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 start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

On it goes...

Page 4 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by vaguely1 on 25.02.10 19:21

I find the dismissal strange, but then of course I'm thinking of it in the situation that I understand would have happened here; that a family liaison officer would have been sent in to tell them the terrible news of what the police believe has happened......a dismissal at that point would have been curious.

Except in reality the dogs were bought in too late, the parents were being treated as suspects by the police and the evidence was exaggerated to them in am accusatory manner in a high stress situation. I would guess that their reaction to what they were being told was skewed by the situation they were in at the time - and possibly the fact they had clicked on to the bullshit that accompanied the briefing.

imho

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by marigold on 25.02.10 19:35

@bellatrix wrote:I would think the 6 dead bodies claim (if accurate) would have been easily disproved/proved by the police checking Kates case load.I have seen nothing to ascertain one way or the other if this happened or not therefore I take it with a grain of salt.


It came across as a bad and sad excuse for the dogs findings and smacked of desperation as she knew perfectly well what the dogs alerts meant to their 'abduction in 3 minutes' scenario. Any innocent parent would have been devastated by the alerts and dreaded facing the terrible truth that their child had died. All they were concerned about was saving their own skins and assuring that the fund was protected. An alive Madeleine is necessary on both counts.

marigold

Posts : 234
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by vaguely1 on 25.02.10 19:40

@marigold wrote:
@bellatrix wrote:I would think the 6 dead bodies claim (if accurate) would have been easily disproved/proved by the police checking Kates case load.I have seen nothing to ascertain one way or the other if this happened or not therefore I take it with a grain of salt.


It came across as a bad and sad excuse for the dogs findings and smacked of desperation as she knew perfectly well what the dogs alerts meant to their 'abduction in 3 minutes' scenario. Any innocent parent would have been devastated by the alerts and dreaded facing the terrible truth that their child had died. All they were concerned about was saving their own skins and assuring that the fund was protected. An alive Madeleine is necessary on both counts.

It'd be interesting to know though, whether the dogs are good enough to have picked up on this cadaver scent that was picked up from deceased patients.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 19:50

Hi
I am sure that we would be very anxious so when would our anxiety pass as we became convinced that the dogs were rubbish and wrong and that our child was definitely not harmed and living a pleasant life with a paedophile that may have watched us for a little time before sneaking in to steal our daughter??????

I have re-read what I just typed and it does seem a bit contrary but it is one of the things that did strike me as most odd about the McCanns. I admire their stamina but I am confused by their great reluctance to admit that the dogs may have found something that needed further investigation or consideration.

Instead they repeat and repeat that she has come to no harm and is likely to be living with a paedophile ("giving them her tuppence worth"????) Granted I don't think that they have mentioned the paedophile so much recently but Mr Edgar thinks that she is in some cave or something in the lawless areas surrounding PdL. Mind I suppose that even lawless people might treat children they care about well so it might be a mute argument afterall.

What if those dogs did find something in the apartment that with further investigation might have given a few more useful clues to help find Madeleine? Now I will be a bore and repeat what I have said in other threads - surely all avenues should have been given equal consideration by the police and by the McCanns too?

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by bunny on 25.02.10 19:53

When they say she has come to no harm I think they mean there is no proof about her being dead. Just my opinion.

We dont know what consideration the mccanns have given the dog alerts though do we?

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 19:54

Hi Vaguely - saw your last message before I clicked send but did not realise there was one above too on the a new message has been posted warning.

That is probably the most plausable reason I have read to explain it. I still think though that a lot of parents might want more investigating done of the dogs alerts and would think to hell with any accusation of themselves.

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by whoknowsthetruth on 25.02.10 19:55

Can anyone prove what the dogs reacted to please. All search dogs are fallible and are not 100% correct. So what was the dogs reacting to, and with links please to prove it.

whoknowsthetruth

Posts : 159
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 19:57

Hi Bunny
Yep they may worry now after all this time privately that maybe the dogs did genuinely find something. Afterall it is a long time for a little girl to be missing.

But Mr McCann even now makes his remarks about the dogs so I am guessing that he is still thinking that they are useless and not to be trusted.

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by hedge on 25.02.10 19:59

@Kololi wrote:Hi
I am sure that we would be very anxious so when would our anxiety pass as we became convinced that the dogs were rubbish and wrong and that our child was definitely not harmed and living a pleasant life with a paedophile that may have watched us for a little time before sneaking in to steal our daughter??????

I have re-read what I just typed and it does seem a bit contrary but it is one of the things that did strike me as most odd about the McCanns. I admire their stamina but I am confused by their great reluctance to admit that the dogs may have found something that needed further investigation or consideration.

Instead they repeat and repeat that she has come to no harm and is likely to be living with a paedophile ("giving them her tuppence worth"????) Granted I don't think that they have mentioned the paedophile so much recently but Mr Edgar thinks that she is in some cave or something in the lawless areas surrounding PdL. Mind I suppose that even lawless people might treat children they care about well so it might be a mute argument afterall.

What if those dogs did find something in the apartment that with further investigation might have given a few more useful clues to help find Madeleine? Now I will be a bore and repeat what I have said in other threads - surely all avenues should have been given equal consideration by the police and by the McCanns too?

Take care

It's a simple question and it's one I asked before, if your child was missing and a cadaver dog barked would you plan the memorial, would you give up and accept she is dead.

All the other stuff you say:

No evidence she has come to harm - true
Living with a paedophile - unfortunately possible
Living pleasantly with a paedophile - no such thing, I have no clue where you got that scenario from
Living with someone who cares for her - possible


What are they supposed to do, look at stats and give up hope, would you? Pretend that paedophiles don't exist, could you? Hope against hope that she is with someone who is caring for her - is that not normal?

