years-the-former-madison-man/article_3f7a7f4f-cb83-5869-b9c6-23532bc49a4e.html
Eta
better link here! As it has details of various cases involving these kind of dogs
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-5-years.html
Thank you hun.
Its a shame the doubters cant find this information for themselves lol, oh well it wouldnt suit their theory would it lol.x
Shame you continually avoid the opnion of the expert..Grime
I think you confuse evidence and Legally Admissible Evidence. All he says is that the law requires corroborating evidence.
"In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated
assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.
These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I
introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the
animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet
cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from
scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of
human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train'
the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be
possible in the future."
"'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption."
"SUMMARY
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."
Nothing is done to a pork joint it is just frozen then we buy it and eat it.
Grime also says the decomposition of a body starts IMMEDIATELEY so if you have a pork joint, a cadaver dog will smell it. ANY dog will smell it.
In my opinion the only difference between a cadaver dog and any old dog, is that the best breed of dog is chosen to be trained. The dog is trained to obey a signal to seek out the smell, it is trained NOT to dig or disturb the evidence just to bark when the evidence is found.
Eddie picked the clothes up in his mouth, that is not what a cadaver dog should do.
That statement is incorrect.
There is circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. The two versions are very different and as such, for the purposes of prosecution varying degrees of weight are placed on each.
Circumstantial evidence in this instance could be the scent of death detecting that a body has been present. Direct evidence would be the dog alerting to the scent of death upon which at a later date the body is found. Just because the dog alerts to the scent of death does not mean that the body was not there. It just carries less weight because it is clearly more difficult to prove which body was present.
Edit: Pathfinder just beat me to it but in much more detail @)(++(*
Lace, I'm not wasting my time with idiotic responses. Eddie alerted to 5A inside and outside, the car and the clothes. Eddie barked and alerted to human cadaver odour from a human that has disappeared and hasn't been seen since.
Nothing is done to a pork joint it is just frozen then we buy it and eat it.
Grime also says the decomposition of a body starts IMMEDIATELEY so if you have a pork joint, a cadaver dog will smell it. ANY dog will smell it.
Lace, I'm not wasting my time with idiotic responses. Eddie alerted to 5A inside and outside, the car and the clothes. Eddie barked and alerted to human cadaver odour from a human that has disappeared and hasn't been seen since.
If you thought my response was too idiotic for a response then why respond?
I'll tell you why, you don't like hearing something you don't want to hear. Eddie cannot tell the difference between the smell of pork and human flesh.
"There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however
see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat
foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response. "
Read the report:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm)
Oh not this hogwash again!
- Eddie does not alert to food, never has done
- To suggest nothng is done to meat to process it for human consumption is ridiculous
- A joint of ham does not smell like a decomposed body!
- Clutchhg at straws comes to mind
eta
- Eddie cant tell the difference between the scent of a decomposed pig and the scent of a decomposed human.....because they are so similar....thats all....nothng to do with food at all
Oh not this hogwash again!
- Eddie does not alert to food, never has done
- To suggest nothng is done to meat to process it for human consumption is ridiculous
- A joint of ham does not smell like a decomposed body!
- Clutchhg at straws comes to mind
Get real this has no relevance to the case. Eddie alerted to human cadaver odour.
Ham is processed meat I am talking about a fresh joint of pork.
Thanks for the concern but I don't feel confused at all. Maybe I didn't explain myself very well and ended up confusing you?
If the dog alerts to a body and if in that particular spot the body is found under the floorboards then the evidence of the dog alerting in this instance would lead to direct evidence and carry greater weight.
If the dog alerted in a room and no body was found and therefore no direct evidence then the dog alert could still be used as circumstantial evidence but it would be much more difficult to convince a jury. Therefore less weight is given to this type of evidence.
What about it? And what is the relevnce, if any......there is none....
What about it? And what is the relevnce, if any......there is none....As i said, clutchng at straws
Oh not this hogwash again!
- Eddie does not alert to food, never has done
- To suggest nothng is done to meat to process it for human consumption is ridiculous
- A joint of ham does not smell like a decomposed body!
- Clutchhg at straws comes to mind
eta
- Eddie cant tell the difference between the scent of a decomposed pig and the scent of a decomposed human.....because they are so similar....thats all....nothng to do with food at all
Out of interest Red, what exactly do you think they do to a fresh joint of meat, before it is sent to the shops?
