Jump to content
MarreZ

Madeleine Mccann Missing Girl

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

That's nonsense, they alert wrongly all the time, especially if their handler is very keen to get a result. 

I think the phrase you were searching for is "incrrrredibly unreliable." Sadly courts of law don't accept Gerry's view of the reliablility of these dogs, particularly as in the case he cited, it was later shown that the dogs had it right.

If they were as unreliable as you suggest, then convictions like that of David Gilroy, would surely be unsafe. Instead, the alert of the dog was part of the case against him, and was vital given the lack of any body being found.

Academic research on the subject is available here, and is a useful starting off point: https://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf

However, can I respectfully point out that it wasn't the dogs that analysed the DNA,, it was a lab?

 

Edited by Alternative Title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alternative Title said:

However, can I respectfully point out that it wasn't the dogs that analysed the DNA,, it was a lab?

Quote

you trying to say i'm different from other dogs or sthg, dude ?

image.thumb.png.486a93f35535a0679674c0692bc9b84d.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alternative Title said:

I think the phrase you were searching for is "incrrrredibly unreliable." Sadly courts of law don't accept Gerry's view of the reliablility of these dogs, particularly as in the case he cited, it was later shown that the dogs had it right.

If they were as unreliable as you suggest, then convictions like that of David Gilroy, would surely be unsafe. Instead, the alert of the dog was part of the case against him, and was vital given the lack of any body being found.

Academic research on the subject is available here, and is a useful starting off point: https://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf

However, can I respectfully point out that it wasn't the dogs that analysed the DNA,, it was a lab?

 

If you are going to use the phrase “academic research” in a case like this, you should at least have the decency to link to peer reviewed scientific literature instead of a crappy student poster presentation from 11 years ago.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Alternative Title said:

There are plenty of credible shreds such as the cadaver dog alerts. There is no evidence of an abduction other than the word of the two prime suspects.

 

 

4 hours ago, Alternative Title said:

A common misconception. There were 15 out of 19 allelles, which is enough to convict in a British court.

But, yes, the dogs can hardly stand up in court. The fact that the probability that they alerted wrongly is minute though.

 

 

4 hours ago, Alternative Title said:

DNA was found. This was enough to bring the parents in for questioning

The fact they didn't co operate with the investigation speaks volumes, as does fleeing the country .

 

I haven't seen any evidence of glee. Good try though, maybe time to move on to bad mouthing Portugal.

 

 

4 hours ago, Alternative Title said:

So, just how did the abductor manage to get in and out of the apartment in the time window of 2 minutes?


This involved drugging three children, lifting one up, and exiting through a window that is not wide enough for a grown man to get through.

All achieved without any alarm from the kids, and no fibres left on the window ledge.

And why did the parents tell everyone that he had jemmied the window to get in, only to change their story when it was pointed out there was no evidence of forced entry?

 

3 hours ago, Alternative Title said:

I think the phrase you were searching for is "incrrrredibly unreliable." Sadly courts of law don't accept Gerry's view of the reliablility of these dogs, particularly as in the case he cited, it was later shown that the dogs had it right.

If they were as unreliable as you suggest, then convictions like that of David Gilroy, would surely be unsafe. Instead, the alert of the dog was part of the case against him, and was vital given the lack of any body being found.

Academic research on the subject is available here, and is a useful starting off point: https://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf

However, can I respectfully point out that it wasn't the dogs that analysed the DNA,, it was a lab?

 

You're fooling absolutely no-one, Gerry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

If you are going to use the phrase “academic research” in a case like this, you should at least have the decency to link to peer reviewed scientific literature instead of a crappy student poster presentation from 11 years ago.

I said "starting off point". Agreed though, not worth much.

This might be a better place to start. 

http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Cadaver_dogs

Soprano, K.; Miklósi, Á.; Topál, J.; Csányi, V. Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) Responsiveness to Human Pointing Gestures. J. Comp. Psychol. 2002, 116 (1), 27–34. 

Rooney, N. J.; Gaines, S. A.; Bradshaw, J. W. S.; Penman, S. Validation of a Method for Assessing the Ability of Trainee Specialist Search Dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 103 (1–2), 90–104. 

Rebmann, A.; David, E.; Sorg, M. H. Cadaver Dog Handbook: Forensic Training and Tactics for the Recovery of Human Remains; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2000. 

