The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Seriously?

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by rose58 on 25.04.11 16:27

Why would those police dogs be mistaken? The Mccanns don't just say they were mistaken. They say they are very unreliable. This is untrue. These dogs have not been maligned any time before this case, and just the once after this case, e.g. Jersey children's home case. They have since gone on to help solve two or three murders.

It is also strange that the dogs were only mistaken around them and not other places they were taken to, irrespective of what they were alerting to. It is such a large and unlucky coincidence ,isn't it? To alert to a place from where someone has gone missing. If they were mistaken.

 

rose58
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Vanya on 25.04.11 16:29

Hi rose58

Even more unlucky for the McCanns is that both dogs were apparently wrong in exactly the same places. What are the chances of that?

Vanya

Posts : 10
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-03-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by The Shelfstacker on 25.04.11 16:30

WTF,

sorry but I have to be direct with you. You're talking utter garbage. IF, as you say, you were in the position of the McCanns and you believed the dogs' findings to be correct (which by the way they didn't) what you do not do next is to try to find ways to discredit them. From going on about dirty nappies and taking rotting meat to the dump (by the way, point of order here, I don't even take rotting meat to the dump when I'm at home, let alone on holiday. Just sling it out. They were only there a week, how much meat did they buy in given that they were at the Tapas Bar every night for their evening meal). I digress; dirty nappies, rotting meat, contacting foreign lawyers regarding dogs' evidence (which later turned out to be spot on).

"Ask the dogs, Sandra". Remember that? Thankfully, we did, or at least PC Grimes did. They answered loud and clear. Someone died there or laid there dead. The dogs don't lie. That is not strange, that is real life.

The Shelfstacker

Posts : 122
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by rose58 on 25.04.11 16:47

Hi Vanya

From what I read I gather some people are putting out the the theory that the cadaver dog was signalling to the prescence of blood and not the cadaver scent. This is possible in a few places they both alerted, possible, but not proven.

There are places though that the blood dog did not confirm the cadaver dog alerts. The cadaver dog is sent in first and if it signals without any remains being found, then the blood dog is sent in to find tangible forensic evidence like blood or blood mixed with other traces. From memory, there was no blood found in the following alerted places:

Bedroom of the parents
Garden
Veranda
Clothes
Cuddletoy

It is a mystery, or not.

rose58
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Gracias on 25.04.11 17:06

But both dogs alerted behind the sofa and in the hire car skull so someone died behind the sofa and was then put in the hire car 3 weeks later. Amaral said there was bodily fluids that pointed to a body having been refrigerated. skull

Gracias
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by rose58 on 25.04.11 17:16

Gracias

There's a problem in knowing whether or not the cadaver dog (who also can scent blood) was scenting blood behind the sofar or cadaver scent. Likewise in the car. As posted before, there are other places where he couldn't have been. That scent has to be accounted for. I've not read a sensible innocent explanation for it to date.

rose58
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Gracias on 25.04.11 17:22

It's just as well Dr Kate McCann had the foresight to take Cuddlecat to work with her when she had to deal with six corpses otherwise she wouldn't have been able to come up with an excuse for death scent being on it. winkwink

Gracias
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re:Seriously.

Post by PharLap. on 25.04.11 18:38

Some of the excuses really take the biscuit don't they,

Cuddle Cat going to work with Kate. titter

Seabass. titter

6 dead corpse's in 1 week. nah

Kate said she was working very hard but didn't physically search. sad

Rotting meat and dirty nappies. nah

I am sure you all know plenty more.

PharLap.
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by julie on 25.04.11 19:23

They are both liars. I don't know which one of them is worse. But considering they are doctors you would think they would be better than that. In fact everything they have done since May 2007 has been extremely dodgy and I can't understand why they are still employed. They should be struck off. Dr Kate McCann has made a living out of her dead daughter, she's turned her dead daughter into a business and even sells wristbands and mobile phone pictures. It is gross in the extreme. angry

julie
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by WTF on 25.04.11 19:39

Still waiting for a logical reason and a theory for a cover up.
 
It would appear that no one is capable of putting anything together for fear of ridicule. And who can blame them?
 