Well if Eddie alerted to pork then it doesn't make a lot of difference by the sound of it. It was a cube of pork he used and not some of the innards of the pig.
Splitting hairs.
My original post was in reference to there being different types of evidence and that it is incorrect to use the term "evidence is evidence".
I used the dogs to attempt to explain what corroborating evidence was needed to determine a "direct evidence" hit from the dogs.
No, there's nothing of that kind except in your dreams.
It's alright, I've found the answer courtesy of the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html
@)(++(* @)(++(*
Ok let's call a truce and agree to disagree?
In answer to your original post, for me there is insufficient proof to say the McCanns are guilty of anything other than leaving the children alone and yet I still after all this time have my suspicions about them.
This for me is because of the many inconsistencies or what seems to me illogical behaviours. I could not say for sure Madeleine was abducted and I cannot say for sure she wasn't.
I suppose any anger comes from the idea that people can close their eyes and ears to anything else other than abduction. For me all possibilities should remain on the table.
But I am one of the few people who has no fixed views about what happened. I seek to convince the deluded that they are operating way above their competence.
How can you possibly call anyone 'deluded' when it still isn't known what happened to Madeleine?
There is still little evidence to prove prominence of any theory that she was abducted, she died or she wandered off.
How can you possibly call anyone 'deluded' when it still isn't known what happened to Madeleine?
There is still little evidence to prove prominence of any theory that she was abducted, she died or she wandered off.
A delusion is a firmly fixed belief that does not have sufficient evidence to support it and which is held so firmly that rational and factual representations against the truth of that belief are rejected without consideration.
Anyone who strongly believes that they 'know' what happened to Madeleine is certainly delusional.
Most of the UK press has been saying for five years that they know. Do you agree they are delusional?
I do.
A delusion is a firmly fixed belief that does not have sufficient evidence to support it and which is held so firmly that rational and factual representations against the truth of that belief are rejected without consideration.
Anyone who strongly believes that they 'know' what happened to Madeleine is certainly delusional.
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Since there is no superior evidence in the Madeleine case the point is mute.
And what about people here and on other forums who claim they know Madeleine was abducted by stranger or strangers?
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Since there is no superior evidence in the Madeleine case the point is mute.
There is adequate evidence that insufficient evidence exists to form any reliable belief about the subject. Thus there is superior evidence that insufficient evidence exists.
Anyone holding that they 'know' what happened rather than say that they are guessing, is delusional.
Exactamundo......there ie NO superior evidence of any kind whatsoever......the least superior is the abduction theory.....evidence = zero on all counts
No evidence not even circumstantial... Death theory circumstantial evidence plus statistics
oh well nite nite
If someone claimed she was abducted by aliens I might agree with you but hey...that's not the case.
Two entirely different issues. First you claimed that anyone who claims to know what happened to Madeleine is delusional and now you claim that those who claim there is superior evidence is delusional.
Which one is it Roger?
If someone claimed she was abducted by aliens I might agree with you but hey...that's not the case.
That would be more plausible than the argument that she was abducted by an invisible, untraceable, immaterial being....as has been portrayed by the defenders of an abduction.
That's exactly what the PJ said until they were charged.
Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects. Mr Sousa refused to confirm or deny reports in Portuguese newspapers that sniffer dogs had detected odours of a dead body that had been in the apartment in Praia da Luz. Following Mr Sousa's comments, a spokeswoman for the McCann family said: "It is obviously heartening that the police in Portugal have finally confirmed that Kate and Gerry McCann are not suspects following the hurtful and unhelpful comments that have been made this week. Kate and Gerry understand that the police in Portugal are working hard to do everything in their power to find Madeleine McCann. They continue to hope and pray that Madeleine is still alive."
That's exactly what the PJ said until they were charged.
Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects. Mr Sousa refused to confirm or deny reports in Portuguese newspapers that sniffer dogs had detected odours of a dead body that had been in the apartment in Praia da Luz. Following Mr Sousa's comments, a spokeswoman for the McCann family said: "It is obviously heartening that the police in Portugal have finally confirmed that Kate and Gerry McCann are not suspects following the hurtful and unhelpful comments that have been made this week. Kate and Gerry understand that the police in Portugal are working hard to do everything in their power to find Madeleine McCann. They continue to hope and pray that Madeleine is still alive."
