Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

Information Analyst said:
Cite, please.
Click to expand...
How about this?
Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
IamFreeCanIGo said:
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?
Click to expand...
So, nothing to say about this quote from that random internet blog?
Certainly, the anti-McCanns delight in posting about cases where the dogs were right. However, without exception, these are cases where there is other evidence against the suspect and the dogs have alerted to places with limited human access (i.e the victim's own home). More significantly, none of the cases cited involved the forensic presence of a resident GP - a very important factor. As a GP, it was part of Kate McCann's job to attend deaths and certify them. By the very nature of her job, she would absorb the chemical which cadaver dogs alert to. Though imperceptible to we humans, her clothes, bag and shoes would absorb this odour and potentially transfer it to places where they were stored.
Click to expand...
 
sophia8 said:
So, nothing to say about this quote from that random internet blog?
Click to expand...

I know thats the excuse kate used, its stupid, why wouldnt it be on all her clothes why would it be behind a sofa or on maddies toy or in a car rented 23 days after maddie went missing, again that guy is some random who has no clue what hes talking about, its hilarious you are using him as evidence
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
Cool since we are allowed to use newspapers as evidence now, here is a link to a load of newspaper articles showing how good the dogs are, including the dailymail, and are the cases they did solve.

One newspaper report of failure vs dozens of newspaper reports of success and good reviews
Click to expand...

I'm really glad you didn't include the dailymail (sic) link. This paper is a rag which constantly publishes lies and distortions (this is fact, not opinion). Anyone who cites it as evidence automatically loses the debate.
 
lionking said:
I'm really glad you didn't include the dailymail (sic) link. This paper is a rag which constantly publishes lies and distortions (this is fact, not opinion). Anyone who cites it as evidence automatically loses the debate.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you think so, you might want to check out sophia8s first link and what newspaper is reporting the dogs are not credible.
 
Nessie said:
So no blood or fluid that may be sepage from a cadiver.
Click to expand...

IamFreeCanIGo said:
Can you link me to the bit of the report you are taking that from. Thanks.
Click to expand...

The report refers to DNA from cellular material and not being sure what fluid was present.

So was there a test done to see if there was any actual blood or other bodily fluid? Or from my reading of the report all we have is DNA from Maddie on a celular level in a place we knew her to have been. Along with two siblings and all are at an age where noses run, hands are not always properly washed and fluids are going into nappies, hopefully, as kids are changed on sofas and tye floor.

That some sniffer dogs get excited at such odours is not the smoking gun you are making it out to be. It is of interest but it is not good evidence of foul play.
 
Nessie said:
The report refers to DNA from cellular material and not being sure what fluid was present.

So was there a test done to see if there was any actual blood or other bodily fluid? Or from my reading of the report all we have is DNA from Maddie on a celular level in a place we knew her to have been. Along with two siblings and all are at an age where noses run, hands are not always properly washed and fluids are going into nappies, hopefully, as kids are changed on sofas and tye floor.

That some sniffer dogs get excited at such odours is not the smoking gun you are making it out to be. It is of interest but it is not good evidence of foul play.
Click to expand...

Hi, can you link me to the part of the report that brings you to this conclusion. Thanks.
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
Hi, can you link me to the part of the report that brings you to this conclusion. Thanks.
Click to expand...

No as I am using my phone to post so I cannot directly quote it. I have explained why I think the way I do. There is DNA on a cellular level, no sign of pools or splatter of blood urine or faeces, indeed no identifiable liquid at all. So all we have is forensic proof the McCanns were where we knew them to have been any way. There is nothing out of the ordinary.

The actions of the sniffer dogs are of interest, but they are not proof of anything. That they got excited about a room where kids had had nappies changed is not that surprising to me. Kids nappies can stink of death warmed up!
 
Ok let me explain cadaver dogs and how they are useful.

A. A cadaver dog that follows the trail of scent to a body.

USEFUL


B. A cadaver dog who "hits" on a scent and doesn't bring the trail to a body.

USELESS.


Cadaver dogs are really great at FINDING BODIES but completely useless in distinguishing if a dead body has been there. There are too many variables. I'll list them for you


A. You can't ask the cadaver dog a question

B. The parents worked in a hospital and may have had the cadaver scent on them.

C. Someone who bought a lot of meat and then threw out the wrappers in the garbage can cause the dog to pick up a "scent of dead flesh"


So again. Cadaver dogs are useful in finding dead bodies. Complete woo in determining if there "was" a dead body.

So can we please put this nonsense to rest.
 
Nessie said:
No as I am using my phone to post so I cannot directly quote it. I have explained why I think the way I do. There is DNA on a cellular level, no sign of pools or splatter of blood urine or faeces, indeed no identifiable liquid at all. So all we have is forensic proof the McCanns were where we knew them to have been any way. There is nothing out of the ordinary.

The actions of the sniffer dogs are of interest, but they are not proof of anything. That they got excited about a room where kids had had nappies changed is not that surprising to me. Kids nappies can stink of death warmed up!
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to wait until you are on a computer so you can link me to it, because what you just said is so wrong it makes me head hurt, so ill wait until you link me to the specific bit of the report which you think supports whatever it was that you just said.
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay so based on the information listed above, the dogs, the car, the Smith sighting etc., what's your theory about what happened?
 
truethat said:
B. The parents worked in a hospital and may have had the cadaver scent on them.
.
Click to expand...

Kate was a mere GP and unlikely she handled dead bodies,if she came into contact with them at all,surely it wouldnt involve so much contact their odour transferred?
Would she wear her work clothes to go on holiday(unwashed of corpse odour)?
The scent was detected on Maddie's Cuddle Cat toy,Kate claimed she took this to work(why?). Lets her daughter cuddle said toy in bed after being in contact with corpses? :jaw-dropp
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
It could have been, we don't know.
Click to expand...

But this is not a skeptical position, in my opinion. As I said earlier, an alien could have abducted Madeleine.

The case has been closely examined by experienced investigators over a number of years. No charge has been laid. All so-called "evidence" like DNA traces and cadaver dogs has been examined and rejected. All that's left behind is "suspicion". Unless, of course, there has been a very major conspiracy.

So, what to do? Take notice of professional police force investigators, or of a handful of internet posters with a few speculations? Hmmmm.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom