Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[lionking]

So why invoke the Chamberlain case in the first place?

Why not? It was a case of a baby disappearing and a large number of people drawing ridiculous, incorrect conclusions. I believe there are similarities to the cases. Does it exonerate the McCanns? Of course not. The lack of evidence does that job quite well.

 

[gtm]

Haha, wait you are using a random internet blog? I'm using police reports and case evidence to support my view and you use a random internet blog?

Besides that piece is stupid, no one is saying that the dogs signaling means its maddies cadaver they are smelling. We are commenting on how its just suspicious that out of all the places they visited, the only time they ever alerted was when it was something directly related to the mccanns.

The car, the keys, maddies toy, kates clothes, the cuboard, behind the sofa.

I must say i find it hilarious that you claim it has been debunked then link to a blogspot post lol.


Besides if you look up to my above post and the correspondence between the police and FSS, you will see that the small amounts of dna they were able to pull from the sites where the dogs alerted was matching maddies but was too degraded or contaminated to test fully.

Nonetheless, it pretty much demolishes the dog 'evidence'.

 

[lionking]

IIRC, the DNA could have belonged to mrs Mccann, her mother or any of her three children.
Of those 5 possible matches, 4 are demonstrably alive and kicking, AFAIK.

Absolutely correct.

It's important to stress that 50% of Madeleine's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. ... Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine, or is it a chance match.[72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

The so-called DNA "evidence" is not evidence at all.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Nonetheless, it pretty much demolishes the dog 'evidence'.

Lol no it doesn't, its just a random internet guys blog with his opinion. His arguments don't demolish the evidence at all, all he attempts to do is explain it as a possible false alert.

The fact is, why did they only false alert (accepting for a second they were all false) on things relating to maddie and the mccanns? Why did a dog pick up a cadaver and a test of the fluid was found that it does match maddies but because it had other samples mixed it was impossible to determine for sure.

 

[catsmate]

The other point that hasn't been explained at all is why, if the McCanns are "culpable", do they not simply let the case rest, rather than peruse it so vigorously?

Indeed.

If Robert Menard is lying why did he spend so long posting on this forum where people continually debunked him.

Because he's a pathetic nobody who's also a desperate attention whore.
With a rather unsavoury past regarding underaged girls.

Are dogs ever influenced by their handlers? And if so, do we know how the dogs handlers behaved around the places where they alerted - was it the same as in the other apartments and houses, or did it differ when they were in the McCanns' apartment and car?

The validity and effectiveness of cadaver dogs have been seriously questioned.

Some of the stuff in this thread is absolute bollocks. Anyone here actually know the McCann's...? Thought not.

Meh, unfounded speculation is a mainstay of this forum and other internet fora.
That said some of the unfounded allegations of drugging children are pretty unpleasant, and libelous.

What did follow up forensic tests find?

IIRC, the DNA could have belonged to mrs Mccann, her mother or any of her three children.
Of those 5 possible matches, 4 are demonstrably alive and kicking, AFAIK.

Absolutely correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

The so-called DNA "evidence" is not evidence at all.

Yeah, partial matches, parents present and LCN analysis. Not exactly substantial evidence.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Absolutely correct.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

The so-called DNA "evidence" is not evidence at all.

Yes it is, A dog find a cadaver odor in a car rented by the mccanns 23 days after she went missing. They are able to find a substance there, they test it, according to the emails above i published from the case files, it did seem to match maddies dna but because it was contaminated by other samples probably her brother and sister, it could not be said with any certainty that it was hers.

Then of course you get into the circumstantial evidence, in reaction to the news that a cadaver odor was found in the boot of the car, the McCanns reaction was not "lets see who rented the car before us to see if they had a connection to the abduction" it was, "oh we put our other kids dirty nappies in the boot and we also spilled blood from a meat product we were bringing home from the supermarket in the boot."

