'Portugal Resident' comments on that Summers and Swan book - and suggest it's just 'propaganda'

nglfi wrote:Sadly I think this book is going to concentrate quite heavily around the dogs and make every effort to discredit them, in fact I think this is where any 'research' may have been done. The massive thorn in the side of the McCann defence is the dogs. Without their evidence,  most other things are circumstancial and could be argued around. They could argue that the inconsistencies in the t9 accounts came from the fact that they were all drunk (or distressed,  whatever) and people will believe it.
All they have to do is destroy the dogs evidence and most people will be swayed I think.  Having said that, destroying the dog evidence is no small task as it is so compelling,  and I have a feeling they will outright lie to make the cadaver abd blood scent seem coincidental.  I sincerely hope nobody is swayed by this tripe.

Tony Bennett wrote:

REPLY: That's correct, but by and large we don't do it. We talk to each other endlessly on this and other forums, making this point and that point, but that's it. By and large we don't highlight our concerns outside and beyond the discussions on here. The mainstream media have a story to sell and they are not a blind bit interested in the points made here, no matter how powerful they are. We mostly just talk to each other inside our internet 'bubble'

Brian Griffin wrote:

nglfi wrote:Sadly I think this book is going to concentrate quite heavily around the dogs and make every effort to discredit them, in fact I think this is where any 'research' may have been done. The massive thorn in the side of the McCann defence is the dogs. Without their evidence,  most other things are circumstancial and could be argued around. They could argue that the inconsistencies in the t9 accounts came from the fact that they were all drunk (or distressed,  whatever) and people will believe it.
All they have to do is destroy the dogs evidence and most people will be swayed I think.  Having said that, destroying the dog evidence is no small task as it is so compelling,  and I have a feeling they will outright lie to make the cadaver abd blood scent seem coincidental.  I sincerely hope nobody is swayed by this tripe.

Technically, surely the evidence provided by the dogs is also circumstantial unless the cadaver scent and blood can be shown, irrefutably, to belong to Madeleine McCann. Otherwise, as improbable as it might sound, it could be from someone else, from an event or events that could have taken place earlier. It's proof of something, but it isn't necessarily proof that Maddie died in the apartment or that the parents were involved.

Tony Bennett wrote:

The Rooster wrote:Tony, I don't know the answer to your question, sorry.  But like most posters on here I believe the McCanns are lying about the events of the 3rd May 2007. 

Thank you for your prompt reply, Rooster, but doesn't your answer really tell us that in fact there is no explanation for why Brian Kennedy would successively employ: 

* Gary Hagland, money-laundering expert,

* the dodgy Francisco Marco, Antonio Giminez Raso and Julian Peribanez from Metodo 3,

* the lying lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia with his two week-long searches of the Arade Dam for Madeleine's bones,

* the criminal Kevin Halligen,

* the criminal Henri Exton [shoplifting - Manchestere Airport], former Head of Covert Intelligence, MI5,

* Tim Craig-Harvey

* Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley, purportedly from ALPHAIG, a shell compamy set up AFTER it was falsley claimed they were the long-running owner/managers of the non-existent 'Alpha Investigations Group'...


...if, as you think is obvious, the McCanns were not telling the truth about what happened on 3 May 2007.   

Someone should surely ask Brian Kennedy to explain

Brian Griffin wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

REPLY: That's correct, but by and large we don't do it. We talk to each other endlessly on this and other forums, making this point and that point, but that's it. By and large we don't highlight our concerns outside and beyond the discussions on here. The mainstream media have a story to sell and they are not a blind bit interested in the points made here, no matter how powerful they are. We mostly just talk to each other inside our internet 'bubble'

Good point. So why don't people (Tony excepted for obvious reasons) write their own books based on the facts as they see them, and publish them?

tigger wrote:
Since those flats were built, it appears nobody died in 5a, the PJ checked. 

Brian Griffin wrote:

tigger wrote:
Since those flats were built, it appears nobody died in 5a, the PJ checked. 

Then again, you're assuming that any crime or accident would have been reported to the hotel or the authorities. Is it entirely impossible that someone could have died in the apartment, the body removed unseen and the apartment cleaned to disguise the fact before the McCanns got there? As unlikely as it seems, it isn't impossible, however improbable, so it could be argued that it is circumstantial I would imagine. Not all crimes are reported, especially those people want covered up.

