Why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible...

[ferryman]

Good avoidance, there     

Avoidance of what?

[Eleanor]

Good avoidance, there     

Thank you, Thank you.  I wuz quite impressed myself.   

[Benice]

It was indeed jassi. And what is the likelihood of Eddie scenting the smell of cadaver and that cadaver not being Madeleine ? Of course for that to be the case the child would have to have died at least 90 minutes before the 10pm alert putting the McCanns very much in the frame.

Of course if any supporter has another scenario I'd be glad to hear it.

Martin Grime has given various reasons why an alert by Eddie does not prove that a dead body must have been present at the scene of the alert.    It is because of these other possible scenarios that corroborating evidence must be obtained first - before any conclusions can be drawn.

To claim that an alert by Eddie DOES prove the presence of a dead body is to disbelieve Martin Grime. 

[Alfred R Jones]

A question for Faithlilly and / or Jassi - should the dog alerts have been enough to have charged the McCanns with covering up a death? 

[faithlilly]

Martin Grime has given various reasons why an alert by Eddie does not prove that a dead body must have been present at the scene of the alert.    It is because of these other possible scenarios that corroborating evidence must be obtained first - before any conclusions can be drawn.

To claim that an alert by Eddie DOES prove the presence of a dead body is to disbelieve Martin Grime.

So SY think Madeleine died in 5a but that wasn't the body the dogs alerted to ? Really ?

[faithlilly]

A question for Faithlilly and / or Jassi - should the dog alerts have been enough to have charged the McCanns with covering up a death?

I certainly think they were indicative of that and should have been given the necessary evidential weight.

[Alfred R Jones]

So SY think Madeleine died in 5a but that wasn't the body the dogs alerted to ? Really ?

Do they?  To the exclusion of all other theories?

[Alfred R Jones]

I certainly think they were indicative of that and should have been given the necessary evidential weight.

So, if you were in charge you would have pressed charges based on the alerts?

[jassi]

A question for Faithlilly and / or Jassi - should the dog alerts have been enough to have charged the McCanns with covering up a death?

No. I believe you need more than just indicators before laying charges against anybody.

[Alfred R Jones]

No. I believe you need more than just indicators before laying charges against anybody.

Why aren't the dog alerts sufficient indicator in your book then? 

[jassi]

As far as I'm concerned they are good indicators that something was wrong in 5A, but  sound evidence is required before criminal charges can be laid. These days, that invariable involves forensics, rather than just circumstantial findings.

It is in nobody's interest for people to be brought before a court of law without there being a strong likelyhood of conviction.

[faithlilly]

So, if you were in charge you would have pressed charges based on the alerts?

You seem to be trying to derail the discussion.

My question was if SY think that Madeleine died in the apartment and Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood in that same apartment isn't it logical to postulate that what he was alerting to was Madeleine's body ? Would any other conclusion be simply ridiculous ?

[Alfred R Jones]

You seem to be trying to derail the discussion.

My question was if SY think that Madeleine died in the apartment and Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood in that same apartment isn't it logical to postulate that what he was alerting to was Madeleine's body ? Would any other conclusion be simply ridiculous ?

I answered your question earlier and you ignored it.

[Alfred R Jones]

As far as I'm concerned they are good indicators that something was wrong in 5A, but  sound evidence is required before criminal charges can be laid. These days, that invariable involves forensics, rather than just circumstantial findings.

It is in nobody's interest for people to be brought before a court of law without there being a strong likelyhood of conviction.

This indicates to me that you don't have faith in the dogs being 100% correct all the time and that the alerts cannot be treated as evidence without corroboration (of which there was none).   

[jassi]

This indicates to me that you don't have faith in the dogs being 100% correct all the time and that the alerts cannot be treated as evidence without corroboration (of which there was none).   

Of course, but neither should they be disregarded - their findings should be left on the table along with all other evidence until it has been proved to be false.