Then the witness who say that the mccanns had the car boot open day and night, every time she passed the house before the dogs searched it. Which she found strange and reported to the pj.

 

[Skepticemea]

Yes it is, A dog find a cadaver odor in a car rented by the mccanns 23 days after she went missing. They are able to find a substance there, they test it, according to the emails above i published from the case files, it did seem to match maddies dna but because it was contaminated by other samples probably her brother and sister, it could not be said with any certainty that it was hers.

Then of course you get into the circumstantial evidence, in reaction to the news that a cadaver odor was found in the boot of the car, the McCanns reaction was not "lets see who rented the car before us to see if they had a connection to the abduction" it was, "oh we put our other kids dirty nappies in the boot and we also spilled blood from a meat product we were bringing home from the supermarket in the boot."

Then the witness who say that the mccanns had the car boot open day and night, every time she passed the house before the dogs searched it. Which she found strange and reported to the pj.

Are you using these examples to support the assertion that there's something suspicious about the McCanns or as examples of how the evidence suggesting the McCanns are suspicious is pretty weak?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Indeed.


Because he's a pathetic nobody who's also a desperate attention whore.
With a rather unsavoury past regarding underaged girls.


The validity and effectiveness of cadaver dogs have been seriously questioned.


Meh, unfounded speculation is a mainstay of this forum and other internet fora.
That said some of the unfounded allegations of drugging children are pretty unpleasant, and libelous.






Yeah, partial matches, parents present and LCN analysis. Not exactly substantial evidence.

Well done, you managed to ignore every bit of official evidence presented, while also making claims without evidence to back it up. Quite and achievement.

 

[pakeha]

In any case, apparently the direction the Met publicly state is the most promising at the moment is based on the Smith family sighting.
They conclude this after actually finding the person Jane Tanner sighted while going to her holiday flat for a jersey or similar.

I find it absolutely amazing they were able to finally identify this person.
Great work!

Here's hoping the public-mindedness of the Smith family will help bring the perp(s) to book.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Are you using these examples to support the assertion that there's something suspicious about the McCanns or as examples of how the evidence suggesting the McCanns are suspicious is pretty weak?

I'm saying the dog evidence is good evidence, id agree the evidence about the open car boot, isnt good evidence but its suspicious when viewed along side the dog results.

I don't understand why people don't seem able to link facts to build up a picture, but instead see it as a series of seperate evidence which when viewed on its own cannot conclusively prove anything.

A prime example being the DNA and dog evidence.

Its easy to look at the dogs and say, well they just found a cadaver but does not prove it was maddies

Its also easy to look at the DNA evidence alone and say, well they cannot say for sure it is maddies because it contained 3 different sources of DNA which made it impossible to say for sure.

but if you put two and two together

two dogs both reacted to the same spot, searching for two different things, a cadaver odor was found in a car the mccanns rented 23 days after maddie went missing. They also found a bodily fluid there, when tested the markers seems to suggest it was maddie, but because there were other samples it could not be said for sure.

Its not so easy to dismiss now is it? Unless of course you take the view that the mccanns are the unluckiest people in the world. Because during their routine diligent checks the worlds luckiest child snatcher managed to gain entry to an empty apartment with a sleeping kid, for some reason exit through a window as opposed to an open door, without leaving any finger or glove marks. Carry that still sleeping child over 300 yards while the child was sleeping, where it was seen by an irish family, who reported to the police that the man carrying the child he saw was Gerry McCann. This is the current investigation the MET are following, they apparently believe the girl was maddie but the man was not Gerry McCann (even tho he could see the face of the man, but not of the young girl)

Further to their bad luck, they just so happened to rent the only apartment in that resort which had a cadaver odor from someone previous. Well two people unless the person before them had their body moved.

Then they became unlucky again, as it just so happened the hire car they rented had a human cadaver odor in the boot and it just so happened that a kid had also left a bodily fluid there that was as far as testable a match for maddie.


Now thats bad luck.

