Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[Professor Yaffle]

I've only really looked into things recently, but IMO while there are a few things that may look suspicious, none of them are particularly persuasive on their own. And when you put them together, they don't add up to a coherent narrative that supports parental involvement. For example, one piece of evidence is the sighting that gave rise to the recent photfits. The Irish man who made the sighting, after giving his description to the police later contacted them again to say that he thought it was gerry McCann - based on seeing McCann hold one of his twins in a very similar manner. But if it were the case that that sighting was indeed McCann carrying his dead daughter towards the sea, then why would there be cadaver odour on his wife's clothes, but not his? And why the odour/blood detected by dogs in the boot of the car they hired some time later if they has already disposed of the body some time ago. IMO it is more likely that these "suspicious" findings are just false positives.

 

[Evolved Wookie]

Again, you misunderstand skepticism. All the speculation about DNA and cadaver dogs, without which this whole CT would fall apart, have been debunked, leaving only suspicion. Why would one not accept the "official story" (wording right out of the CT handbook, BTW) against the alternative?

Nobody has yet given a convincing explanation for the McCanns not dropping the whole thing if they are guilty in any way (somebody posted something ridiculous about serial killer behaviour), nor why charges have not been laid.

I did, in fact, address this, but you evidently neglected to read it on the last but one page. Whether or not I did so convincingly is rather more subjective.

Nevertheless, I shall paraphrase here: their dropping the matter at first opportunity would be one of the most suspicious things they could do, in my opinion. Of course, that doesn't mean that keeping up the search is a sign of guilt, either. I don't think there's a weighty argument in either direction to be made for their continued engagement with the press and the investigation.

 

[Liam]

I've only really looked into things recently, but IMO while there are a few things that may look suspicious, none of them are particularly persuasive on their own. And when you put them together, they don't add up to a coherent narrative that supports parental involvement. For example, one piece of evidence is the sighting that gave rise to the recent photfits. The Irish man who made the sighting, after giving his description to the police later contacted them again to say that he thought it was gerry McCann - based on seeing McCann hold one of his twins in a very similar manner. But if it were the case that that sighting was indeed McCann carrying his dead daughter towards the sea, then why would there be cadaver odour on his wife's clothes, but not his? And why the odour/blood detected by dogs in the boot of the car they hired some time later if they has already disposed of the body some time ago. IMO it is more likely that these "suspicious" findings are just false positives.

I also don't claim to be any kind of expert about this case and this has probably been covered already - if the Irishman saw someone (who he thought could have been Gerry McCann) walking with Madeleine at 10:00pm aren't there numerous witnesses who were with Gerry McCann at the Tapas Bar at 10:00pm?

 

[The Third Man]

Yes i gave that response earlier, so why am i being asked again. My opinion is not relevent, we are trying to discuss facts and evidence, not opinions.

Yes, but you raise points that seem to support a particular line of reasoning and then hedge by using phrases such as 'if they', 'could be', 'IDK', how can someone discuss the points you are raising if you continually abandon your line of reasoning when questioned?

 

[lionking]

I don't think there's a weighty argument in either direction to be made for their continued engagement with the press and the investigation.

Which is why I used the word "convincing", which to your credit, you acknowledge.

To keep up a charade (if guilty) for six and a half years in the face of unrelenting, false and libelous (which was proven in court) UK media attacks is beyond belief.

No, I disagree with you. Their composure, determination and unwillingness to simply melt into the background speaks volumes for their innocence. Along with the lack of evidence, if course.

 

[pakeha]

I've only really looked into things recently, but IMO while there are a few things that may look suspicious, none of them are particularly persuasive on their own. And when you put them together, they don't add up to a coherent narrative that supports parental involvement. ... IMO it is more likely that these "suspicious" findings are just false positives.

You could well be right there.
There seems to be nothing which actually points anywhere, except to the disappearance of an unattended child in a holiday flat.

I also don't claim to be any kind of expert about this case and this has probably been covered already - if the Irishman saw someone (who he thought could have been Gerry McCann) walking with Madeleine at 10:00pm aren't there numerous witnesses who were with Gerry McCann at the Tapas Bar at 10:00pm?

That's when all hell broke loose, when mrs Mccann raised the alarm that her eldest child was missing.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I also don't claim to be any kind of expert about this case and this has probably been covered already - if the Irishman saw someone (who he thought could have been Gerry McCann) walking with Madeleine at 10:00pm aren't there numerous witnesses who were with Gerry McCann at the Tapas Bar at 10:00pm?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing definitive that says McCann was at the restaurant at that time. I believe that the staff gave a time period that the group were at the restaurant, but they stated that people were coming and going (checking on children). They couldn't be expected to notice which people were there or not at any particular time. Presumably if one thought the McCanns were involved, an alibi just from their dining companions is not strong enough, as they seem to think that the others were in on it to some extent too.

 

[lionking]

I also don't claim to be any kind of expert about this case and this has probably been covered already - if the Irishman saw someone (who he thought could have been Gerry McCann) walking with Madeleine at 10:00pm aren't there numerous witnesses who were with Gerry McCann at the Tapas Bar at 10:00pm?

Which is why CTs revert to debunked DNA "evidence" and ignore anything substantive.