Whether or not these are Harvard referenced doesn't  distract from the fact that the dogs are used in court cases throughout the world.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5883.0

Readers might find this useful, particularly the link to the official Portuguese police file.

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html?m=1

As always the British media is interesting in how they report.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm

Hope that goes some way to questioning the notion that the dogs are wrong "all the time." A popular mantra from Team McCann in their relentless pursuit of anything that can distort the facts of the case.

We also see the rubbishing of any expert who does not have good news for them in the suggestion that their handler "led" them. If you watch the videos, that is very questionable.

For the dogs to give false alerts as many times in as many different locations as they did is not probable. It is much more likely that they did detect death in the apartment, in the hire car, and on Kate's clothes. Something that is supported by the discovery of DNA in those locations also.

 

Edited by Alternative Title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shite always seems to pop up at conveniently challenging times for the government. Almost like they know the outrage of pumping even more money into it will distract the public from other stuff.

The kid is deid. If she were alive, surely to f**k someone would have seen or heard from her by now. Everything points to an accidental overdose by her doctor parents. The two c***s have looked dodgy as hell from day one, and as i'm sure has been uttered repeatedly in this thread, had they not been people of high social standing/professionals, they'd have likely been locked up already. Innocent or guilty of murder, they are absolutely guilty of neglect at the very least.

The amount of kids and people in general, in this country and across the world, who go missing and don't receive anywhere near as much funding/coverage or even sympathy is bloody disgusting. Why is a wee scouse lassie's life worth more than any other? Any other missing person would've been given up on years ago.

This shit makes me physically sick. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2019 at 09:06, Dee Man said:

I've heard some conspiracy theories in my time but that is a belter.

Care to explain the presence of MI5, the British Ambassador (not Consul) and the Givernment dispatching Clarence "The Fireman" Mitchell to manage media relations. Not to mention Broon toeing his colours to the mast early on, only to scarper when it became obvious he'd backed a couple of wrong 'uns ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Everything points to an accidental overdose by her doctor parents. The two c***s have looked dodgy as hell from day one
 


Apart from there is absolutely zero evidence that points to accidental overdose, you are just assuming this happened because they are doctors so they would obviously bring a travel pharmacy on Holliday with them so they could drug their children if they weren’t sleeping well. It’s actually frightening that people make this conclusion about the case.

You also can’t just say you think it was the parents because they come across a little shifty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, throbber said:

 


Apart from there is absolutely zero evidence that points to accidental overdose, you are just assuming this happened because they are doctors so they would obviously bring a travel pharmacy on Holliday with them so they could drug their children if they weren’t sleeping well. It’s actually frightening that people make this conclusion about the case.

You also can’t just say you think it was the parents because they come across a little shifty.

Well, Kate said she thought the kids had been drugged, although she didn't think it worthwhile getting them checked for some reason.

It was noted that both twins were unresponsive throughout all the coming and going.

Of course had she had them checked we would know for certain .

Just one thing. Why would a trained anaesthust not be worried about their children being unresponsive (Glasgow Coma Scale 15) and find out why as a matter of urgency?

Either she knew what they had ingested, and that's a matter for the police; or, she and the other doctors in the party are guilty of incompetence, and that's a matter for the GMC.

Remember, the reason they were all so cold and collected was "because of their medical training."

By the way, one packet of Diazepam hardly constitutes a travelling pharmacy. It's frightening the way people are prepared to distort facts, rather than look at the glaring evidence in front of them.

It's almost as if you are members of some crazy religious sect that expects you to accept all you are told without question.

 

Edited by Alternative Title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alternative Title said:

Well, Kate said she thought the kids had been drugged, although she didn't think it worthwhile getting them checked for some reason.

It was noted that both twins were unresponsive throughout all the coming and going.

Of course had she had them checked we would know for certain .

Just one thing. Why would a trained anaesthust not be worried about their children being unresponsive (Glasgow Coma Scale 15) and find out why as a matter of urgency?

Either she knew what they had ingested, and that's a matter for the police; or, she and the other doctors in the party are guilty of incompetence, and that's a matter for the GMC.

Remember, the reason they were all so cold and collected was "because of their medical training."

