Why did Gerry's sister expect Kate to be charged with accidental death?

[stephen25000]

I wont labour the point because Im sure other posters will understand my post even if you don't. You cant have an area of high and low pressure in the same room...if you were to open a window in an aeroplane all the air rushes out.....nothing to do with probability or chaos theory...what you have done is shown you don't understand simple scientific principles...how could you be a chemistry teacher...this is all off topic so best left there

No davel, you have a pretense of knowledge of science.

You are still not reading my post, try again.

Don't you know what 'finite probability' means ?

Here's one for you.....................

How would you explain Hawking's 'discovery' of particles of negative mass I wonder ?

[Mr Gray]

No davel, you have a pretense of knowledge of science.

You are still not reading my post, try again.

Here's one for you.....................

How would you explain Hawking's 'discovery' of particles of negative mass I wonder ?

Stephen you are making  a fool of yourself...this is the Maddie McCann forum and you are trying unsuccessfully to show how clever you are... I read your post and the assertion you made was totally wrong.

what you have proved is that debate on this forum is impossible because even though you have been shown to be wrong you will not admit it..

I don't have to explain any of Hawkings discoveries...he does this perfectly adequately himself which anyone can read

[stephen25000]

Stephen you are making  a fool of yourself...this is the Maddie McCann forum and you are trying unsuccessfully to show how clever you are... I read your post and the assertion you made was totally wrong.

what you have proved is that debate on this forum is impossible because even though you have been shown to be wrong you will not admit it..

I don't have to explain any of Hawkings discoveries...he does this perfectly adequately himself which anyone can read

No davel, as per usual you are trying to deceive.

Read again the words in my post, 'finite probability'.

You clearly don't comprehend.

[Mr Gray]

No davel, as per usual you are trying to deceive.

Read again the words in my post, 'finite probability'.

You clearly don't comprehend.

There is no possibility...as I have explained the slightest difference in distribution of the molecules throughout the room would lead to an immediate correction due to force of pressure...its very, very very simple physics...the level an eleven year old would understand...

[xtina]

well going back to op

was it possible she knew more...[ there was not an abduction in the first place]


 knew what  really happened

thought it inevitable k mcc would be charged .....because of what she knew

[pegasus]

Air pressure will be different (by tiny amounts) at different 3D locations, even in a sealed room, due to tiny temperature differences. So you get tiny draughts. This is why IMO Mr Grime cautiously stated that the EVRD indication in the corner near the wardrobe, may represent scent which migrated there from elsewhere in the room via draughts.
IMO however it is interesting to watch the very last place sniffed immediately before alerting, which was one particular shelf, see video.  It is important therefore to take that into account when interpreting the later clothes alerts IMO.

[John]

Has air pressure in the apartment any relevance to the topic theme?

[Estuarine]

Has air pressure in the apartment any relevance to the topic theme?

None at all. It started with Davel using his strawman technique.

[pegasus]

One of the reasons why this witness was (IMO incorrectly) suspected and considered by some likely to be charged was evrd indication of clothing. I proposed a simple logical explanation that those two clothes indications do not incriminate their owner, by referring to another indication at the location of a pile of clothes. That is why IMO people brought up air currents, they may possibly affect (as Mr Grime notes) whether the scent originated near where the pile had been, or in a different part of the room.

[Carana]

One of the reasons why this witness was (IMO incorrectly) suspected and considered by some likely to be charged was evrd indication of clothing. I proposed a simple logical explanation that those two clothes indications do not incriminate their owner, by referring to another indication at the location of a pile of clothes. That is why IMO people brought up air currents, they may possibly affect (as Mr Grime notes) whether the scent originated near where the pile had been, or in a different part of the room.

Why would anyone put "incriminating" clothes back in a cupboard while simultaneously allowing other people in to search... including the police, instead of just chucking them out in a bin?

Eddie may have picked up on a innocent scent from recent inhabitants of that flat (four families, post disappearance, plus untold other people traipsing in and out). The last family vacated one week before Eddie turned up and, to my knowledge, there is no trace of interviews in the files up until it was shelved.

[John]

My own opinion is that the Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) tests were effectively a complete mess and would have been laughed out of any court.  It was weeks after the disappearance, undoubtedly clothing had not only been moved several times from apartment to villa to underground car park repacked and put out again, but most probably laundered as well.

The apartment which the McCanns vacated was cleaned and let out to other tourists rendering any results found there completely useless.

Back on topic, I have no doubt that Amaral was going to charge one or both of the McCanns with an involvement after the fact in the accidental death of their daughter and were hoping for a confession of some sort on the second day and this was why Kates lawyer counselled her not to answer questions as was her right as an arguida.

It could have turned out so differently.

[pegasus]

My own opinion is that the Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) tests were effectively a complete mess and would have been laughed out of any court.  It was weeks after the disappearance, undoubtedly clothing had not only been moved several times from apartment to villa to underground car park repacked and put out again, but most probably laundered as well.

The apartment which the McCanns vacated was cleaned and let out to other tourists rendering any results found there completely useless.

Back on topic, I have no doubt that Amaral was going to charge one or both of the McCanns with an involvement after the fact in the accidental death of their daughter and were hoping for a confession of some sort on the second day and this was why Kates lawyer counselled her not to answer questions as was her right as an arguida.

It could have turned out so differently.

The particular clothes which would later be signalled, were IMO in the pile on the shelf in wardrobe on evening of 3 May, from where they were IMO removed mid 5 May, and laundered same day IMO courtesy of the holiday company in laundry adjacent to Tapas.
Yes the witness was advised by lawyer to not answer questions in second Sept interview, and I think she was correct to not answer in the circumstances. 
This means however that by far the most important witness has NEVER been properly interviewed by police about 10pm onwards (the 4th May interview was conducted in improper conditions, as witness herself points out).

[Mr Gray]

None at all. It started with Davel using his strawman technique.

you show a very poor summary of the facts...I'm surprised

it was stephen who introduced the air pressure topic not me..
he also tried to introduce particles of a negative mass then the probability of tossing a coin...bizarre but true..

credit...or discredit where its due

[pegasus]

It is not surprising that some expected this witness to be charged in Sept 2007.
The indications claimed against witness included for example:
1. Prints indicating opening window and shutter but claiming found already open.
2. Signalled clothes having had contact with scent source.
3. A driver of signalled vehicle.
4. Carried signalled toy.
In fact IMO this is the most unjustly accused person ever and the disproofs of the above are
1. A photo of a GNR print on patio door was mistakenly used as a print of witness on bedroom window.
2. Those clothes were not being worn and were in a different location to witness.
3. There were several drivers.
4. Toy was not signalled IMO, it was a correct k9 signal but incorrectly localised to toy by handler IMO.
All IMO

[Redblossom]

My own opinion is that the Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) tests were effectively a complete mess and would have been laughed out of any court.  It was weeks after the disappearance, undoubtedly clothing had not only been moved several times from apartment to villa to underground car park repacked and put out again, but most probably laundered as well.

The apartment which the McCanns vacated was cleaned and let out to other tourists rendering any results found there completely useless.

Back on topic, I have no doubt that Amaral was going to charge one or both of the McCanns with an involvement after the fact in the accidental death of their daughter and were hoping for a confession of some sort on the second day and this was why Kates lawyer counselled her not to answer questions as was her right as an arguida.

It could have turned out so differently.

Cleaning doesn't  destroy cadaver scent John and to be frank as an ex policeman trashing both an ex policeman ie mr grime and seasoned dog handler and mark harrison of the npia I find hard to comprehend

dogs are not used for fun or a toss a coin scenario

night now, off to see galloway on question time...love it when people speak out!