Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[Tomtomkent]

Is evidence, was accepted by investigators,

Which investigators?

not debunked.

There is no qualifying evidence to support this interpretation of the movements and actions of the dogs. It is not evidence they smelt a body, or there being a "smell of death".

 

[Tomtomkent]

-But she has not been found quickly and nearby, so its irrelevent.

Then by the same token we could also state any statistic for how often parents are involved is alsi irrelevant, with the parents in this case having been cleared of suspicion by two police authorities.

And no, that is not be saying they are above suspicion, it is me pointing out that you are inconsistent with what is or is not relevant. It is also me, as a person with a sense of common human decency, suggesting that if you are going to continue making excuses for somebody to be suspected of a crime you might want to have some evidence to back it up.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Somthing with no evidence is a more reasonable supposition that something that has shown to be your misinterpretation and wishful thinking, yes.

Show me how its a misinterpretation to say the dogs found a cadaver odor in the apartment and stop assuming its my wishful thinking, address the argument not me or i will report you.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Which investigators?

There is no qualifying evidence to support this interpretation of the movements and actions of the dogs. It is not evidence they smelt a body, or there being a "smell of death".

The PJ.

So a well respected sniffer dog, which has helped in over 200 cases, finding evidence of a cadaver odor is not evidence? Got any proof of this, or is it your opinion

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Then by the same token we could also state any statistic for how often parents are involved is alsi irrelevant, with the parents in this case having been cleared of suspicion by two police authorities.

And no, that is not be saying they are above suspicion, it is me pointing out that you are inconsistent with what is or is not relevant. It is also me, as a person with a sense of common human decency, suggesting that if you are going to continue making excuses for somebody to be suspected of a crime you might want to have some evidence to back it up.

Interesting twist on words, or you could say it as, the PJ suspected it was the mccanns but didn't have enough evidence to convict, they have zero other suspects and had to archive the case.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

So what were you saying here?



Can you evidence that?

I could, but any time i have presented evidence before you have later admitted you did not read it. So i don't see the point presenting it to you.

 

[Nessie]

I could, but any time i have presented evidence before you have later admitted you did not read it. So i don't see the point presenting it to you.

....... address the argument not me or i will report you.

Anyway, moving on to the evidence.......

Your claim was "Actually in cases of missing children in these circumstances, its more likely the parents are involved." So circumstances where the child may have been killed and/or abducted by force rather than where one parent wants the child to be with them over the other and takes them willingly.

US research shows that parents are significantly less likely to be involved in child homicides than the other two categories of stranger and friend/acquaintance.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/ChildAbductionResearch.aspx#.UmPeTRAUaSo

"In 74 percent of the missing children homicide cases studied, the child murder victim was female and the average age was 11 years old.
In 44 percent of the cases studied, the victims and killers were strangers, but in 42 percent of the cases, the victims and killers were friends or acquaintances.
Only about 14 percent of the cases studied involved parents or intimates killing the child."

From the UK (England & Wales) regarding abductions by force under the Child Abduction Act 1984 we see that stranger abductions are double parental ones.

http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/Missing_scopingreport_2011.pdf

"In 2004, a Home Office study of 768 incidents that were recorded as child abductions, 56% (447) involved a stranger and 23% (183) involved a parental dispute."

 

[Tomtomkent]

Show me how its a misinterpretation to say the dogs found a cadaver odor in the apartment and stop assuming its my wishful thinking, address the argument not me or i will report you.

If you feel I have in any way breached the MA feel free to report me.

It is a misinterpretation to claim that a cadaver smell was the cause of the reaction of a dog when there is no evidence to support this, other than wishful thinking. There is no evidence the dogs were reacting to the smell of a cadaver, no useful evidence was found from the reactions of any dogs involved in the case. You have not supplied any evidence for having been a smell of cadavers and no viable way of establishing that there was a smell of a dead body.

Yet in a previous post you suggested that the coconut shell could be "explained" by the body have been lain in the same spot at some point. This is wishful thinking.

Ergo: A speculation based on the dissapearance of the child despite searches is higher up the probability scale than one that assumes several pieces of flawed evidence and a large dose of wishful thinking and imagination are all accurate.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The PJ.

Really? Care to quote them informing us that the dogs smelt a dead body? And not that the dogs reacted to possible evidence that would later be investigated, such as the inconclusive DNA?