Well they weren't in the end (made arguidos) but they were told by their lawyer that they were going to be charged (Kate to admit to it and get 2 year sentence) and left quickly (a day earlier than planned) when they were told they were free to leave.
The charges were dropped? Why was that? No evidence?
The child dissapeared. Why was that? Good parenting?
Why is it that other children did not disappear despite similar parenting
Ask me one on sport.
why...do you actually know something about sport
The lawyer didn't know that at the time. He was told they were going to be charged and a deal was on the table. A few days later charges were dropped and they were free to leave.
Kate's book.
"The incentive to accept this offer seemed to be that if we didn't agree to it, the authorities could or would go after us for murder and if we were found guilty we might both receive life sentences." (page 301)
Read the next Page 302 - Gerry says they've got nothing on us and began pointing out the many flaws in the PJ's evidence.
The child dissapeared. Why was that? Good parenting?
No worse than parents who put their child on board an aircraft, in good faith, then the aeroplane crashes, killing all on board ....@)(++(*
And you believe that why exactly ?
Who says ?
Please do !
I've asked to avail of your offer of an education, for which I would be grateful !
And the similarities between the two services were what exactly ?
No, no, no ! You've offered to "educate" me, please do so !
And the similarities between the two services were what exactly ?
Neither are like being in your back garden.
I'm still awaiting my first educational lesson please !
You've offered to "educate" me, I've accepted your kind "offer" !
Please begin, unless of course you are unable to ?
" You mean you aren't aware of it...and you pretend to be so knowledgable...do you need ME to educate you"
What ? Do you mean that that wasn't an offer ?
Where was the question mark (it looks like this ? in case YOU need an education) !
Cariad, have you seen my garden?
davel! You supplied a question mark! No, no I haven't seen your garden. I'm sure it's lovely though. It probably has a pool in it.
My doesn't. It can't be more than 50 foot. I still wouldn't sit out there for half hour stretches with toddlers asleep upstairs, mind.
Ive got young children so wouldn't have a pool.
Met a lovely lady last week who used to put her baby in a pram outside her front door whilst she did the washing..was she a bad parent
To which I replied, yes please !
It really depends davel. My Nana did the same with my Dad and his brother, but that was 63 years ago.
So you ask questions BUT if someone responds with an answer that you don't like you then close ranks because you can not debate the issue which you raised initially !
Speaks volumes !
that's exactly the response I expected and its true...so when did it become unsafe...
I remember reading Gerry saying that PDL felt like the UK 50 yrs ago...SAFE....that's why they left the children..it felt safe....how wrong they were.
So you ask questions BUT if someone responds with an answer that you don't like you then close ranks because you can not debate the issue which you raised initially !
Speaks volumes !
How would Gerry know what the UK felt like 50 years ago if he is only 45?
Close ranks with whom?
The same way cariad knows what her gran did 63 years ago..stop spamming
It's subjective isn't it, ask someone else & they might have a completely different view.
What decade were child abductors invented?
of course its subjective...what decade were child abductors invented...what century or more accurately which millennium
So once AGAIN you run away from a debate, and once AGAIN the assembled membership (and by default, certain admin. from assorted sewer sites) have seen you for exactly what you are !
Im actually debating it at the moment with cariad
I'm happy to wait till you've answered Pat. I have to wash the floors now anyway.
I'll tell you what I think re 1950's and now when I'm done......
What were the similarities in relation to the McCannn's baby listening service and those provided by the Mark Warner company in the Ocean Club complex, Praia da Luz in May 2007 in your opinion ?
What were the similarities in relation to the McCannn's baby listening service and those provided by the Mark Warner company in the Ocean Club complex, Praia da Luz in May 2007 in your opinion ?
So what were the similarities of both systems, in your opinion ?
They only offered listening service at resorts which (unlike PDL) were fully enclosed.
So for example (unlike PDL) there was IMO no risk of a burglar starting to break in.
Listening was every 15 minutes (this from a mumsnet poster who used the service at another resort).
Listeners had two-way radios so they could report back to control nanny if required (same source).
Mainly (which is what I presume you meant) babies & listening, could you elaborate on that further perchance ?
My knowledge is limited in this regard, hence my question regarding the similarities of both systems, I was hoping you may be in a position to 'educate' me !
