Madeleine McCann

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Didn't realise you were talking about yourself
rabble1. a disorderly crowd; a mob.
Indeed...shrugs again..

Now now. Do you know more than our own knowledgable and gracious Mod? :eek:

</mod snip>rabble rabble rabble about [redacted]</mod snip>

Do try and keep up with the comments

And that's enough. Thanks

It is really the mystery of the century isn't it?

No wonder there are so many theories, and tensions run high sometimes too. That's inevitable.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Work off the evidence. Talk about who reported seeing the white van and white they were wrong. We have 4 or 5 report of the white at differnt times including directly outside. Two of them aren't even for the abduction there are afterwards in the following days which Madeline is linked too. 1 report granted maybe false. 3,4,5 different kettle of fish. To the facts justice by evaluating them and debating them. Not posting some generalised opinion piece as if it blanket applies to all reports of a white vans invoked in crimes.

Not arguing anything btw. The article simply details why white van sightings are so common and problems with this phenomenon. It's a fact as detailed - but there you go.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I have walked past 5a on numerous occasions . It was without doubt the most vulnerable apartment . From the back easiest to nip in and out of . From the front shaded by trees and difficult to see the hall door .
A car could park right outside the front door in the shade of a tree .
As far as I know some of the families were on the upper floors ( not 100% sure and can't find any link to verify that )

Would you say it was the easiest one to access the street directly?

MonkieSocks wrote: »

QUE INDEED [/img]

QUE? Lol

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Fixed

QED INDEED

Lol. Finally got one thing right! Well done. 2 out 10 for effort

Goodnight.

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. Finally got one thing right! Well done. 2 out 10 for effort

Please don't mind the ongoing rabble - its nearly always like this at this time of night
Goodnight.

Anyone can make a spelling mistake after viewing so many CV's and covering letters in work

Shrugs Again

maebee wrote: »

I'm sure that everybody here is listening to this podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/1FEKcIBxl76fi35VyaEHvb

Episode 6 - the DNA - hiding the DNA. Lots of questions to be answered here. Why won't the Met police send the data to a forensic scientist who may be able to help solve the mystery?

They did https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Yes , i did change my mind a little when I saw it . I was unsure and a bit suspicion of the Mc Canns but seeing the geography of 5a it was extraordinarily vulnerable . I would not have left my credit card or phone in that apartment .

We stayed in the apartment block directly behind 5a . We could look right down on the front door and yet could not see it or anyone at it as the trees shaded it . ( it was Sept not May to be exact )
I very much doubt Madeleine wandered out as instinctively she would go towards the way to the pool and bar as thats the familiar root and she would have been spotted on that road .
P da L is not dotted with holes where a child could fall in , its a busy , tidy resort . She would not have made it to the sea without being seen it is too busy at that time

We didn't by the way visit P da L to check it out ! We got a great offer of am apartment there and delighted to take it
Its a beautiful area and a lovely town

On the point of the holes etc - this is what Amaral had to say about Praia da Luz at the time of the start of the searches there

In the main street of Vila da Luz, there are open trenches because of improvement
works. They leave the waste water mains exposed. On the night of May 3rd searches
were conducted there, with the help of sniffer dogs from the National Guard of The
Republic. (GNR) We'd like to proceed with another inspection, but the site foreman
assures us that access to the mains is closed during the night and the workmen noticed
nothing abnormal when starting work the next morning.

There were also areas of undeveloped land (some of which is now built on I believe), drains, gullies and the aforementioned mobile and underground bins albeit with restricted access.

There was also some speculation that she may have wandered of and been picked up by an opportunistic abductor etc etc

Btw when you an apt behind 5a - do you mean adjacent in the same block or across the road?

gozunda wrote: »

On the point of the holes etc - this is what Amaral had to say about Praia da Luz at the time of the start of the searches there



There were also areas of undeveloped land (some of which is now built on I believe), drains, gullies and the aforementioned mobile and underground bins albeit with restricted access.

There was also some speculation that she may have wandered of and been picked up by an opportunistic abductor etc etc

Btw when you an apt behind 5a - do you mean adjacent in the same block or across the road?

5a was surrounded by apartments , a school close by and the supermarket just down the road .It was quite a bit away from any undeveloped land for a little 3 year old to wander . But of course not impossible . I believe the road works were secured and no sign of disturbance .
Yes,I was in an apartment across the road from the front of 5a

Quick question

1) Gerry carries dead Maddie to the beach (Smith sighting)
2) 25 days later the car is rented and she is put in the boot and brought to her final resting place.
* Must say I find the fact that both dogs alerted on the rental car key particularly interesting does certainly does add weight.

Anyway, now that we believe Gerry McCann brougnt Maddie straight down the road whatever he did with her. How does this escape the attention of all the sniffer dogs on the scene the very next day?