So a well respected sniffer dog, which has helped in over 200 cases, finding evidence of a cadaver odor is not evidence? Got any proof of this, or is it your opinion

You are attempting a strawman argument here.

That dogs reacted is not in argument. That the response means, and can only mean the smell of a dead body is a false assumption on your part that is requirted to meet a burden of proof. It has already been explained that there are other sources of the scents that dogs will react to. You are choosing only one explanation from the other explanations.

So I have to ask, how exactly did you communicate with the dog to ensure that the smell was, in its expert opinion, that of a deceased child?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Anyway, moving on to the evidence.......

Your claim was "Actually in cases of missing children in these circumstances, its more likely the parents are involved." So circumstances where the child may have been killed and/or abducted by force rather than where one parent wants the child to be with them over the other and takes them willingly.

US research shows that parents are significantly less likely to be involved in child homicides than the other two categories of stranger and friend/acquaintance.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/ChildAbductionResearch.aspx#.UmPeTRAUaSo

"In 74 percent of the missing children homicide cases studied, the child murder victim was female and the average age was 11 years old.
In 44 percent of the cases studied, the victims and killers were strangers, but in 42 percent of the cases, the victims and killers were friends or acquaintances.
Only about 14 percent of the cases studied involved parents or intimates killing the child."

From the UK (England & Wales) regarding abductions by force under the Child Abduction Act 1984 we see that stranger abductions are double parental ones.

http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/Missing_scopingreport_2011.pdf

"In 2004, a Home Office study of 768 incidents that were recorded as child abductions, 56% (447) involved a stranger and 23% (183) involved a parental dispute."

Where did i say the parents commited homicide, thats a strawman.

23% (183) involved a parental dispute.

again we are not talking about a parental dispute. So again irrelevant.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

If you feel I have in any way breached the MA feel free to report me.

It is a misinterpretation to claim that a cadaver smell was the cause of the reaction of a dog when there is no evidence to support this, other than wishful thinking. There is no evidence the dogs were reacting to the smell of a cadaver, no useful evidence was found from the reactions of any dogs involved in the case. You have not supplied any evidence for having been a smell of cadavers and no viable way of establishing that there was a smell of a dead body.

Yet in a previous post you suggested that the coconut shell could be "explained" by the body have been lain in the same spot at some point. This is wishful thinking.

Ergo: A speculation based on the dissapearance of the child despite searches is higher up the probability scale than one that assumes several pieces of flawed evidence and a large dose of wishful thinking and imagination are all accurate.

The dog is trained to react to a cadaver smell. Its got a well established history of being right. You for some reason think them alerting for a cadaver is not evidence, im really confused by your logic.

In the apartment, the other dog triggered for blood in the exact same spot where the first dog triggered for a cadaver. How do you explain this? Id say that if you have two dogs with a proven record of being correct, both search for different things, but trigger in the exact same place, only trigger on things relating to the mccanns, they searched all the other apartments and robert murats house, why no false positives there? Thats pretty compelling evidence, that cannot be dismissed with "they could have been wrong" like you want to use to dismiss it.

 

[Nessie]

Where did i say the parents commited homicide, thats a strawman.



again we are not talking about a parental dispute. So again irrelevant.

Well if you are not happy with the evidence I have presented which shows child abductions by force and which lead to murder are more likely committed by strangers and friends/acquaintances than parents, please evidence this claim you made

"Actually in cases of missing children in these circumstances, its more likely the parents are involved."

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Really? Care to quote them informing us that the dogs smelt a dead body? And not that the dogs reacted to possible evidence that would later be investigated, such as the inconclusive DNA?



You are attempting a strawman argument here.

That dogs reacted is not in argument. That the response means, and can only mean the smell of a dead body is a false assumption on your part that is requirted to meet a burden of proof. It has already been explained that there are other sources of the scents that dogs will react to. You are choosing only one explanation from the other explanations.

So I have to ask, how exactly did you communicate with the dog to ensure that the smell was, in its expert opinion, that of a deceased child?

I'm sure you know what a cadaver is! Well here is the documentary where Amaral (the head investigator) states that the dog picked up a cadaver

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g

25 minutes onward.