Obviously not !
Where in my quoted post did I 'assume' anything ?
So you're not going to debate the issue then ?
This has been a really really bad day for your credibility on the forum hasn't it !
Could you re-type that in some kind of order that makes sense please !
I've answered pat...why are you washing the floors on a saturday evening
Because they're dirty. I have 3 large dogs, during wet weather, washing the floors is a full time job.
Right, 1950's being safe:
Apparently the crime statistics haven't changed that much, we're just much more aware of the dangers now. We have 24 hour rolling news, the papers always run with any incident involving a child. It's shoved in our faces all the time.
It's not something that my parents or grandparents considered, whereas I always did with my children. We are just so aware of dangers now that it's foolhardy to ignore them imo.
All dangers, not just stranger danger.
"We have 24 hour rolling news, the papers always run with any incident involving a child. It's shoved in our faces all the time."
Yep, and people lap it up like brainwashed plastic idiots.
But then nothing bad ever happened to anyone before 24hr news came along did it?
I'm guilty of it myself. My mother always complained that I was too protective of my boys. I was pregnant with my elder son when Dunblane happened. It terrified me.
Every rational part of me realises that the chances of anything happening to my children is very, very slim, but I can't help being plagued by fears that it could happen.
I think most of us feel the same, Cariad - it's an irrational fear we all have.
The chances of our children being in a serious car accident, God forbid, are hundreds of times higher than them being abducted, yet we take them in cars all the time.
I have the perfect example of this. I take my niece to school 4 days a week. Her school is a 5 minute walk from my house, however I also take my son to school, his is a ten minute drive away. He starts school at 8:30, she starts school at 9. I could leave my niece in the house, drive to my sons school and get home in time to walk her in, but I insist that she comes with us. She's ten by the way.
The chances of a ten year old coming to harm alone in a house for twenty minutes are so much smaller than a car crash, but I can't leave her.
Even when we are aware of what we're doing, we're still controlled by our fears.
It's not 'fear' that controls our decisions regarding the little people in our care Cariad ( if it was, that level of fearfulness would render us unable to function normally )
What lends us to caution is the fact that we acknowledge we have a responsibility towards them, and their safety
Looks like the author of this thread Rogerandout is now Roger IS Out !
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3053.0
I have the perfect example of this. I take my niece to school 4 days a week. Her school is a 5 minute walk from my house, however I also take my son to school, his is a ten minute drive away. He starts school at 8:30, she starts school at 9. I could leave my niece in the house, drive to my sons school and get home in time to walk her in, but I insist that she comes with us. She's ten by the way.
The chances of a ten year old coming to harm alone in a house for twenty minutes are so much smaller than a car crash, but I can't leave her.
Even when we are aware of what we're doing, we're still controlled by our fears.
Yes, I suppose another word that encompasses that level of fear and sense of responsibility is 'love'.
We love them and want to protect them from any and every harm.
I have the perfect example of this. I take my niece to school 4 days a week. Her school is a 5 minute walk from my house, however I also take my son to school, his is a ten minute drive away. He starts school at 8:30, she starts school at 9. I could leave my niece in the house, drive to my sons school and get home in time to walk her in, but I insist that she comes with us. She's ten by the way.
The chances of a ten year old coming to harm alone in a house for twenty minutes are so much smaller than a car crash, but I can't leave her.
Even when we are aware of what we're doing, we're still controlled by our fears.
Trust me I've tried, more than once BUT pigeon English makes no sense to me at all !
Because the incidence of serious accident or abduction are so small....the fact that baby listening services are widely promoted ... I would see the Mccanns childcare arrangements as completely acceptable
I'm surprised that the McCanns have not been demonised for using a car to drive their children about. After all they must know that every year hundreds of children die in car accidents.
There is no doubt in my mind that the McCanns love their three children.
I dont think its necessarily fear that makes you do that.
Its responsibility isnt it? Your responsible for her welfare and to knowingly leave her on her own even for 10 minutes would not sit right in your head.
I was never fearful of my children being abducted but I was aware of all the dangers they faced in the big wide world.
Even in the house my daughter at about 10 managed to break her arm getting caught in the sheets in her bunk bed when she was messing about.