 
 
 

WTF
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by julie on 25.04.11 19:43

A theory for a cover up I would think is quite simple. They didn't want Madeleine's body to have an autopsy and they didnt want to go to jail.

julie
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by WTF on 25.04.11 19:47

Gracious
 
Whilst I admire your attempt at ridicule, have you stopped and wondered how the apparent dead child actually contaminated cuddlecat? Do you think she clutched the toy for a couple of hours whilst she was dead to allow for the cadaverine scent to contaminate cuddlecat?   
 
And if you cannot have a reasonable answer for that it sort of questions the realiablity of the dogs doesn't it? 

WTF
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by WTF on 25.04.11 19:48

Go to jail for what?

WTF
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by dragonfly on 25.04.11 19:49

WTF wrote:Still waiting for a logical reason and a theory for a cover up.
 
It would appear that no one is capable of putting anything together for fear of ridicule. And who can blame them?
 
 
 
 

Ask the DOGS Sandra WTF ........................................................
(Or is that just a piss poor answer to give someone?)

____________________


dragonfly

Posts : 318
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by WTF on 25.04.11 19:52

Do dogs speak?  

WTF
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by *~Melody~* on 25.04.11 19:55

WTF wrote:Go to jail for what?

For whatever it was they did that made them dream up a fake abduction and then realise they could make MONEY out of this scam.

As for cuddlecat, maybe Madeline was holding cuddle cat when she fell from the back of the sofa and maybe she landed on cuddlecat.

*~Melody~*

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-01-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by WTF on 25.04.11 19:56

LOL
 
But seriously............

WTF
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by dragonfly on 25.04.11 20:03

WTF wrote:Do dogs speak?  

Gerry seems to think so........

dragonfly

Posts : 318
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re:Seriously

Post by PharLap. on 25.04.11 20:10

Gerry seems to think so........


big grin he dose doesn't he.

PharLap.
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re:Seriously

Post by PharLap. on 25.04.11 20:19

WTF Today at 7:52 pm

Do dogs speak?


Well the dog's seam good enough for checking weather there are bombs on planes,

good enough for search and rescue,

good enough for drugs searches,

good enough for the blind people who need them,

is it just Kate and Gerry they are not good enough for,

would not most people be terrified if the dogs had scented the death of some one in the apartment they had stayed in,and it was their child that had gone missing from said apartment.

PharLap.
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by The Shelfstacker on 25.04.11 23:39

WTF wrote:Still waiting for a logical reason and a theory for a cover up.

It would appear that no one is capable of putting anything together for fear of ridicule. And who can blame them?

No one need fear ridicule, at least not here, and certainly not in the way one might fear the long arm of the law feeling one's collar months or years after the event.

And, as well you know WTF when in a quiet moment away from your attempts to be diversionary, a cover-up needs neither logic nor theory to be enacted, especially when born out of impetuosity. Very many cover-ups are cobbled together to fulfil the present need without thought as to how it will be sustained into the future.

So no, no-one has put together a logical reason for a cover-up. Neither did the McCanns.

As to your pathetic idea that a dead body would have to be clutching the soft toy CuddleCat for at least two hours before the "smell of death" transferred to the toy; after all this time are you still unaware of how cadaverine transfers, and how quickly? This is one of the signal points upon which the case turns and you, either by accident or design are corrupting the facts.

Let me put you straight and stop you from distorting a fact, for the benefit of other new readers who may come here. Cadaverine, the "smell of death" takes some time to develop after a person has died. That time is variously put but generally quoted to be about two hours. Thereafter anything or anyone who comes into contact with that dead body, even momentarily, will have a lingering odour of cadaverine. It may not be noticeable to you or I but the dogs certainly can pick it up.

Otherwise, by your reckoning, that poor CuddleCat would have spent at least 12 hours in the cold dead hands of K McCanns former patients.

Ask the dogs, WTF. The dogs don't lie. They don't know how to and they wouldn't even if they could.

The Shelfstacker

Posts : 122
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by ufercoffy on 26.04.11 7:02

I just want to post this quote here from HiDeHo to correct the misunderstanding about how long it takes for cadaverine to develop:

@HiDeHo wrote:
@ufercoffy wrote:Is that correct that cadaverine starts to emit from 70 mins? I thought I read somewhere that Dr Amaral said it started immediately.

http://mccannfiles.com/id173.html
Q: At what time do you think the death has occured, given the fact that cadaver odour needs time to develop?

