Abduction versus Accident

[Albertini]

As Albertini is rightly too embarrassed to provide a source for the partial article he has posted, I shall relieve him of the burden.

Not embarrassed at all. Just testing a theory.

That theory is that supporters of the McCann's rather than answer the points raised say:

"he/She/they have no credibility so we aren't looking at it".

So they then very neatly excuse themselves from actually countering the points an article makes.

In this case the assertions were supported by direct evidence, which makes the author irrelevent.

Thanks for proving my theory though guys!

 

[faithlilly]

Some were found only a few miles from the place they disappeared. The point you make is totally redundant.

How so ?

[Redblossom]

Where?

Sorry Carana, dont understand your question

[Redblossom]

Fair enough.  There was no precedent for terrorists crashing planes into buildings but sadly it happened on 9/11.

Err, I think you might be wrong on that one

[Redblossom]

Do people get arrested and prosecuted for something being "indicative" or "justifiable suspicion"? Or are they arrested and prosecuted on evidence that can stand up in a court of law?
The only reason why the "cadaver dogs" are continually mentioned in any of the posts is to imply that someone died in the apartment. Why else knowingly post it when you and others have indicated that they understand that a dog alert or indication not backed by forensic findings, is no evidence of death?

You are putting words into my mouth. I made no mention of arrests or prosecutions on dog evidence.All I said was that police consider cadaver dog alerts as justifiable suspicion, it is intelligence and information to be explored.

Suspicion is the name of the game in any policemans work, he would be lapse in his basic duties if he lacked it!

[gilet]

On this I agree, Angelo, but why are people thinking the yard has a golden bullet ? What makes them hope so ? SY's fame ?

Oh that's an interesting phrase to use!

Quite reminded me of Amaral and that tape with him threatening to shoot people between the eyes with golden bullets which Joana Morais inadvertently confirmed was genuine.

And I would like to know where you get the idea of a SY golden bullet?

Even I could see anomalies in the files where Amaral and Rebelo's teams did not follow up enquiries. I am really not surprised that SY also found such anomalies and loose ends to be tied up.

Perhaps you are not thinking of a golden bullet but an ace up the sleeve. Though again I think you would be referring to Amaral who has consistently failed at every opportunity to provide this ace which he claimed to have.

[AnneGuedes]

Excellent point. Anne Guedes is showing a basic lack of understanding of the role of the dogs and what their findings indicate.

They indicate the potential trace of cadaver odour, and cannot be in any way taken as direct evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann.

Gilet, you can't resist judging not what people effectively said but what you arbitrarily decide they said.
I never said the dog alerted to Madeleine McCann's body. Bodies smell all the same, whether this fact delights you or not.

[Albertini]

I have briefly re-read the article and am unable to continue for the moment because I am laughing so much at one of the references that Blacksmith has given.

I am looking at this.

which he uses as his evidence for the claim above in the article that:

So Blacksmith gives as evidence sources he won't cite because presumably he believes them to be unreliable.

They are his evidence but he won't give them to you, you have to go and Google.

And this is what Albertini takes as properly-researched material?

It would be laughed out of a first year A level class as shoddy referencing.

And if you looked on Google you will see interviews from Kate McCann in 2011 where she says::

How dare they call me cold

“People can judge however they want but unless you’ve been in the situation we’ve been in, it’s impossible to know what someone feels. Why do people feel they have the right to judge when this judgment is based on ignorance?”

So she is specifcally responding to those allegations.

Now about the other evidence. Why have you chosen to ignroe those points taken direct from the book?

You are proving my little theory that i laid out in my last post.

[gilet]

You are putting words into my mouth. I made no mention of arrests or prosecutions on dog evidence.All I said was that police consider cadaver dog alerts as justifiable suspicion, it is intelligence and information to be explored.

Suspicion is the name of the game in any policemans work, he would be lapse in his basic duties if he lacked it!

Actually suspicion is not the name of the game at all. The name of the game is detection and though suspicion may be an early part of the game, the later stages include evidence, arrests, and proof. And when the game is over the real work of prosecution begins based on the evidence, not on the suspicion. So cadaver dog alerts might arouse suspicion but they do not make a case on their own.

[Rachel Granada]

Err, I think you might be wrong on that one

I'm happy to be corrected.  However, people saying that Madeleine cannot have been abducted from her bed  on holiday etc because there is no precedent, are wrong.  There was no precedent for an off-duty British soldier being mown down by a car and hacked to death in broad daylight on the streets of London by terrorists but sadly it happened to Drummer Lee Rigby in May.

[gilet]

Gilet, you can't resist judging not what people effectively said but what you arbitrarily decide they said.
I never said the dog alerted to Madeleine McCann's body. Bodies smell all the same, whether this fact delights you or not.

And if you looked on Google you will see interviews from Kate McCann in 2011 where she says::

So she is specifcally responding to those allegations.

Now about the other evidence. Why have you chosen to ignroe those points taken direct from the book?

You are proving my little theory that i laid out in my last post.

I am not proving any theory. I have just had a very pleasant lunch if you must know. I am not at your beck and call.

I shall respond in my own good time. Once I have got over the humour of you bringing only part of the article here, being too embarrassed to own up to its origin, and the nonsense which the author uses as non-citations.

[faithlilly]

Oh that's an interesting phrase to use!

Quite reminded me of Amaral and that tape with him threatening to shoot people between the eyes with golden bullets which Joana Morais inadvertently confirmed was genuine.

And I would like to know where you get the idea of a SY golden bullet?

Even I could see anomalies in the files where Amaral and Rebelo's teams did not follow up enquiries. I am really not surprised that SY also found such anomalies and loose ends to be tied up.

Perhaps you are not thinking of a golden bullet but an ace up the sleeve. Though again I think you would be referring to Amaral who has consistently failed at every opportunity to provide this ace which he claimed to have.

Libel trial coming up soon gilet ?

'Your mission, if you chose to accept it, is to blacken Amaral's name at every opportunity across all forms of social media'

[Redblossom]

Actually suspicion is not the name of the game at all. The name of the game is detection and though suspicion may be an early part of the game, the later stages include evidence, arrests, and proof. And when the game is over the real work of prosecution begins based on the evidence, not on the suspicion. So cadaver dog alerts might arouse suspicion but they do not make a case on their own.

Which is exactly what I said
 

[Heriberto Janosch]

It is a pity, John, this forum promised to be different, serious ...

Scotland Yard working with Polícia Judiciária Oporto established:

1. Madeleine McCann may be alive.

2. She was abducted by a stranger.

3. There is 38 persons of interest (many in the PJ Main File and the rogatory letters).

4. The case can not be open in Portugal for judiciary reasons, the solution was SY open its own investigation.

So the forum is in Level I ...

Level I: Discussing to demonstrate "McCanns did it", ie, losing time.

Level II: Searching for Madeleine and her abductor (the present level).

And very soon SY will be in Level III: identifying the stranger abductor or how he did it.

It's time to move on to Level II ...

It is a pity, the forum promised to be serious, different ...

Heri.

[gilet]

Gilet, you can't resist judging not what people effectively said but what you arbitrarily decide they said.
I never said the dog alerted to Madeleine McCann's body. Bodies smell all the same, whether this fact delights you or not.

Don't be so ridiculous.

What on earth was the point of you introducing the notion of dogs alerting to cadaver scent in a post about the precedences in the Madeleine McCann case if it wasn't referring to Madeleine McCann?

If you were not referring to her body then why did you introduce it as an example of a non-precedence in her disappearance?  What purpose did you have in referring to the dog alerting to a cadaver if not to suggest that it was that of Madeleine McCann.