Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[Nessie]

- Where do you get the idea that sniffer dogs trained to detect a cadaver (which signaled the car) get excited at the odour of a runny nose or nappy? This is pure shameless lies.

We have a dispute as to how reliable cadaver dogs are. Have you considered the odour of decay of a whole body and that of old nappies etc and whether one can produce a false positive? Or is the best you can do is the childish "shameless lies"?

- Lol why do you think there would be pools of blood or faeces or urine. The hire car was rented weeks after she went missing, dead bodies dont usually piss, **** or bleed.

That depends on how they were killed and the decay of human remains. I still contend where a dog sniffs where a cadaver has lain it would also yield forensic results

- Right but how does that explain a cadaver in the boot? The fact that where they found the cadaver odor is also some DNA which shows DNA from 3 or more sources. One of which could be maddie, but due to the contamination of the sample it cannot be proven to be hers.



- They found dna, which was a possible match for maddies, but due to the contamination it cannot be said for sure.

So it proves what we already know, the McCanns used the car.

What i find hilarious is that you seem to think we should have found a pool of blood. I cannot grasp such a lack of understanding. Just so we are clear, the report said, they could not determine which bodily fluid the dna came from. But your nitpicking is designed to neatly ignore the fact that a cadaver odor was found in the car, which cannot be explained, where the cadaver would found they lifted DNA which was a possible match for maddie but due to the contamination they could not say for sure.

Read back what I have said. I have not dismissed that the dogs smelt something. I have said that it is not conclusive evidence, especially since there is no forensics to back up the idea Maddie's body was in the boot.

- The hire care was rented 23 days after she want messing, the DNA which was from a bodily fluid (they cannot determine which) does match maddies but because it also contains sources from at least two others, it cannot be said for sure.

So do you admit the evidence overall is inconclusive?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

We have a dispute as to how reliable cadaver dogs are. Have you considered the odour of decay of a whole body and that of old nappies etc and whether one can produce a false positive? Or is the best you can do is the childish "shameless lies"?

If you have any evidence of this happening post it, because you are clearly no expert, id ask you to provide me with some evidence that these dogs have ever signaled dirty nappies as a cadaver



That depends on how they were killed and the decay of human remains. I still contend where a dog sniffs where a cadaver has lain it would also yield forensic results

Contend it all you, want but you have no evidence to back it up, so its irrelevent


So it proves what we already know, the McCanns used the car.

We are talking about how a 15-19 marker match for maddies dna was in the boot, not how kate and gerry used the car, but you know that and you are trying to deflect


Read back what I have said. I have not dismissed that the dogs smelt something. I have said that it is not conclusive evidence, especially since there is no forensics to back up the idea Maddie's body was in the boot.

You are not disputing the dogs smelt something, but you are disputing they smelt a cadaver, because for some weird reason you think dogs can mistake dirty nappies for a cadaver based off no evidence at all





So do you admit the evidence overall is inconclusive?

Of course its inconclusive, its suggests foul play and raises questions about the mccanns but as ive stated many times the fact they cannot prove conclusively that it was maddies dna is why they are not in prison.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Of course its inconclusive, its suggests foul play and raises questions about the mccanns but as ive stated many times the fact they cannot prove conclusively that it was maddies dna is why they are not in prison.

Sorry, but that is confirmation bias.

It suggests a number of possibilities, one of which is that the dna was Madalines, and that there was foul play.

The fact that it can not be proven conclusively that it was her DNA is also why it may not have been her DNA. A false possitive.

This is not A Study in Scarlet. That a dog barked an indication is not itself good evidence. Where such dogs come in useful (including in the aforementioned story) is when their indication reveals conclusive and useful evidence that can be submitted to study. The DNA found is not useful. The coconut "skull fragment" was not useful. Ergo, the dogs have not been useful apart from confirming your apparent preconception. This is true now. It was true in 1888 when people enthusiastic about the use of bloodhounds demanded their use to catch Jack the Ripper.

 

[erwinl]

- Where do you get the idea that sniffer dogs trained to detect a cadaver (which signaled the car) get excited at the odour of a runny nose or nappy? This is pure shameless lies.



- Lol why do you think there would be pools of blood or faeces or urine. The hire car was rented weeks after she went missing, dead bodies dont usually piss, **** or bleed.



- Right but how does that explain a cadaver in the boot? The fact that where they found the cadaver odor is also some DNA which shows DNA from 3 or more sources. One of which could be maddie, but due to the contamination of the sample it cannot be proven to be hers.



- They found dna, which was a possible match for maddies, but due to the contamination it cannot be said for sure.


What i find hilarious is that you seem to think we should have found a pool of blood. I cannot grasp such a lack of understanding. Just so we are clear, the report said, they could not determine which bodily fluid the dna came from. But your nitpicking is designed to neatly ignore the fact that a cadaver odor was found in the car, which cannot be explained, where the cadaver would found they lifted DNA which was a possible match for maddie but due to the contamination they could not say for sure.