Brian Griffin wrote:Undoubtedly!

Yet many of them use their own names to discuss the case on the Internet, which is also publishing. These days you can publish a book and get it on the main book sites like Amazon free of charge. All you need is a computer and a bit of time.

nglfi wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:

tigger wrote:
Since those flats were built, it appears nobody died in 5a, the PJ checked. 

Then again, you're assuming that any crime or accident would have been reported to the hotel or the authorities. Is it entirely impossible that someone could have died in the apartment, the body removed unseen and the apartment cleaned to disguise the fact before the McCanns got there? As unlikely as it seems, it isn't impossible, however improbable, so it could be argued that it is circumstantial I would imagine. Not all crimes are reported, especially those people want covered up.

But the odds of that happening are impossibly small, when coupled with the fact that cadaver odour was found on Kate's clothes, cuddle cat etc etc, and cadaver and blood odour was also found in the Scenic. I agree that it doesn't prove it was Madeleine's corpse, but seriously who else's?  Even if it's inadmissible in court, I believe it's the main piece of evidence convincing those who don't believe the McCanns, but haven't necessarily read much about the case.

Brian Griffin wrote:

nglfi wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:

tigger wrote:
Since those flats were built, it appears nobody died in 5a, the PJ checked. 

Then again, you're assuming that any crime or accident would have been reported to the hotel or the authorities. Is it entirely impossible that someone could have died in the apartment, the body removed unseen and the apartment cleaned to disguise the fact before the McCanns got there? As unlikely as it seems, it isn't impossible, however improbable, so it could be argued that it is circumstantial I would imagine. Not all crimes are reported, especially those people want covered up.

But the odds of that happening are impossibly small, when coupled with the fact that cadaver odour was found on Kate's clothes, cuddle cat etc etc, and cadaver and blood odour was also found in the Scenic. I agree that it doesn't prove it was Madeleine's corpse, but seriously who else's?  Even if it's inadmissible in court, I believe it's the main piece of evidence convincing those who don't believe the McCanns, but haven't necessarily read much about the case.

I agree, the odds are small, but not impossibly as far as a clever lawyer is concerned. But without absolute proof, there could still be another explanation. The McCanns have managed to explain away the odour on Kate's clothes and in the Scenic and without DNA evidence there is no proof otherwise. What if it really is from hospitals or meat? I think it would be very risky of the McCanns to hire a car, collect and dispose of a body when they must have been under close scrutiny at the time. If something had happened to Madeleine that the McCanns wanted to hide, I believe Madeleine would have been long gone, and completely disposed of (and it feels horrible to use those words to write about that little girl) before any of the abduction shenanigans began. All my opinion of course.

Casey5 wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:Undoubtedly!

Yet many of them use their own names to discuss the case on the Internet, which is also publishing. These days you can publish a book and get it on the main book sites like Amazon free of charge. All you need is a computer and a bit of time.

Pat Brown did exactly that. I downloaded it onto kindle and then poof it was gone from the Amazon site both here and in the States. Amazon won't get into a legal fight for an author who publishes a kindle book if the content is disputed by a legal firm like  Carter Ruck for instance. And Amazon didn't. They withdrew her book.
If, on the other hand, you write a book and use a publisher then Amazon would sell it because if there's a problem it would be the publishing company who would run the risk of being sued just like the publishers of Dr Amaral's book.
No publisher, apparently would run the risk of publishing Dr Amaral's book in English so it never was.
And that's the problem for anyone writing a book criticising  the MCanns.

Newintown wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:

nglfi wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:

tigger wrote:
Since those flats were built, it appears nobody died in 5a, the PJ checked. 

Then again, you're assuming that any crime or accident would have been reported to the hotel or the authorities. Is it entirely impossible that someone could have died in the apartment, the body removed unseen and the apartment cleaned to disguise the fact before the McCanns got there? As unlikely as it seems, it isn't impossible, however improbable, so it could be argued that it is circumstantial I would imagine. Not all crimes are reported, especially those people want covered up.

But the odds of that happening are impossibly small, when coupled with the fact that cadaver odour was found on Kate's clothes, cuddle cat etc etc, and cadaver and blood odour was also found in the Scenic. I agree that it doesn't prove it was Madeleine's corpse, but seriously who else's?  Even if it's inadmissible in court, I believe it's the main piece of evidence convincing those who don't believe the McCanns, but haven't necessarily read much about the case.