OwlsZat wrote: »

Quick question

1) Gerry carries dead Maddie to the beach (Smith sighting)
2) 25 days later the car is rented and she is put in the boot and brought to her final resting place.
* Must say I find the fact that both dogs alerted on the rental car key particularly interesting does certainly does add weight.

Anyway, now that we believe Gerry McCann Maddie straight down the road whatever he did with her. How does this escape the attention of all the sniffer dogs on the scene the very next day?

I am aware of 4 cases the dogs have been used on since they and Grimes retired. In all four cases the dogs have alerted and in all four cases, no forensic evidence has been recovered as a result of their alerts. That is a 100% false positive rate.

If the dogs 'add weight', then you might as well give significance to what all the clairvoyants and tea leaf readers say happened.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Quick question

1) Gerry carries dead Maddie to the beach (Smith sighting)
2) 25 days later the car is rented and she is put in the boot and brought to her final resting place.
* Must say I find the fact that both dogs alerted on the rental car key particularly interesting does certainly does add weight.

Anyway, now that we believe Gerry McCann brougnt Maddie straight down the road whatever he did with her. How does this escape the attention of all the sniffer dogs on the scene the very next day?

I believe if the scent of the child was away from the ground ie being carried then it would be unlikely that a scent would be discernible the next day tbh.

I know there are some here who give no credence whatsoever to the use of dogs for the purpose of investigation. However it remains a trusted method of detection of missing people and / or remains by police forces all around the world.

Eddie featured in the well known detection of the remains of Attracta Harron murdered by Trevour Hamilton in Tyrone in 2003

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/strabane-murder-sniffer-dog-on-netflix-maddie-series-37938452.html

Sorry just saw your additional. Lol ; )

cnocbui wrote: »

I am aware of 4 cases the dogs have been used on since they and Grimes retired. In all four cases the dogs have alerted and in all four cases, no forensic evidence has been recovered as a result of their alerts. That is a 100% false positive rate.

If the dogs 'add weight', then you might as well give significance to what all the clairvoyants and tea leaf readers say happened.

This is a stupid argument. Sniffer dogs are used the world over by all agencies for detecting all kinds of substances because they are reliable. Scientifically testable. Granted not 100% reliable but pretty damn close. Comparing them to clairvoyants and tea leaf readers only shows your own ignorance.

Source for the dogs results since Grimes retired? Also aren't these dogs meant to be used by 1 owner. You can't just hand them over to somebody else and keep working them much like a guide dog.

BloodBath wrote: »

This is a stupid argument. Sniffer dogs are used the world over by all agencies for detecting all kinds of substances because they are reliable. Scientifically testable. Granted not 100% reliable but pretty damn close. Comparing them to clairvoyants and tea leaf readers only shows your own ignorance.

Source for the dogs results since Grimes retired? Also aren't these dogs meant to be used by 1 owner. You can't just hand them over to somebody else and keep working them much like a guide dog.

It is not stupid - look up the Clever Hans Phenomenon. It's very real. Another side of that coin is medical research and why drug trials have to be double blind - so that the researchers can't know who got the drug and who got the placebo. It was found that when researchers knew a patient had actually received the experimental drug, they subconsciously acted differently with the patients who picked up on these subtle clues and actually responded differently leading to false claims about drug effectiveness. It was so bad that double blind testing of drugs had to become mandatory.

Dogs would have to be a lot dumber than horses for there not to be any potential problem with all types of search dogs and their handlers. The videos showing Grimes working with the dogs are just astonishing in how obvious the signalling is.

I do not dispute for a moment how useful dogs can be or how keen their sense of smell is. What I do dispute is the ridiculous notion they are 100% reliable and that their reactions amount to actual evidence. A cadaver dog reacting can be very helpful in locating evidence, but that's it. Independent testing of cadaver dogs shows they have a false positive rate of at least 10%.

Eddie and Keela while in the police force, had two trainers/handlers - John Ellis and Martin Grimes. They claim they had developed and used a special training regime for Keela. Their performance and the training methods were never independently assessed. This is a problem. Sky news made an FOI request for information concerning the use of sniffer and cadaver dogs. They got access to an unpublished report from the National Policing Improvement Agency which would seems to suggest that there are people in law enforcement who are not happy or comfortable with the use, training and claims made for such dogs:

Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.

The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.

The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.

"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.

"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."

https://news.sky.com/story/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work-10488976

The four cases in which Keela has alerted positively, with no recovery of any supporting forensic evidence are: The McCanns, The Haut de la Garenne children’s home investigation on the island of Jersey, the disappearance of Shannon Mathews - who was found alive and in the Jeanette Zapata murder case in the US - which was solved via a human witness, a farmer finding the skeleton in a remote location and the husband confessing.