- The hire care was rented 23 days after she want messing, the DNA which was from a bodily fluid (they cannot determine which) does match maddies but because it also contains sources from at least two others, it cannot be said for sure.

Highlighted Never been near somebody who died? Then you wouldn't say such a thing.

 

[Nessie]

Of course its inconclusive, its suggests foul play and raises questions about the mccanns but as ive stated many times the fact they cannot prove conclusively that it was maddies dna is why they are not in prison.

That there are no witnesses to them disposing of the body is also why they are not in prison. There are lots of reasons to do with lack of evidence that they are not in prison. If you had your way would they be in prison purely on the evidence from the cadaver dog?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Highlighted Never been near somebody who died? Then you wouldn't say such a thing.

The care was rented more than 3 weeks after she disappeared. Do you believe that people dead for more than 3 weeks still piss and **** and bleed?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

That there are no witnesses to them disposing of the body is also why they are not in prison. There are lots of reasons to do with lack of evidence that they are not in prison. If you had your way would they be in prison purely on the evidence from the cadaver dog?

Where did i say that, and i think you will find that the smith family identified gerry mccann as the one they see running down the street with a child.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Where did i say that, and i think you will find that the smith family identified gerry mccann as the one they see running down the street with a child.

I think an identification based mainly on the manner that someone carries their child is a very shaky identification at best.

Also if you put credence on both the sighting and the boot "evidence" then you have a scenario where McCann goes to hide the body somewhere (very close to the time that they raise the alarm) and then manage to retrieve the body with the car some time later - but when the media spotlight is still strongly on them. Sounds a bit of a stupid thing to do if you don't want to be caught. But at the same time they would have to exceedingly well controlled and expert at covering their tracks to pull the whole thing off (with no odour evidence suggested on Gerry's clothes, even though he was supposedly the one to carry her away). Just makes no sense to me.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Sorry, but that is confirmation bias.

It suggests a number of possibilities, one of which is that the dna was Madalines, and that there was foul play.

The fact that it can not be proven conclusively that it was her DNA is also why it may not have been her DNA. A false possitive.

This is not A Study in Scarlet. That a dog barked an indication is not itself good evidence. Where such dogs come in useful (including in the aforementioned story) is when their indication reveals conclusive and useful evidence that can be submitted to study. The DNA found is not useful. The coconut "skull fragment" was not useful. Ergo, the dogs have not been useful apart from confirming your apparent preconception. This is true now. It was true in 1888 when people enthusiastic about the use of bloodhounds demanded their use to catch Jack the Ripper.

It being maddies DNA is a possability you seem to think that because they cant prove it was hers, that means that it was not.

Lets be clear here we arnt talking about a random bit of dna here, we are talking about a very strong match for maddies, 15-19 markers, this does not happen if its just some strangers dna.

Where the dog barked they found blood belonging to maddie in the apartment.
Where the dog barked in the car they found dna that is a 15-19 marker match for maddie.

The coconut skull fragment was explained, the dog barked at the ground there, it was the police who dug up and assumed the coconut was a skull, the dog could have barked there for another reason, i.e the body being placed there for a time.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

I think an identification based mainly on the manner that someone carries their child is a very shaky identification at best.

I think you will also find he stated the walk was familiar and that it was gerrys face he saw. Not just how he carried the child.

 

[Nessie]

Highlighted Never been near somebody who died? Then you wouldn't say such a thing.

Indeed. Remains 23 days after death would be well through putrefaction.

http://www.memorialpages.co.uk/articles/decomposition.php

So unless there is evidence of the McCanns purchasing something big enough to carry remains that is air tight and would not leak it is hard to see how they could have carried remains in the boot without it leaving forensic remains.

 

[BaldSeagull]

I'm going to throw Stephen Birch into the mix. Have fun.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id413.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/madeleien-mccann-investigation-stephen-birch_n_3551084.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwvY6whtds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQhe05pkcYg

 

[Nessie]

Where did i say that,

I did not say you said anything. I said there are lots of reasons why the McCanns are not in prison. You have not answered my question.

.... and i think you will find that the smith family identified gerry mccann as the one they see running down the street with a child.

To what standard of identification?

From his original statement

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

"States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph."

From a newspaper report

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olice-say-Irish-family-seen-Maddie-taken.html

"Although Mr Smith admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time he later said he thought the man could have been Gerry McCann.........Speaking to Portuguese police a few weeks after Maddie disappeared, Mr Smith said it was ‘not possible to recognise the individual’.....His grandchildren were also unable to identify the man or the girl – but thought she could have been Madeleine."

 

[pakeha]

...
Incidentally fair pay to JREF for allowing this thread,I post on Digital Spy forum and the merest mention of a McCann thread has it removed.