 

[gtm]

Yes it is, A dog find a cadaver odor in a car rented by the mccanns 23 days after she went missing. They are able to find a substance there, they test it, according to the emails above i published from the case files, it did seem to match maddies dna but because it was contaminated by other samples probably her brother and sister, it could not be said with any certainty that it was hers.

Then of course you get into the circumstantial evidence, in reaction to the news that a cadaver odor was found in the boot of the car, the McCanns reaction was not "lets see who rented the car before us to see if they had a connection to the abduction" it was, "oh we put our other kids dirty nappies in the boot and we also spilled blood from a meat product we were bringing home from the supermarket in the boot."

Then the witness who say that the mccanns had the car boot open day and night, every time she passed the house before the dogs searched it. Which she found strange and reported to the pj.

The upshot of this is that we are expected to believe that the McCanns (whilst subject to round the clock attention from the Police & worlds media) had stashed Madelines body, retrieved it, put in the boot of the hire car & then disposed of it. Doesn't this strike you as highly improbable?

Anyone with any experience of young children will tell you they secrete DNA all the time. On clothing, bedding, the floor, crockery, people the come into contact with, everywhere. It's much more likely that the DNA was transferred to the car boot via entirely innocent means.

The grotesque 'Weekend at Bernies' scenario offered by the doubters says much more about them than the McCanns.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

In any case, apparently the direction the Met publicly state is the most promising at the moment is based on the Smith family sighting.
They conclude this after actually finding the person Jane Tanner sighted while going to her holiday flat for a jersey or similar.

I find it absolutely amazing they were able to finally identify this person.
Great work!

Here's hoping the public-mindedness of the Smith family will help bring the perp(s) to book.

Yea, Mr Smith reported to police in ireland that it was Gerry McCann he saw carring that child. As i stated above, amazing how the police seem sure it was maddie he saw (even tho he could not see her face) and not Gerry (Even tho he could see his face.)

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

The upshot of this is that we are expected to believe that the McCanns (whilst subject to round the clock attention from the Police & worlds media) had stashed Madelines body, retrieved it, put in the boot of the hire car & then disposed of it. Doesn't this strike you as highly improbable?

Anyone with any experience of young children will tell you they secrete DNA all the time. On clothing, bedding, the floor, crockery, people the come into contact with, everywhere. It's much more likely that the DNA was transferred to the car boot via entirely innocent means.

The grotesque 'Weekend at Bernies' scenario offered by the doubters says much more about them than the McCanns.

Yes, i hear this method of whats more likely is used by all police these days. They have no time for this pesky DNA evidence, we need to find out whats more likely.

Seriously tho, im not trying to get into an argument. Sure if you read the story its not likely that they would hide their childs body, but this is what the evidence suggests.

 

[gtm]

Yes, i hear this method of whats more likely is used by all police these days. They have no time for this pesky DNA evidence, we need to find out whats more likely.

Seriously tho, im not trying to get into an argument. Sure if you read the story its not likely that they would hide their childs body, but this is what the evidence suggests.

No, it isn't.

If you look at the video of the dog search you'll notice the handler calls the dog back twice to the McCann car (which he knows is the McCann car because it's the only one in the line up with 'Find Madeline' stickers in the window) before it dutifully performs it's response. The dog was reacting to the handlers cues.

It's also worth noting this particular dog identified a coconut shell as human remains in another unrelated investigation.

 

[Evolved Wookie]

I have to say that I find this – and other thread related to this and similar matters – rather fascinating. I can present no formal data, but it appears to me to be a pronounced tendency for those who defend the innocence of the parents always to seem unaccountably aggressive and intractable.
A number of people here are trying to make a point – one with which I tend to agree – that there are matters and facts pertaining to this case that don’t…don’t add up – they don’t sit right. From the way I read this thread none of them are trying to suggest anything more. There’s no direct accusation of conspiracy or foul play, only the suggestion that there are questions raised in reasonable minds that bear being asked.
I agree that the theories which paint the McCanns as conspirators in their own daughter’s disappearance seem far fetched, but so too do many of the implicit facts of any alternative theories.
But still the not-involved camp seems too keen, too rabid in their attempt to shut down the discussion of such matters. I have to wonder why.