I agree, the odds are small, but not impossibly as far as a clever lawyer is concerned. But without absolute proof, there could still be another explanation. The McCanns have managed to explain away the odour on Kate's clothes and in the Scenic and without DNA evidence there is no proof otherwise. What if it really is from hospitals or meat? I think it would be very risky of the McCanns to hire a car, collect and dispose of a body when they must have been under close scrutiny at the time. If something had happened to Madeleine that the McCanns wanted to hide, I believe Madeleine would have been long gone, and completely disposed of (and it feels horrible to use those words to write about that little girl) before any of the abduction shenanigans began. All my opinion of course.

re the McCanns explaining away the odour on Kate’s clothes - there would have to be 100% proof that KM attended 6 dead bodies, she would have to have signed the death certificates or other certificates when she attended a death.  They would be asked for, as proof, in a court of law.  At the moment, it’s all hearsay.

The cadaver dogs don’t respond to “meat”.  The sensitivity of their noses is 100,000 times stronger than a humans.  They are highly trained to detect the “cadaver” odour, if they detected to “meat” they would be useless for the job they’re trained to do.

With regard to the McCanns hiring a car, who said it was the McCanns who actually drove the car.  The McCanns are very adept at the art of “look over there, not over here”, they went on many trips where the World’s media followed them, Rome for instance.  Who knows what was going on while they were away and the media weren’t on the ball or even in PDL when the McCanns went on their “trips”.

The one point I agree with you on is that Madeleine was disposed of before the shenanigans began (and was moved at a future date in the hire car when the press were following the McCanns not the hire car).

Brian Griffin wrote:

Newintown wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:

nglfi wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:

tigger wrote:
Since those flats were built, it appears nobody died in 5a, the PJ checked. 

Then again, you're assuming that any crime or accident would have been reported to the hotel or the authorities. Is it entirely impossible that someone could have died in the apartment, the body removed unseen and the apartment cleaned to disguise the fact before the McCanns got there? As unlikely as it seems, it isn't impossible, however improbable, so it could be argued that it is circumstantial I would imagine. Not all crimes are reported, especially those people want covered up.

But the odds of that happening are impossibly small, when coupled with the fact that cadaver odour was found on Kate's clothes, cuddle cat etc etc, and cadaver and blood odour was also found in the Scenic. I agree that it doesn't prove it was Madeleine's corpse, but seriously who else's?  Even if it's inadmissible in court, I believe it's the main piece of evidence convincing those who don't believe the McCanns, but haven't necessarily read much about the case.

I agree, the odds are small, but not impossibly as far as a clever lawyer is concerned. But without absolute proof, there could still be another explanation. The McCanns have managed to explain away the odour on Kate's clothes and in the Scenic and without DNA evidence there is no proof otherwise. What if it really is from hospitals or meat? I think it would be very risky of the McCanns to hire a car, collect and dispose of a body when they must have been under close scrutiny at the time. If something had happened to Madeleine that the McCanns wanted to hide, I believe Madeleine would have been long gone, and completely disposed of (and it feels horrible to use those words to write about that little girl) before any of the abduction shenanigans began. All my opinion of course.

re the McCanns explaining away the odour on Kate’s clothes - there would have to be 100% proof that KM attended 6 dead bodies, she would have to have signed the death certificates or other certificates when she attended a death.  They would be asked for, as proof, in a court of law.  At the moment, it’s all hearsay.

The cadaver dogs don’t respond to “meat”.  The sensitivity of their noses is 100,000 times stronger than a humans.  They are highly trained to detect the “cadaver” odour, if they detected to “meat” they would be useless for the job they’re trained to do.

With regard to the McCanns hiring a car, who said it was the McCanns who actually drove the car.  The McCanns are very adept at the art of “look over there, not over here”, they went on many trips where the World’s media followed them, Rome for instance.  Who knows what was going on while they were away and the media weren’t on the ball or even in PDL when the McCanns went on their “trips”.

The one point I agree with you on is that Madeleine was disposed of before the shenanigans began (and was moved at a future date in the hire car when the press were following the McCanns not the hire car).

Some good points you've got there. Especially about the 'look over here, not over there'. I naturally assumed the McCanns would be driving the car they hired. Then who? The plot thickens! Surely the more people there are in this chain, the greater the chance of one of the links breaking.