Seconded.
I'm impressed the JREF would allow such a discussion here.

To what standard of identification?

From his original statement

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

"States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph."

From a newspaper report

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olice-say-Irish-family-seen-Maddie-taken.html

"Although Mr Smith admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time he later said he thought the man could have been Gerry McCann.........Speaking to Portuguese police a few weeks after Maddie disappeared, Mr Smith said it was ‘not possible to recognise the individual’.....His grandchildren were also unable to identify the man or the girl – but thought she could have been Madeleine."

I wonder why the Met takes this sighting so seriously.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Indeed. Remains 23 days after death would be well through putrefaction.

http://www.memorialpages.co.uk/articles/decomposition.php

So unless there is evidence of the McCanns purchasing something big enough to carry remains that is air tight and would not leak it is hard to see how they could have carried remains in the boot without it leaving forensic remains.

Sorry, initially you stated that no blood, faeces or urine was found, when i pointed out there wouldn't be, you have completely abandoned that and are now moving to putrefaction. Don't think your moving of the goal posts wasn't noticed.

Putrefaction - after approximately two-three days bacteria are active and the body is swollen with gases and accompanying odours.
Black Putrefaction - Skin starts to turn black and the corpse collapses as gases escape.

Even if we take your amateur website as an authority, how does this fit in with your theory. You said no fluid was found thats proof she was innocent, even tho you have moved the goal posts, this source mentions nothing about putefraction being anything more than a release of gas, Which ironically would fit in perfectly with what was found.

pu·tre·fac·tion (pytr-fkshn)
n.
1. Decomposition of organic matter, especially protein, by microorganisms, resulting in production of foul-smelling matter.

This explains nicely why the dog would trigger in the boot, well done you debunked yourself, ill wait while you ignore this and move the goal posts again,.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Seconded.
I'm impressed the JREF would allow such a discussion here.

if they can cope with Amanda Knox discussions, they can cope with anything!

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Seconded.
I'm impressed the JREF would allow such a discussion here.




I wonder why the Met takes this sighting so seriously.

I agree, surely if they are so certain he saw maddie, why are they saying he couldnt have saw gerry because he wasn't wearing glasses.

 

[Azrael 5]

if they can cope with Amanda Knox discussions, they can cope with anything!

Well yes. I think DS being a British site gets all twitchy about being sued by the McCanns.They have form for it

 

[Agatha]

Given the plasticity of memory, Mr Smith's later identification of the person he'd seen carrying a child as Mr McCann based on seeing an image of Mr McCann carrying a younger child in a similar position is not something that many police forces would consider to be conclusive. At least, that is what the police officer who happened to be in my house on Tuesday night told me. They really don't set a great deal of store in such evidence, particularly when the description changes based on seeing something later on. (The police officer was taking a statement about a shoplifting offence I witnessed, where my son chased the shoplifter.)

I think that the McCanns are certainly guilty of neglect in their parenting, as were others in their group of friends on that holiday. They were rightly investigated by the social services when they returned to the UK, who decided that the twins were not at risk of harm. That was their judgement based on more information than any internet sleuth has.

I don't agree that being neglectful, stupid parents on a holiday necessarily makes them complicit in or responsible for the disappearance of their daughter. If they had not chosen to leave their children, the disappearance would probably not have happened, but that doesn't mean extrapolating that murder charges are warranted, unless there is more evidence separate to that neglect.

The behaviour evidence "they didn't act like I would if I lost my child" - well, I don't think anyone knows in advance just how they would behave.

DNA evidence: that showed that Madeleine had been where she was expected to be.

The evidence of the dogs: as a GP Mrs McCann would be certifying deaths either from her own practice or providing the second signature required for cremation for patients from other doctors' practices on a fairly regular basis, so it's not beyond possibility that a cadaver dog might respond to her shoes, bags and outerwear. I cannot remember what Mr McCann's particular job was at the time, so I don't know if he was likely to come into contact with bodies.
I don't know much about the reliability of scent dogs other than what I've read on the internet, but I do recall that the dogs in the Shannon Matthews case reacted to second hand furniture, and that false lead actually hindered the enquiry.

 

[Agatha]

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?

It appears the smell can transfer to pieces of furniture which have no direct contact with dead bodies. And as a GP, she would be certifying deaths in her own practice as well as doing the second signature for cremations (which involves a full external examination) for other doctors' patients.

Would she wear her work clothes to go on holiday(unwashed of corpse odour)?

Shoes, handbags, coats?

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?

Can you provide a cite for the highlighted? It appears from what I can find that this is an invention by the newspapers, not something said by the McCanns.

Not an unbiased site (as indeed the other sites mentioned have also been biased), but this states that the McCanns never made this claim: http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078050/Rebuttal of "Fact" 30