By the way, one packet of Diazepam hardly constitutes a travelling pharmacy. It's frightening the way people are prepared to distort facts, rather than look at the glaring evidence in front of them.

It's almost as if you are members of some crazy religious sect that expects you to accept all you are told without question.

 

I think that most normal people are quite happy to believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I think that most normal people are quite happy to believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Like Fred West?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GordonD said:

Like Fred West?

Or Dr. Harold Shipman?

35 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I think that most normal people are quite happy to believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Although they do ask for peer reviewed research when it suits their agenda of rubbishing things they don't want to hear.

Who said anything about guilt? Edit: your mate said there was no evidence that the kids were drugged, and I put you straight in my first sentence.
However if you are happy that they continue to enjoy their liberty without these pertinent questions being answered, you are welcome to what you think is normality.

When, faced with incontestable evidence the usual McCann tactic is to question the sanity or morality of the person delivering it. You are definitely on message with that, but black marks for not realising that Kate had admitted in her book "madeleine" that she thought the kids were drugged.

While you are here, would you mind telling me how the abductor managed to drug the children, and get out of  a window that is not large enough for a man to get through, without leaving any forensic trace?

If arrested, I take it he will be innocent until proved guilty also. As, there is a cast iron defence built up, which would implicate the parents.

Edited by Alternative Title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alternative Title said:

Or Dr. Harold Shipman?

No, Shipman was found guilty. Fred West did himself in before the trial so according to oaksoft he's innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It's almost as if you are members of some crazy religious sect that expects you to accept all you are told without question.
 


Give us a reasonable hypotheses as to what happened that evening then based on your extensive knowledge on the subject then hot shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always strikes me that people don't understand the term 'evidence' in this stuff.

Fair enough hypothesise what happened but why on earth people feel it appropriate to aggressively argue what they think happened as fact is mental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Fair enough hypothesise what happened but why on earth people feel it appropriate to aggressively argue what they think happened as fact is mental.


Why? The main reason I don’t think the Mcanns killed her is because of the time frame from when Maddie was last seen to when Gerry was our playing tennis and then returning to their apartment. Maddie was last seen at 1730 and then put to bed at 7 then the parents were at the Tapas restaurant for 8 and the alarm was raised that she was gone at 930 ish, so when did they kill and dispose of her body? They let someone into their apartment to check on their kids so would they do that knowing she was dead and risk being caught? Did they just hire a car out there a month after the abduction and go and find her body and dispose of it in a final resting place safe in the knowledge that nobody was following them when it was probably the highest profile criminal case in Europe at the time? Why is there no more evidence other than a couple of dogs barking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Why? The main reason I don’t think the Mcanns killed her is because of the time frame from when Maddie was last seen to when Gerry was our playing tennis and then returning to their apartment. Maddie was last seen at 1730 and then put to bed at 7 then the parents were at the Tapas restaurant for 8 and the alarm was raised that she was gone at 930 ish, so when did they kill and dispose of her body? They let someone into their apartment to check on their kids so would they do that knowing she was dead and risk being caught? Did they just hire a car out there a month after the abduction and go and find her body and dispose of it in a final resting place safe in the knowledge that nobody was following them when it was probably the highest profile criminal case in Europe at the time? Why is there no more evidence other than a couple of dogs barking?


You may have misunderstood me.

I’m saying I have no idea what happened and people don’t ‘know’ what happened. As I said, hypotheses are absolutely fine as you’ve just outlined above.

My issue is people arguing with certainty that they know better than the army of people that have been working on this case for years.

Nobody knows what happened really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, throbber said:

 


Why? The main reason I don’t think the Mcanns killed her is because of the time frame from when Maddie was last seen to when Gerry was our playing tennis and then returning to their apartment. Maddie was last seen at 1730 and then put to bed at 7 then the parents were at the Tapas restaurant for 8 and the alarm was raised that she was gone at 930 ish, so when did they kill and dispose of her body? They let someone into their apartment to check on their kids so would they do that knowing she was dead and risk being caught? Did they just hire a car out there a month after the abduction and go and find her body and dispose of it in a final resting place safe in the knowledge that nobody was following them when it was probably the highest profile criminal case in Europe at the time? Why is there no more evidence other than a couple of dogs barking?

 

Says who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...