But would Kate need to prove she attended the bodies? Wouldn't the prosecution have to prove that the smell/blood was from Madeleine? Innocent until proven guilty, and all that?

In my opinion.

Brian Griffin wrote:

tigger wrote:
Since those flats were built, it appears nobody died in 5a, the PJ checked. 

Then again, you're assuming that any crime or accident would have been reported to the hotel or the authorities. Is it entirely impossible that someone could have died in the apartment, the body removed unseen and the apartment cleaned to disguise the fact before the McCanns got there? As unlikely as it seems, it isn't impossible, however improbable, so it could be argued that it is circumstantial I would imagine. Not all crimes are reported, especially those people want covered up.

Brian Griffin wrote:But it still *might* have happened. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

(I'm referring to the post above the one above this)

Newintown wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:But it still *might* have happened. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

(I'm referring to the post above the one above this)

If you're referring to my post it is highly unlikely that any death would have been over looked or hidden by anyone owning the apartment or renting it out.  There would have been in depth investigations into the ownership/renting of the apartment so nothing was missed.  There may be a million in one chance that that someone died in the apartment and was taken out in the middle of the night never to be seen again, but would their cadaver odour be detected behind the sofa, in the wardrobe, on cuddle cat, on KM's clothes, but not on GM's clothes or the twins or any otherr items in the apartment?

tigger wrote:

Newintown wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:But it still *might* have happened. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

(I'm referring to the post above the one above this)

If you're referring to my post it is highly unlikely that any death would have been over looked or hidden by anyone owning the apartment or renting it out.  There would have been in depth investigations into the ownership/renting of the apartment so nothing was missed.  There may be a million in one chance that that someone died in the apartment and was taken out in the middle of the night never to be seen again, but would their cadaver odour be detected behind the sofa, in the wardrobe, on cuddle cat, on KM's clothes, but not on GM's clothes or the twins or any otherr items in the apartment?

Attaboy!  i get a bit tired of these putative corpses occupying 5a..

Newintown wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:But it still *might* have happened. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

(I'm referring to the post above the one above this)

If you're referring to my post it is highly unlikely that any death would have been over looked or hidden by anyone owning the apartment or renting it out.  There would have been in depth investigations into the ownership/renting of the apartment so nothing was missed.  There may be a million in one chance that that someone died in the apartment and was taken out in the middle of the night never to be seen again, but would their cadaver odour be detected behind the sofa, in the wardrobe, on cuddle cat, on KM's clothes, but not on GM's clothes or the twins or any otherr items in the apartment?

Brian Griffin wrote:

Newintown wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:But it still *might* have happened. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

(I'm referring to the post above the one above this)

If you're referring to my post it is highly unlikely that any death would have been over looked or hidden by anyone owning the apartment or renting it out.  There would have been in depth investigations into the ownership/renting of the apartment so nothing was missed.  There may be a million in one chance that that someone died in the apartment and was taken out in the middle of the night never to be seen again, but would their cadaver odour be detected behind the sofa, in the wardrobe, on cuddle cat, on KM's clothes, but not on GM's clothes or the twins or any otherr items in the apartment?

If you're referring to my post it is highly unlikely that any death would have been over looked or hidden by anyone owning the apartment or renting it out.

Have to disagree. Just looking at the apartment after Madeleine had gone missing, if you knew nothing of the events of that evening, you would not draw any conclusion that anything had happened there out of the ordinary, unless you're suggesting that it's commonplace to sweep the holiday apartment that is going to be your home for the next couple of weeks with sniffer dogs and forensic teams. I dunno. Maybe you do, but I'll bet you don't! That. I would wager, is even less likely than your million in one chance of someone dying in there previously. Something has to happen to initiate that response, like a woman screaming that her daughter is missing. You can clean blood off a tiled floor easily, too, so if you couldn't see the spatters, you'd be none the wiser. You need a reason to suspect.  Like I say, it's highly unlikely, but not completely impossible.

but would their cadaver odour be detected behind the sofa, in the wardrobe, on cuddle cat, on KM's clothes, but not on GM's clothes or the twins or any otherr items in the apartment?

Who says it's the same cadaver odour? You would need to prove it's the same person, and then you've got to prove it's Maddie's.

In my opinion.