Your last bit is hilarious, you are really clutching at straws.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Well if you are not happy with the evidence I have presented which shows child abductions by force and which lead to murder are more likely committed by strangers and friends/acquaintances than parents, please evidence this claim you made

"Actually in cases of missing children in these circumstances, its more likely the parents are involved."

I explained to you before, im not providing you with evidence anymore, because its clear from our conversation earlier, you don't read it. So i wont waste my time.

 

[Akhenaten]

The dog is trained to react to a cadaver smell. Its got a well established history of being right. You for some reason think them alerting for a cadaver is not evidence, im really confused by your logic.

Are you aware that the chemicals (cadaverine and putrescine) which these dogs are trained to detect are also produced by living beings and, in the case of putrescine, on an industrial scale by biotechnological methods?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Are you aware that the chemicals (cadaverine and putrescine) which these dogs are trained to detect are also produced by living beings and, in the case of putrescine, on an industrial scale by biotechnological methods?

Only produced by living things that the mccanns had in their apartment, strange that. Why didn't living things produce it in the other apartments? Why did the living thing produce it in the same spot as the blood

 

[Nessie]

The dog is trained to react to a cadaver smell. Its got a well established history of being right. You for some reason think them alerting for a cadaver is not evidence, im really confused by your logic.

In the apartment, the other dog triggered for blood in the exact same spot where the first dog triggered for a cadaver. How do you explain this? Id say that if you have two dogs with a proven record of being correct, both search for different things, but trigger in the exact same place, only trigger on things relating to the mccanns, they searched all the other apartments and robert murats house, why no false positives there? Thats pretty compelling evidence, that cannot be dismissed with "they could have been wrong" like you want to use to dismiss it.

The answer has already been explained to you. Since further forensic examination has failed to find any evidence of the apartment (or the boot of the car for that matter) being a crime scene and the dogs are not reliable enough to be used to convict on their own, the idea that Maddie was killed and later disposed of by her parents is not regarded as a likely as she was abducted by person(s) unknown.

I do think that those who say there is no evidence at all to say Maddie was killed by her parents are being too closed minded. There is still a possibility. But under MAGICOP, elimination and statistically, abduction by person(s) unknown is far more likely.

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you aware that the chemicals (cadaverine and putrescine) which these dogs are trained to detect are also produced by living beings and, in the case of putrescine, on an industrial scale by biotechnological methods?

Only produced by living things that the mccanns had in their apartment, strange that.

Well, included in the category "living things" (and those aren't my words, by the way) which produce cadaverine and putrescine are human beings. I'm almost positive there were some of those in the apartment at some stage.

I gather the answer to the question I actually asked is "No".

Why didn't you just say so?

Why didn't living things produce it in the other apartments?

Apart from us not knowing whether this is actually the case, there could be many reasons.

You'd realise this yourself if you understood better where cadaverine and putrescine come from.

Why did the living thing produce it in the same spot as the blood

The "living thing" in this case was presumably a human being.

One of the (living human) sources of cadaverine is urine.

Blood and urine in the same spot? I'm pretty sure that's been known to happen.

 

[Nessie]

I explained to you before, im not providing you with evidence anymore, because its clear from our conversation earlier, you don't read it. So i wont waste my time.

I did read it. I quoted it and highlighted the relevant parts. I made a mistake missing that it was about the boot of the car and not the apartment. That is not evidence for you to make a claim I did not read it. It is evidence I made a mistake.

Please evidence this claim as I have shown I will read evidence produced by you.

"Actually in cases of missing children in these circumstances, its more likely the parents are involved."

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Oh look at this case.

a Lothian and Borders Police constable who told the court that they had enlisted the help of specially trained cadaver dogs from South Yorkshire Police to search the offices where David Gilroy and Suzanne Pilley worked. The dogs were specially trained to smell for blood and human remains. The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall vectra.[14]

On 6 March 2012, the court heard from a forensic scientist, Kirsty McTurk, who told the trial that she had conducted a search for DNA in Ms Pilley's workplace and in the boot of Mr Gilroy's car. She confirmed that she had been unable to find any trace of Ms Pilley's DNA anywhere in the building or in the car. She told the court that as she opened the boot to Mr Gilroy's car, she noticed a fresh smell coming from inside. She told the advocate depute that it could either have been an 'air freshener' or a 'cleansing agent'.

Dogs find cadaver in car boot, no dna found. Man found guilty of murder. Looks like the dogs were correct this time