Accidents happen even when we are careful, but no I never feared my children would be taken from me by a stranger. Mind you I never left them in a situation this could happen anyway.
I was young when the Moors murders happened, and possibly this stuck in my head.
I lived abroad when my children were young, and never had a minute when I felt we were not safe.
I think to leave children in an apartment on their own is irresponsible, not because of the threat of abduction, but so many things can happen to them. For example one of the twins might have woken and tried to climb out of the travel cot, and fell out hitting their head hard on the floor.....a child could go off looking for mummy and daddy and if the access is available either climb over and fall over a childs gate onto hard concrete steps or fall over a balustrade...or get run over by a car...
No not abduction, but accident is why I would never leave them alone. Even when you are in the house they can get hurt they move so fast and being a parent you have to keep your eye on the ball constantly, just one lapse is all it takes, as I nearly found to our cost.
There is no doubt in my mind that the McCanns love their three children.
I would imagine that children are far more at risk in a car being driven by a drunk driver...amaral...but of course no criticism there. Hotels promote baby listening...I haven't seen any promoting drink driving
I wonder if Madeleine was so sure they did when they dumped her in the creche every day & left her alone indoors in the evening.I don't know if you have any children but kids love going in those kids clubs..
I would criticise ANY drunk driver - my father was killed by one
I don't know if you have any children but kids love going in those kids clubs..
I wonder if Madeleine was so sure they did when they dumped her in the creche every day & left her alone indoors in the evening.
I don't know if you have any children but kids love going in those kids clubs..
I would guess they enjoyed the clubs... but being left alone in the evenings was a different matter
that's awful and I have every sympathy for you
Thank you. I was a baby so never knew him. Fathers Days are particularly difficult
That maybe one of things that affected my thoughts for and care about others in this world, particularly the effect hat the actions of others has on children
I would criticise ANY drunk driver - my father was killed by one
its even worse if you are baby as your father wasn't there for you growing up
I've been driving for 8 years, I walked home from the pub one night (quite drunk) & my neighbour asked me to move my car a few feet so he could park. I tried reversing & had almost no sense of left or right. It was like trying to operate an alien spaceship.
Never tried it again. (Don't drink anymore anyway).
Sorry for your loss.
Even worse than that, davel, I was actually only 4 days old - and have no photo of him holding me. That is one really sad fact for me. And as I was the first child, I have no brothers or sisters... therefore no nephews and nieces, therefore my son has no cousins. The effect off these things is a rolling ball, or the ripples of a pebble - whichever likeness you prefer.
So drink driving, for me.... an enormous NO!
I was brought up not drinking, WS, perhaps understandably. I rarely drink now although when my son and his wife are here we will have a bottle of wine with the meal. Things like this have an everlasting effect, as I am sure you can understand
I rarely don't know the right thing to say but this is one of them
Don't worry - I have got used to it over the years!! I rarely talk about it unless it is relevant. If you start telling us you know you are right and everyone else is wrong again, I will remind you!!! People are created by their experiences among other things
sorry to read about your dad CPN
alcohol and drugs are the root to all evil ...
sorry to read about your dad CPN
alcohol and drugs are the root to all evil ...
Don't worry - I have got used to it over the years!! I rarely talk about it unless it is relevant. If you start telling us you know you are right and everyone else is wrong again, I will remind you!!! People are created by their experiences among other things
People certainly are created by their experiences. I was foolish enough to take part in a tv programme featuring men who have younger wives. Someone has taken my 5 minute clip and posted it on you tube...it has 150,000 views. Despite the fact that we have been married 12 years and have three beautiful children the comments are appalling with people having nothing better to do with their time than post vile comments about others...perhaps thats why I don't like to see the McCanns criticised
sorry to read about your dad CPN
alcohol and drugs are the root to all evil ...
I tend to agree with this. Nicotine and caffeine are the only things I take that cross the blood brain barrier.
Yes, there is an argument for some drugs. Cannabis for example imo is much less harmful than alcohol.
Depends which drug. Tell a terminal cancer patient not to take morphine because it's evil, I think they would say cancer is the evil factor.
I'm sorry for your loss too.
My husband is 11 years older than me, but he's a man, so still emotionally younger 8)-))) we don't choose who we fall in love with.
Yes, there is an argument for some drugs. Cannabis for example imo is much less harmful than alcohol.
John, sorry for the multiple quotes.....