 

[Azrael 5]

Shoes transfer scent and most people don't wash their shoes. Do you?

A child's toy?

 

[catsmate]

How about this?

So, nothing to say about this quote from that random internet blog?

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

Sign. No we're dealing with the facts that:
1. Cadaver dogs are unreliable.
2. Cadaver dogs (and scent traces in general) are initial, suggestive, signs to be followed up by more exhaustive tests
3. The dog in question has a poor track record.

So no blood or fluid that may be sepage from a cadiver.

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.

No, from the use of LCN genetic analysis the sample was far too small for such testing.

 

[Evolved Wookie]

Which is why I used the word "convincing", which to your credit, you acknowledge.

To keep up a charade (if guilty) for six and a half years in the face of unrelenting, false and libelous (which was proven in court) UK media attacks is beyond belief.

No, I disagree with you. Their composure, determination and unwillingness to simply melt into the background speaks volumes for their innocence. Along with the lack of evidence, if course.

You are, of course, free to disagree with me! However, I would suggest that all that is required for my suggestion to be pertinent is the possibility that the McCanns (hypothetically, of course) be more of my line of reason than of yours. It is, prospectively, an explanation, whether you agree or not, so long as we do not know the disposition of the couple in question. I certainly don't know that and I guess you don't either.

I maintain that there is no weighty argument to be made either way. I guess our disagreement will have to stand!

 

[catsmate]

I find it disappointing that on a forum devoted to skepticism, so many wouldn't be skeptical of the official story.

You really don't know what "skepticism" actually is, do you?
We're following the evidence, not attempting to fir it into some preconceived agenda, nor are we ignoring evidence because it's part of a "official story".

Shoes tranfer scent and most people don't wash their shoes. Do you?

Shoes pick up multitudes of traces.

Gerry McCann saying "sniffer dogs are unreliable" is not debunking.

No but actual testing, by actual scientists, peer reviewed and published in actual journals, saying that scent tracing is unreliable is detrimental to such dubious "evidence".

Those dogs have been right in 200 other instances.

Citations please.

But all this is a waste of time. Nothing I or others will say, or any evidence anyone may produce or link to will ever change your mind.

It's an internet forum, it's what people do on internet forums. No one has ever changed anyone else's mind about anything in an internet forum. FACT!

Perhaps you should try using reason, evidence an logic not declarations and assertions.

Which is why CTs revert to debunked DNA "evidence" and ignore anything substantive.

That and they appear to be so ignorant of such testing as to give it unjustified importance. Part of the "CSI effect".

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Sign. No we're dealing with the facts that:
1. Cadaver dogs are unreliable.
2. Cadaver dogs (and scent traces in general) are initial, suggestive, signs to be followed up by more exhaustive tests
3. The dog in question has a poor track record.



No, from the use of LCN genetic analysis the sample was far too small for such testing.

One newspaper story is evidence that dogs are not reliable. Several newspaper reports of the dogs being successfull over 200 cases is not evidence that they are reliable? Interesting logic.

Those dogs were not just picked off the street you know, they were brought in because they had a proven track record of success. Over several years.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

No but actual testing, by actual scientists, peer reviewed and published in actual journals, saying that scent tracing is unreliable is detrimental to such dubious "evidence".

citations please, because when i get home i can link you to numerous cases where dogs were used as primary evidence to convict someone

 

[jargon buster]

I stated they could have bitten a benadryl in half "easy peasy" if you say that wording isn't as "light and fluffy" as what I said I did, then you are lying.

"I stated they could have bitten a benadryl in half "easy peasy" and then drugged their child with it"

Doesnt have the same ring to it does it?

 

[jargon buster]

But if it were the case that that sighting was indeed McCann carrying his dead daughter towards the sea, then why would there be cadaver odour on his wife's clothes, but not his?

Cross dressers?

 

[lionking]

Cross dressers?

Therein lies the quality of the McCann guilt CT.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

citations please, because when i get home i can link you to numerous cases where dogs were used as primary evidence to convict someone

Really? I am stunned, and also glad I don't live in the UK if the reaction of dogs is enough to get you jailed.

On the other hand, if you mean numerous cases where dogs were used to find evidence which convicted someone, that's not quite the same thing is it?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Really? I am stunned, and also glad I don't live in the UK if the reaction of dogs is enough to get you jailed.

On the other hand, if you mean numerous cases where dogs were used to find evidence which convicted someone, that's not quite the same thing is it?

Of course i mean the dogs found evidence, do you really think i was suggesting they were used as eye witnesses?

This is getting silly now, Nothing from the aparent skeptic side but avoidance of evidence and stupid blogs and their "thoughts"

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Of course i mean the dogs found evidence, do you really think i was suggesting they were used as eye witnesses?

This is getting silly now, Nothing from the aparent skeptic side but avoidance of evidence and stupid blogs and their "thoughts"

I think what Guybush Threepwood is getting at is that the dogs are useful when they lead investigators to other evidence - bodies, blood tissue etc. If the only evidence is that the dogs detect a scent, that is not as strong evidence because a) there can be false positives (and research shows these do happen occasionally) and b) because there can be other explanations for the scent being there. The dogs can only report the presence of a particular scent, they can't tell us who it belongs to or how it got there. The evidence has to be interpreted.