Also, as to the oft posited question of why the McCanns would pursue publicity rather than let the case drop – I would have thought that letting the disappearance of your eldest daughter ‘drop’ would be an incredibly suspicious thing. Either way, I don’t think there’s any real argument one way or another to be drawn from the fact.

Just my tuppence-worth. I shall return to my lurking corner.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

No, it isn't.

If you look at the video of the dog search you'll notice the handler calls the dog back twice to the McCann car (which he knows is the McCann car because it's the only one in the line up with 'Find Madeline' stickers in the window) before it dutifully performs it's response. The dog was reacting to the handlers cues.

It's also worth noting this particular dog identified a coconut shell as human remains in another unrelated investigation.

So the english well respected dog handler prompted the dog to fake react?

hahaha.
We are done talking.

 

[gtm]

So the english well respected dog handler prompted the dog to fake react?

hahaha.
We are done talking.

Look at the video before you start laughing.

 

[Information Analyst]

No, it isn't.

If you look at the video of the dog search you'll notice the handler calls the dog back twice to the McCann car (which he knows is the McCann car because it's the only one in the line up with 'Find Madeline' stickers in the window) before it dutifully performs it's response. The dog was reacting to the handlers cues.

It's also worth noting this particular dog identified a coconut shell as human remains in another unrelated investigation.

Cite, please.

 

[catsmate]

Well done, you managed to ignore every bit of official evidence presented, while also making claims without evidence to back it up. Quite and achievement.

Wow what a strawman.
Perhaps, instead of unquestioningly parroting statements without understanding their context and potential reliability you could do some research? You'll find articles principally in the FS journals (The Journal of Forensic Science and Forensic Science International are a good start) but
Wilderness Environmental Medicine and Naturwissenschafte also cover the effectiveness of scent dogs. The overall conclusion is an effectiveness of 40-50%.
As to the DNA results, as I pointed out it's pretty worthless; partial genotype matches in an area with the parents known to be present? Further, as I also said, LCN is a dubious technique, very prone to contamination issues by its very sensitivity.

As to the unrelated matter of Robert Menard, I assume you accept that he's a proven liar, free-loader and coward who's unwilling to actually practice what he preaches? Who manipulated and impregnated a vulnerable underage girl.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Wow what a strawman.
Perhaps, instead of unquestioningly parroting statements without understanding their context and potential reliability you could do some research? You'll find articles principally in the FS journals (The Journal of Forensic Science and Forensic Science International are a good start) but
Wilderness Environmental Medicine and Naturwissenschafte also cover the effectiveness of scent dogs. The overall conclusion is an effectiveness of 40-50%.
As to the DNA results, as I pointed out it's pretty worthless; partial genotype matches in an area with the parents known to be present? Further, as I also said, LCN is a dubious technique, very prone to contamination issues by its very sensitivity.

As to the unrelated matter of Robert Menard, I assume you accept that he's a proven liar, free-loader and coward who's unwilling to actually practice what he preaches? Who manipulated and impregnated a vulnerable underage girl.

Robert Menard is a conman yes. Please don't think im him, i think Freemanism is the dumbest scam on the planet, anyway back to the thread.

I have read the reports, i think you can see since ive linked to a lot of the evidence and since ive stated before, alone perhaps they can be dismissed, however, when you put the DNA and Dog findings together, it brings up serious questions which i have brought up before but have been ignored.

I think its telling that the so called skeptic side have resorted to random blog posts from people with no expertise in the area and in the last post, even claiming the dog handler was making the dog react on purpose to fabricate evidence. Its hilarious.