A: Cadaver odour begins to develop at the moment of death, due to chemical reactions in the body, it is not a matter of hours before it develops, to the nose of a dog which is very sensitive it can be detected very soon. More important is that from the inquiry we know that before the 3rd of May nobody died in the apartment, nor in the car.

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by WTF on 30.04.11 22:02

Moderators
 
If this is supposed to be a guest forum then it might be a good idea to allow guests to voice their opinion rather than banning them just because you don't like what they write.
 
If Tony Bennett insists on questioning the McCanns by trying to make the general public buy into the idea that they are hiding some sordid secrets then those people need to be allowed to challenge him on his thoughts.
 
It's plain to see, no one here has any reasonable, rational or plausible explanation as to why the McCanns would cover up the apparent death of their daughter, let alone go on to tell how they managed to fool the world in a cover up all created within a couple of hours.
 
So whether you like this or not, I think the whole idea of a conspiracy cover up is absolutely rediculous. 
 
Oh and by the way, regarding cadaverine, a dog has never been trained to detect a body that has just deceased (it would take a lot of planning and waiting I would guess) so the above posters claim is absolute rubbish. There are varying levels of cadaverine. You need to check it out thoroughly before jumping on the bandwagon.
 
It might be a good idea of having a read here regarding many of the misquotes I have read over the years. And a good read for any newcomers or guests who may be blinkered by certain information out there.
 

 
And again, if the moderators of this board ban me again because they don't like what I write then anyone interested in a decent  chat/debate regarding this case can speak to me on this forum.
 

 
....under the name of chrissy.
 
Thankyou.

WTF
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by WTF on 30.04.11 22:25

Apologies, it looks like links aren't allowed.
 
Anyway, for those interested, here is the posting i found on another site in its entirety. Makes you think!
 
Mccann-doubters are foaming at the mouth (again!). The object of their ire this time is a long overdue and welcome report by the UK National Policing Improvement Agency critiquing the use of cadaver sniffer dogs in criminal investigations. They see “conspiracy” in a coincidence of timing of a news story about the report by Sky News just as publication of Kate’s eagerly awaited book is imminent. Characteristically, they miss something much more significant.
The report suggests two things. The first is that trained reactions of a cadaver dog can hinder rather than help an investigation. Deaths at home are common. Services in the UK and, no doubt, elsewhere in the world, enable terminally ill people to opt to be cared for at home in the final stages of their illness until death. And checking is not always straightforward. My father died at home of cancer. The house is sold and subsequent owners will have no idea. But a sniffer dog would possibly detect a cadaver scent. The other potential non-sequitur is blood. Cadaver dogs react to the scent of blood and while finding blood can be invaluable, too often, blood lost for reasons unrelated to crime prompt reactions in cadaver dogs. How that fact blighted the Madeleine investigation is well documented elsewhere and I shan’t repeat it here.
The second finding of the report is more disturbing: lack of unified or nationally agreed common standards in the deployment of cadaver dogs. There are a number of examples from the Madeleine investigation:
At least 3 instances of ambiguous signals by Eddie.
Using the cadaver dog to inspect clothes (3 months after Madeleine’s disappearance) despite him having no formal trained response to indicate individual items.
Eddie picking things up in his mouth (including a tee-shirt of one of Madeleine’s then baby twin siblings).
Disregard of the risk of potentially contaminated clothing contaminating other items by the way clothes were packed and moved.
Grime not dressing in the protective clothes of his trade during inspection of residental villas and in the gymnasium.
Items reacted to not being forwarded to the forensic laboratory in Birmingham.
Identifying stickers in the back of the car of principal interest in the inspection of the vehicles.
Moreover, in  the Haut de la Garenne investigation in Jersey, it was always likely that children living cheek-by-jowl would lose blood, one way or another.
Mark Harrison, who works for the National Policing Improvement Agency (which produced the report) will have observed at first hand Martin Grime and his dogs in action.

WTF
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Big Vern on 01.05.11 1:18

WOOF WOOF!!

____________________
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive

Big Vern

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum