Madeleine McCann

limnam wrote:

Parents bathing other parents kids

limnam wrote:

I have to say, I've never came across this before and find it really odd

limnam wrote:

How many of your friends have washed your kids in the bath?

I'm sure many of us would have been bathed by non family members when we were babies or toddlers - such as babysitters, childminders. I certainly was.

limnam wrote: »

micks_address wrote: »

I think that's the main thing... The dog pointed towards something but the scientific evidence didn't back it up. Amaral suggests the evidence possibly tampered with in the UK..

There's two dogs.


I'm referring to the cavender dog who alerted on the scent of a dead body.


He either alerted correctly or he didn't no scientist can determine that.


Considering their success rate on detection after 10 minutes of exposure is 98% it's hard to outright dismiss it

Yes of course there's two dogs but everyone agrees that the dogs alert to a presence or something..you need scientific evidence to back it up.. it doesn't hold water in court otherwise.. the dog trainer will tell you that

micks_address wrote: »

Yes of course there's two dogs but everyone agrees that the dogs alert to a presence or something..you need scientific evidence to back it up.. it doesn't hold water in court otherwise.. the dog trainer will tell you that

Sure.


What I'm saying is. It's odd that abduction is the most likely with no evidence.


But with a stream of lies and deception, dogs alerting etc


It seems odd that one is more likely than the other consider said lies and deception etc

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Panorama quality? The programme that claimed Martin Smith withdraw his witness account of his siting of Gerry McCann? Martin Smith contacted the programme producer's to correct their misleading claim, he never withdrew his witness account. The BBC acknowledged the claim made on the Panorama programme was incorrect. That's the standard of programme you would like?

Yes. Would you like to borrow an air compressor to see if you can inflate your little quibble even further?

cnocbui wrote: »

The Met were never going to solve this case so what the Met did, said or otherwise is irrelevant. The only people in a position, and with the legal authority to investigate and solve the case were in Portugal - who, by the way, investigated the McCanns thoroughly, with their main theory being the McCanns were responsible and most of Amaral's efforts being spent on trying to prove it. I would love to see a Panorama quality investigation into Amaral and what he and his got up to in this and other related investigations like the treatment of Joana Cipriano. The leaks of case details and smearing of the McCanns is unprecedented, anywhere, that I am aware of. I am astonished this aspect of the case has never been told as a story in it's own right. I suppose it would shine too strong a light on the Portuguese and British tabloid media. A bit like getting the Police to investigate the Police.

You really dont trust anyone but the McCanns by that comment tbh. Selective bias?

Btw not to get hung up or anything on the minutiae of the case but the official finding of the Portuguese police was not that "McCanns were responsible," but that the child had died as a result of an accident in the apartment whilst unsupervised.

Phoebas wrote: »

It precisely does take away from the dog alerting on a dead body.
The dog alerted, samples were taken and tested. No forensic evidence was found. That is precisely indicative of the dog not alerting correctly.

That's the thing Forensic evidence was found and DNA extracted. The laboratory ruled that the results from the vehicle for example were to complex for meaningful interpretation or inclusion.

It remains the dogs [allerted to the presence forensic evidence]* and forensic evidence was found. Whether that had been deliberately degraded or otherwise will possibly never been known.

That said with the advances in forensic science over the last couple of decades many cold cases have been solved using new techniques so anything is possible...

* Updated for the hard of understanding

Phoebas wrote: »

No. You're fully misunderstanding what is and what is not forensic evidence.The dogs alert to the possibility of evidence. Their alerts are not regarded as evidence itself.It's odd that this has been covered again and again, but is wilfully ignored again and again.

Only if your comment is designed to be wilfully pedantic tbh and if you would like to split (forensic) hairs. The dogs alerted to the presence of forensic evidence. And yes forensic evidence was found and then collected. And not as stated that 'no forensic evidence' was found

This was your comment - highlighted bit is incorrect.

Phoebas wrote:

It precisely does take away from the dog alerting on a dead body.
The dog alerted, samples were taken and tested. No forensic evidence was found. That is precisely indicative of the dog not alerting correctly.

