Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[BaldSeagull]

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.

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

 

[lionking]

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

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.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

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.....

Good point, I too agree that the official police report ive quoted and the book written by Amaral who was in charge of the investigation should carry more weight than the random BlogSpot posts, the daily mail article and the accusation that the dog handler purposely got the dog to false signal with no supporting evidence, that have been offered up by those on your side of the argument to counter things I presented from official police files.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

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.....

Why did you put evidence in speech marks, are you implying that documents from a police file are not evidence?

How exactly have the dog and dna evidence been rejected? That's strange wording when the results were that it could not conclusively prove that it was maddie. That's different than its not maddies dna or cadaver.

I think we should take note of the professional police, you know the ones who made kate and Gerry suspects, who the police reports clearly shows were the main suspects from early on. And the lead investigator who wrote a book explaining how he thinks based on the evidence that they are responsible.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

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.

Nope evidence has not been debunked quit saying this, its false. Read my above post.

also, wouldn't the sheer fact that you and others believe that if they were guilty of any crime they wouldn't keep it in the public eye, a good enough reason to keep it in the public eye?

Also, if they were responsible for disposing of her dead body, wouldn't they want people to think she is still alive? Which is what they do, they always maintain she is alive. Makes sense right, if everyone is focusing on her being alive how can anyone be convicted of her murder or dumping her body?

 

[truethat]

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.

What kind of stupid logic is that? Lack of charges is no indication of lack of involvement. I don't think they are involved beyond drugging, but that's a ridiculous statement.

 

[truethat]

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?

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

 

[lionking]

What kind of stupid logic is that? Lack of charges is no indication of lack of involvement. I don't think they are involved beyond drugging, but that's a ridiculous statement.

This happened six and a half years ago. The McCanns are not police suspects. No evidence, no charges, it's perfectly logical to conclude no involvement .How do people want the legal system to work? There comes a time where people deserve to be considered innocent. That's logical and sensible, despite CTs which argue to the contrary.

 

[truethat]

This happened six and a half years ago. The McCanns are not police suspects. No evidence, no charges, it's perfectly logical to conclude no involvement .How do people want the legal system to work? There comes a time where people deserve to be considered innocent. That's logical and sensible, despite CTs which argue to the contrary.

Obviously you have not a clue how crime investigations work. There are plenty of cases out there where the suspect isn't charged for years and even decades because they can't prove it but know they did it.

Here are just a few they managed to go to trial with. But there are many people out there who have gotten away with murder simply because they couldn't prove it enough to make an arrest.

Or did you already forget about Joran van der Sloot?

These other cases are over a decade old.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062100176.html


http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/california-cop-cold-case/


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_1...mory-help-solve-1957-murder-of-maria-ridulph/

 

[truethat]

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.

Again, I don't think they were involved in her death, but a very good argument was given. Your rejection of a logical argument speaks more towards your sticking with your own emotionalized theory, rather than looking at the facts.


The argument made was that if the world thinks Maddie is alive then they will not be looking to find out where her body is. If a criminal killed someone they would benefit from this line of thinking.

In fact, nearly every parent in the news that was convicted of killing a family member, child wife etc, starts off insisting the person is missing, has been abducted or has run off.

It's very typical.


As far as it constantly being in the news.

A. A lot of money has been made off this case.

B. It's not necessarily the desire of the McCaan's, the case swept across the news and drew interest. Much like JonBenet Ramsey, there's a lot of attention given to abducted children and unfairly pretty blonde hair blue eyed little girls, and it happened on a vacation which made it unique.

If after 6 years a criminal realized that the cops can't prove it, (otherwise they'd be arrested by now) and they were making money off the story, I can see them pushing it into the news.

 

[BaldSeagull]

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.

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

Those dogs have been right in 200 other instances. 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!

Meanwhile, six years after the incident, the investigation is no further than it was then.

 

[lane99]

Does your dog bite? No, he doesn't...

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

How about if the American Academy of Forensic Sciences says it? That count as debunking in your book? No, I didn't think so.

Meanwhile, no one knows exactly what happened to that poor girl. Though anyone with a lick of sense can see it's all but certain she was kidnapped.

It's more than can be said for those who continue to throw stones at them, but the McCann's are good and decent folks and I wish them a miracle.
.
.

 

[jargon buster]

No but once when my son was very small he had a cold, and he was sneezing and coughing and crying and couldn't sleep. It was 3 am and I was desperate and gave him a half cap (not the cup, the actual cap) of Nyquil and he was out like a light.

I went to the pharmacist the next day in a panic checking if it was ok. They laughed at me and told me that in ye old days it was whiskey. LOL

then

What kind of stupid logic is that? Lack of charges is no indication of lack of involvement. I don't think they are involved beyond drugging, but that's a ridiculous statement.

Isnt it odd when you do it its all fluffy and innocent but when the McCanns do it you use an emotive word to describe it?

 

[jargon buster]

Though anyone with a lick of sense can see it's all but certain she was kidnapped.

You say that without a shred of evidence.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

How about if the American Academy of Forensic Sciences says it? That count as debunking in your book? No, I didn't think so.

Meanwhile, no one knows exactly what happened to that poor girl. Though anyone with a lick of sense can see it's all but certain she was kidnapped.

It's more than can be said for those who continue to throw stones at them, but the McCann's are good and decent folks and I wish them a miracle.
.
.

Can you please list the evidence you have that makes it obvious to anyone with a "lick of sense" that she was kidnapped.

 

[truethat]

I dont think you are a lazy, neglectful, dangerous parent, Im shocked to think that you think you are.

Its just you only use the word "drugging" when you talk about someone else doing it.

That was my point.

As opposed to what? I also used the term sedated. It means what it means.

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.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Just tell me where I have gone wrong. I have no issue being corrected if wrong, but I have an issue playing your silly game.

 

[Nessie]

idk.

You gave that response earlier. If you don't know is your criticism purely based on not attaching great significance to the actions of the cadaver dog?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Just tell me where I have gone wrong. I have no issue being corrected if wrong, but I have an issue playing your silly game.

My silly game? You claim things without a source backing it up and because i wont find it for you, im playing a game? Its happened a few times on here where people have claimed things, ive spent my time proving them wrong and they just disappear or ignore it. So from now on, if you are claiming a document says something, link to it.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

You gave that response earlier. If you don't know is your criticism purely based on not attaching great significance to the actions of the cadaver dog?

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.