Sadie's theory.

[Gertrude]

How do you know?!  Anyone who breaks into a house to steal a child is taking a big risk, even if they are watching the house to avoid being caught.

  It's contradictory, you are not really trying to thrill seek if you plan something to avoid being caught.

     The police analyse crime types, they are aware of organised vs. chaotic crimes where a child might be taken by a predator on a whim. They will know how these cases will differ in terms of what evidence should be there. It's goes along with logic and evidence to try and work out the possibilities.  An organised criminal will plan not to be caught, a disorganised criminal would not and may panic but would be likely to leave evidence as not everything was planned.

  How a disorganised 'whim' child snatcher would hide a body or child so well is anyone's guess.  Someone who planned would be more likely to get away with it.

  One of the reasons to do a reconstruction is to work out what kind of criminal you are dealing with in terms of organisation and pre-planning.

 

[Vertigo Swirl]

  It's contradictory, you are not really trying to thrill seek if you plan something to avoid being caught.

     The police analyse crime types, they are aware of organised vs. chaotic crimes where a child might be taken by a predator on a whim. They will know how these cases will differ in terms of what evidence should be there. It's goes along with logic and evidence to try and work out the possibilities.  An organised criminal will plan not to be caught, a disorganised criminal would not and may panic but would be likely to leave evidence as not everything was planned.

  How a disorganised 'whim' child snatcher would hide a body or child so well is anyone's guess.  Someone who planned would be more likely to get away with it.

  One of the reasons to do a reconstruction is to work out what kind of criminal you are dealing with in terms of organisation and pre-planning.

Do you have a cite for criminals who pre-plan their crimes also being risk averse?  I mean, I could spend six months planning to climb Mt Everest but I'd still be fully aware of what a risky venture I was undertaking. 

[slartibartfast]

Do you have a cite for criminals who pre-plan their crimes also being risk averse?  I mean, I could spend six months planning to climb Mt Everest but I'd still be fully aware of what a risky venture I was undertaking.

Nothing to do with risk aversion, not sure why you have brought it up?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Nothing to do with risk aversion, not sure why you have brought it up?

Explain.

[pathfinder73]

Mark Harrison said no inferences can be drawn from the alerts... No evidential value or reliability... That's how it is

Not quite according to his report. There is a lead to follow up and SY searching for a body is no surprise.

"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

[Mr Gray]

Not quite according to his report. There is a lead to follow up and SY searching for a body is no surprise.

"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

He says it may suggest.... But he also says, no inference can be drawn

[slartibartfast]

Explain.

You brought up risk averse, Gertrude talked of Organised vs Disorganised Criminals.

[pathfinder73]

He says it may suggest.... But he also says, no inference can be drawn

It's a lead to follow up. The alerts require corroborating evidence.

"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." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Mr Gray]

It's a lead to follow up. The alerts require corroborating evidence.

"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." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

It was only with the property involved with the McCann's that the digs were brought back ti places they previously ignored... The dogs ignored, all the cars including  the McCann's but were only brought back to the McCann's car

[John]

It was only with the property involved with the McCann's that the digs were brought back ti places they previously ignored... The dogs ignored, all the cars including  the McCann's but were only brought back to the McCann's car

I wonder why?   

[Gertrude]

Mark Harrison said no inferences can be drawn from the alerts... No evidential value or reliability... That's how it is

So you are disregarding the transcript from the Bianca Jones case where the court concluded dog alerts can be accepted as evidence and the FBI canine expert says he believed those dogs to be higher than 90% accurate?   

   You believe no reliability/ evidence but a canine expert at the FBI and a court in the USA certainly didn't. It just so happens to be Martin Grime and one of his dogs the court are talking about.

[Mr Gray]

So you are disregarding the transcript from the Bianca Jones case where the court concluded dog alerts can be accepted as evidence and the FBI canine expert says he believed those dogs to be higher than 90% accurate?   

   You believe no reliability/ evidence but a canine expert at the FBI and a court in the USA certainly didn't. It just so happens to be Martin Grime and one of his dogs the court are talking about.

That's a us court... I'm believing what grime and Harrison said... No evidential value and the fact that SY have agreed Maddie may still be alive

[ShiningInLuz]

You brought up risk averse, Gertrude talked of Organised vs Disorganised Criminals.

There's actually quite a lot of meat on those bones.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You brought up risk averse, Gertrude talked of Organised vs Disorganised Criminals.

No, I responded to Gertrudes post in which she wrote:

"A stranger abduction would be 'risky' in my opinion because it was going into a house in between parents and friends checking the house and going up and down the road constantly. Most children are lured away into vehicles or snatched from crowded places. If there was evidence of an abductor in the apartment then of course that trumps a statistic - but there isn't yet".

So please explain what you mean.

[Robittybob1]

I sometimes wonder what supporters expected the PJ to do, pick up every cigarette butt within a mile radius and test it for DNA....just in case ?

In NZ they would have to be quick to beat the down and out people looking for cigarette butts to smoke.