Its quite astounding the number of qualified forensic scientists who know absolutely everything about evidence gathering in this thread. The Police are missing out big time ...


:rolleyes:

Well now you're splitting hairs.

1. The dogs do not provide forensic evidence. This is clear, unless you want to refine what the term means.

2. Material was collected following from the dogs indications. You could classify this as forensic evidence if you want, but the only evidence it provided was that the material existed. It didn't provide any evidence that was useful to the case (or in any way implicated the McCanns).

Phoebas wrote: »

Well now you're splitting hairs.

1. The dogs do not provide forensic evidence. This is clear, unless you want to refine what the term means.

2. Material was collected following from the dogs indications. You could classify this as forensic evidence if you want, but the only evidence it provided was that the material existed. It didn't provide any evidence that was useful to the case (or in any way implicated the McCanns).

Dog hairs is it :pac:


Lol. No one said "the dogs provided forensic evidence". But what you said "That no forensic evidence was found" is wrong. Incorrect. And false. Forensic evidence was found and was tested but was judged as in the example of the car to be too complex for a meaningful result.

This was your comment just in case you forgot what was wrong about it (highlighted bit)

Phoebas wrote:

It precisely does take away from the dog alerting on a dead body.
The dog alerted, samples were taken and tested. No forensic evidence was found. That is precisely indicative of the dog not alerting correctly.

Understand yes?

cnocbui wrote: »

It wasn't forensic evidence. Evidence is something that is relevant.

Exactly. Thank you.

It's a weird thing about this case, that people are willing to twist common understanding of things and the English language to try to score meaningless points.

retro:electro wrote: »

Nothing of any evidentiary value was found, hence the McCann’s never being charged with anything.


It’s really not that hard to comprehend.

... except for the hard of comprehending.

cnocbui wrote: »

It wasn't forensic evidence. Evidence is something that is relevant. It was as useful and relevant to the case as finding a meteorite. No forensic evidence has been found.No, 'anything' is not possible. The sample from the car was less than a single human cell - it was destroyed in the process of assessing it's irrelevance. It's gone.
If you find biological material in a criminal investigation that is not relevant to that investigatiion, it is not 'evidence'

Christ on a bike but the splitting of hairs here is getting to an Olympic standard. :pac:

The defition of Forensic evidence for your benefit is : Collins Online Dictionary

evidence obtained by the use of science, for example DNA evidence, etc

What was found was not a 'meteorite' (sic) but actual forensic material otherwise known as evidence

Such evidence can be used to either exonerate someone or even indicate what may have happened. The fact that blood was found even if was identified as Madeleines would NOT indicate the McCanns were guilty of whatever you think they might be guilty of or otherwise.

The PP hypothesis that

Phoebas wrote:

...
The dog alerted, samples were taken and tested. No forensic evidence was found. That is precisely indicative of the dog not alerting correctly[/quote] is clearly so wrong as to be in neon flashing lights with a big pointy sign pointing at it.

The dogs did indeed 'Alert' correctly. :rolleyes:

That the samples of 'forensic evidence' which were collected were too complex to be meaningful was a blow in finding out what happened to the Madeliene whether that was possibly a mad axe murderer or someone she knew ...


Maybe you should explain why you think the "dog not (was) alerting correctly" .

Instead of trying to rewrite the dictionary ...

But if Madeline Died in the apartment 3rd may 2007.

Madeline was last seen by by someone other than their friends between 17.30 and 18.00,

Lets split the difference here and go for 1745.

So 17 .45 Kate and the kids are back Madeline dies soon after maybe 15 mins.

So if we have a time of Death 18.00

Cadaver scent; how long for it to form?

PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes.

However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html


Again we split the difference for Cadaver scent + or - 30 mins of each other and get 2 hours.


So Cadaver scent is present at 20.00

McCans are the Tapas Bar at 20.35

So they are in an area unfamiliar to them, no transport.


How did they dispose of the body child in 35 mins, without the Portuguese Police or Scotland Yard ever finding any evidence of it

Approx 10pm onwards when Kate McCann sounded the alarm, the apartment was visited by many people, until it was eventually sealed off Police by at 4am May 4th 2007