I would imagine that children are far more at risk in a car being driven by a drunk driver...amaral...but of course no criticism there. Hotels promote baby listening...I haven't seen any promoting drink driving
LInk please, and also isnt this libellous making statements like that......unless you have proof.
IF he was drink driving (its the first i have heard of it), I would never condone it. EVER. But from what i have just read its just nasty carp to make Amaral look bad. It was hearsay too, a letter from his wife and she denied every writing it...
Now if he was caught drink driving then thats a different matter.
My husband died at quite a young age. I was totally devastated. Everyone really liked him - and at his funeral the church was full to overflowing.I understand your smiling very well, Benice, I did smile among tears hearing anecdotes about my step son the same day his body was found after he killed himself. If Madeleine had died I would understand better her parents' smiling, likely punctually, when getting out of church and seeing so much compassion and care around them.
At the wake I heard lots of stories from people who knew him, some of whom related 'comical' experiences they had shared with him. It was wonderful to be able to add those previously unknown moments of his life to my own memories of my lovely husband. And guess what - I did smile when I first heard them - even though it was the day of his funeral and I was completely heartbroken at his loss.
And that's why I get annnoyed when people criticise the McCanns for smiling after their loss. I know from my own experience that it's wrong to use that as evidence that they didn't care.
I understand your smiling very well, Benice, I did smile among tears hearing anecdotes about my step son the same day his body was found after he killed himself. If Madeleine had died I would understand better her parents' smiling, likely punctually, when getting out of church and seeing so much compassion and care around them.
Depends which drug. Tell a terminal cancer patient not to take morphine because it's evil, I think they would say cancer is the evil factor.
I don't agree with your earlier comment about cannabis versus alcohol being better, but I do agree with the morphine comment, as my pain would be unbearable without, however, I know that in Canada my cousin uses cannabis for pain relief, so maybe in that context it is acceptable
They were shouting for Maddie on the night and Gerry called her Maddie on a website profile he set up. Saw that screenshot yesterday and saved it.
Well done. That'll make a difference. Presuming you haven't got anything better to do.
Every little helps, Eleanor 8)-)))
Not anymore. Everyone who matters knows that Madeleine was abducted.
Cor blimey, with friends like Benita, who needs enemies? >@@(*&)
Nasty.
I would imagine that children are far more at risk in a car being driven by a drunk driver...amaral...but of course no criticism there. Hotels promote baby listening...I haven't seen any promoting drink driving
Happy days, case closed, Elieanor obviously has the proof and evidence that SY & the PJ are looking for !
Edited to add - I meant Eleanor NOT E-lie-anor !
No, it's a matter of record that his ex-wife claimed that Amaral drove whilst drunk ! A claim she later withdrew !
Once AGAIN davel once AGAIN !
You mean she lied? Oh My. It must run in the family.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Thankfully I don't have to suck anything up as I had no hand, act or part in this crime and/or neglect ! May I remind you of one of your previous claims -
Softly, softly, catchee monkey. You don't seriously believe that Scotland Yard are telling us what they are doing, do you? Eleanor 13/11/13
Genetically ?
Eleanor ....don't know why you bother with a grass like pat ..personally I would give it the time of day .. ?>)()<
You are right. I shall cease forthwith.
8(0(*
Thank you for your voice of reason. I worry about me sometimes.
Off to bed now. Nighty night.
Not anymore. Everyone who matters knows that Madeleine was abducted.
No, it's a matter of record that his ex-wife claimed that Amaral drove whilst drunk ! A claim she later withdrew !
Once AGAIN davel once AGAIN !
I'm curious as to your certainty of abduction Eleanor.
You're cryptic re. ''Everyone who matters''.
All that is known is that Madeleine went missing and there are no leads.
Do you believe that SY traced Tannerman? Was the photograph some young TDC dressed up in some C & A clothes? Just how thick do they think we are? As for SY stating that the Mc's and friends are not suspects - they would say that wouldn't they?
I'm addressing you Eleanor because you're something of a free-thinker (what's happened to Anna btw?) and I'm surprised you align yourself with that totally barmy other forum.
Eleanor's comments have to be taken in context , namely she is claims to be a cousin of Clarence Mitchell anmd clearly reflects his opinion.
Mitchell is a media manipulator, and doesn't let truth get in the way of PR.