Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

So nothing from the SCCRC ?

So you think the family have made this up... That the SCCRC only criticise the dog evidence and nothing else... That would be simply bizarre... We don't have a transcript of the decision but, I have emailed the SSCRC and they tell me it Is being treated as a FOI

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not only is the evidence misunderstood in this case, but I think some are guilty of reading too much significance into the utterances of people connected to the case, for example some seem to get rather excited when Madeleine is referred to by the police as "missing" rather than "abducted".  There seems to be this belief that this is a carefully chosen description designed to send a subtle message to the world that the police don't believe she was abducted, however taking one phrase out of context and holding it up as evidence of police scepticism about the abduction theory is a bit silly, particularly as there are numerous instances of the police referring specifically to Madeleine as having been abducted, even fairly recently. 

[Robittybob1]

Not only is the evidence misunderstood in this case, but I think some are guilty of reading too much significance into the utterances of people connected to the case, for example some seem to get rather excited when Madeleine is referred to by the police as "missing" rather than "abducted".  There seems to be this belief that this is a carefully chosen description designed to send a subtle message to the world that the police don't believe she was abducted, however taking one phrase out of context and holding it up as evidence of police scepticism about the abduction theory is a bit silly, particularly as there are numerous instances of the police referring specifically to Madeleine as having been abducted, even fairly recently.

And every now and then the death word is used.    Then it is assumed to have real significance.

[faithlilly]

So you think the family have made this up... That the SCCRC only criticise the dog evidence and nothing else... That would be simply bizarre... We don't have a transcript of the decision but, I have emailed the SSCRC and they tell me it Is being treated as a FOI

I think, like Gerry in Lisbon, the Gilroys knew the importance of the dog alerts so commented on those specifically. Until we know exactly what the SCCRC said we can’t know how accurate those comments from the family were.

I do find it rather bizarre though that you took the time to email the SCCRC to prove we sceptics wrong.

Edit: Personal comments against another member removed.

[Mr Gray]

I think, like Gerry in Lisbon, the Gilroys knew the importance of the dog alerts so commented on those specifically. Until we know exactly what the SCCRC said we can’t know how accurate those comments from the family were.

I do find it rather bizarre though that you took the time to email the SCCRC to prove we sceptics wrong.

Edit: Personal comments against another member removed.

your opinon of me is of no imprtance to me based on my opinion of you......Ive reached my own conclusions on the case....ive emailed them out of interest...Angelo and John both claim to have been in email correspondence with grime...do you find that bizarre too.didnt you say you had been to PDL....my email pales into insignificance in that light,

Ive read a little more...it seems no dog alerted in the boot of the car...one dog sniffed at an area ...thats all. I think gilroy is probably guilty but I think the dog evidence played little to no part in his conviction...but it does make good tv which is important to the programme makers.

[Mr Gray]

And Suzanne Pilley ? We were told on Crimewartch that the dog alerts were crucial in gaining a conviction without a body.

two dogs...neither dog alerted to the boot of the car..

do you have a cite that a dog alerted to the boot of the car

[faithlilly]

your opinon of me is of no imprtance to me based on my opinion of you......Ive reached my own conclusions on the case....ive emailed them out of interest...Angelo and John both claim to have been in email correspondence with grime...do you find that bizarre too.didnt you say you had been to PDL....my email pales into insignificance in that light,

Ive read a little more...it seems no dog alerted in the boot of the car...one dog sniffed at an area ...thats all. I think gilroy is probably guilty but I think the dog evidence played little to no part in his conviction...but it does make good tv which is important to the programme makers.

I simply said that the McCanns would more than likely find your behaviour rather alarming. As to a PDL my interest in the case developed because I had holidayed there several times before the incident not as a result of the incident. As is your want you made an assumption and built a framework of justification around that assumption.

Edit  - flaming comments removed

[Mr Gray]

I simply said that the McCanns would more than likely find your stalkerish behaviour rather alarming. As to a PDL my interest in the case developed because I had holidayed there several times before the incident not as a result of the incident. As is your want you made an assumption and built a framework of justification around that assumption.

I find your claim bizarre...

[faithlilly]

two dogs...neither dog alerted to the boot of the car..

do you have a cite that a dog alerted to the boot of the car

Have you watched the Crimewatch episode ? It specifically says the dog’s evidence was key to the prosecution and that they alerted to the boot of the car, 6.40 approx minutes in.

[Mr Gray]

Have you watched the Crimewatch episode ? It specifically says the dog’s evidence was key to the prosecution and that they alerted to the boot of the car, 6.40 approx minutes in.

The dog never alerted in the boot according to evidence given at the trial...you are watching a sensationilist tv programme...

Edit  - flaming comments removed

[faithlilly]

The dog never alerted in the boot according to evidence given at the trial...you are watching a sensationilist tv programme...

‘Specialist cadaver dogs brought in from South Yorkshire Police were used to search the basement and garage of the Thistle Street building where they both worked at Infrastructure Managers Limited. They also turned their attention to the boot of Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra car.’

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13050602.David_Gilroy__how_police_solved_a_murder_mystery/

Edit  - flaming comments removed

[Mr Gray]

‘Specialist cadaver dogs brought in from South Yorkshire Police were used to search the basement and garage of the Thistle Street building where they both worked at Infrastructure Managers Limited. They also turned their attention to the boot of Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra car.’

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13050602.David_Gilroy__how_police_solved_a_murder_mystery/

a cite from a reputable source that a dog alerted in the boot....my information is taht it didnt

   QUOTE .....Asked what happened after that, he said: "The dog went into the boot and showed some interest in the boot."

"What is it you saw?" asked Mr Prentice.

Mr Heron replied: "My observation was that at the top-right corner and the left-front corner the dog paused and showed interest in these areas."

Asked what the dog did then, Mr Heron said: "Just paid particular attention, sniffing at that particular area."...end QUOTE


so now sniffing at aparticular area becomes an alert.......in the vague world of the cadaver alerts


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/suzanne-pilley-murder-trial-dog-1117604


Is there any evidence that the dog handlers actually gave evidence...it seems there isnt.


I must apologise for my stalkerish behaviour in trying to establish the truth in this rather important area...it seems some want the truth subdued

[Mr Gray]

‘Specialist cadaver dogs brought in from South Yorkshire Police were used to search the basement and garage of the Thistle Street building where they both worked at Infrastructure Managers Limited. They also turned their attention to the boot of Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra car.’

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13050602.David_Gilroy__how_police_solved_a_murder_mystery/

Edit  - flaming comments removed

read my post with direct quotes from the trial

[Alice Purjorick]

read my post with direct quotes from the trial

Would they be kosher transcripts you paid for with good cash money or newspaper reports?

[pathfinder73]

a cite from a reputable source that a dog alerted in the boot....my information is taht it didnt

   QUOTE .....Asked what happened after that, he said: "The dog went into the boot and showed some interest in the boot."

"What is it you saw?" asked Mr Prentice.

Mr Heron replied: "My observation was that at the top-right corner and the left-front corner the dog paused and showed interest in these areas."

Asked what the dog did then, Mr Heron said: "Just paid particular attention, sniffing at that particular area."...end QUOTE


so now sniffing at aparticular area becomes an alert.......in the vague world of the cadaver alerts


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/suzanne-pilley-murder-trial-dog-1117604


Is there any evidence that the dog handlers actually gave evidence...it seems there isnt.


I must apologise for my stalkerish behaviour in trying to establish the truth in this rather important area...it seems some want the truth subdued

In the documentary it reveals that the dog alerted to the car space of Gilroy (where the boot would have been) and later also alerted to the boot of his car.