I'm not sure what you want them to do, be superhuman, while being robotic while pretending that eveidence of harm exists when it doesn't?

hedge

Posts : 318
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by hedge on 25.02.10 20:00

@Kololi wrote:Hi Vaguely - saw your last message before I clicked send but did not realise there was one above too on the a new message has been posted warning.

That is probably the most plausable reason I have read to explain it. I still think though that a lot of parents might want more investigating done of the dogs alerts and would think to hell with any accusation of themselves.

Take care

What investigating of the dog alerts has yet to be done?

hedge

Posts : 318
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 20:02

Whoknowsthetruth answer this honestly please if you wouldn't mind.

If you were stuck under a collapsed building or lost in some mountains somewhere or somebody you knew had gone missing, would you want help from some dogs that might make a mistake but then again, there is a chance that the dog helping you gets it right this time?

I agree totally that without the further evidence it is not possible to accuse anybody of anything but it is worth considering why they got excited. And you don't need any links as you know fine well what they supposedly alerted to and where.

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by bunny on 25.02.10 20:06

@Kololi wrote:Hi Bunny
Yep they may worry now after all this time privately that maybe the dogs did genuinely find something. Afterall it is a long time for a little girl to be missing.

But Mr McCann even now makes his remarks about the dogs so I am guessing that he is still thinking that they are useless and not to be trusted.

Take care
And of course the other way to look at it is if you believe the length of time that this odour takes to develop and you know you saw your child alive and breathing at 9pm how could they possibly believe the dogs? the scent would not have had time to develop so they would know its total bullshit

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by hedge on 25.02.10 20:06

Using a fallible system to help find life is very different to using a fallible one to essentially give up on life. There's no further harm done if they fail to find life.

Would you do it. Would you use a dog bark as evidence to give up on your daughter.

hedge

Posts : 318
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Cath on 25.02.10 20:08

If they knew they didn't harm her and didn't hide a body, yet the (E)VRD dog alerted to their clothes, the car and the apartment they would know the dog was wrong and their daughter, Madeleine, didn't die in the apartment.

Whereas one person might try to find an explanation for it, puzzled how on earth it's possible the dog barked, the other might just say "rubbish" and dismiss it.

@ Vaguely re testing clothes deceased people:
I still think it's strange they never tested the clothes. Even though the blood dog didn't react to it, bodily fluids, the cadaver scent, doesn't have to be blood is it?

The only thing we know, is there's no forensic evidence that shows Madeleine has died. 50/50 chance she's still alive, as the Prosecutor himself has said.

Cath

Posts : 597
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 20:10

Hi Hedge
No I would hope that nobody would expect them to hold some sort of memorial service without absoloute proof of the little girl's death.

I just find it extremely odd to watch Mr McCann make comments such as, "Ask the dogs Sandra" which appears to me to be totally dismissive that the dogs might actually have alerted to something worth alerting to and he didn't want whatever it was checked out further. It is my opinion - it is not necessarily right nor wrong but it is given politely and aprat from Vaguely nobody else has come close to making me change my mind :)

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 20:14

Hey the one thing I do agree with you guys on is that a pair of dogs waggling their tails and barking is not enough to send anybody to prison for - my goodness, of course you need that actual extra evidence which there might have been initially.

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 20:18

@hedge wrote:Using a fallible system to help find life is very different to using a fallible one to essentially give up on life. There's no further harm done if they fail to find life.

Would you do it. Would you use a dog bark as evidence to give up on your daughter.

So couldn't some falible dogs be taken for a wander around the lawless areas of PdL and see whether they wag their tails there? That would be positive in searching for Madeleine although I think it may have been Muratfan who patiently explained that it is a huge area to cover so maybe not so easy to do.

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by hedge on 25.02.10 20:20

@Kololi wrote:Hey the one thing I do agree with you guys on is that a pair of dogs waggling their tails and barking is not enough to send anybody to prison for - my goodness, of course you need that actual extra evidence which there might have been initially.

Take care

It's not so much about prison, that's essentially the least of the reasons to question what the dog reactions mean, we are talking about the life of a child and how much proof parents need to accept their child is gone in the absence of a body, what would convince you that your daughter is dead?

hedge

Posts : 318
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by hedge on 25.02.10 20:21

@Kololi wrote:
@hedge wrote:Using a fallible system to help find life is very different to using a fallible one to essentially give up on life. There's no further harm done if they fail to find life.

Would you do it. Would you use a dog bark as evidence to give up on your daughter.

So couldn't some falible dogs be taken for a wander around the lawless areas of PdL and see whether they wag their tails there? That would be positive in searching for Madeleine although I think it may have been Muratfan who patiently explained that it is a huge area to cover so maybe not so easy to do.

Take care

Some dogs (fallible or otherwise) have already been used, it's in the files.

hedge

Posts : 318
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 20:26

@hedge wrote:
@Kololi wrote:Hey the one thing I do agree with you guys on is that a pair of dogs waggling their tails and barking is not enough to send anybody to prison for - my goodness, of course you need that actual extra evidence which there might have been initially.

Take care

It's not so much about prison, that's essentially the least of the reasons to question what the dog reactions mean, we are talking about the life of a child and how much proof parents need to accept their child is gone in the absence of a body, what would convince you that your daughter is dead?

Well put like that it would probably be time but I think I would have a continual nag in the back of my head that maybe Bundleman or whoever could have hurt her on the way out.

I truly do not mean to be flippant Hedge and I suppose in my tinpot way I would be hoping that maybe Bundleman knocked himself on the way out and the specks of blood could be his and used to identify him.

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by hedge on 25.02.10 20:26

@Kololi wrote:Hi Hedge
No I would hope that nobody would expect them to hold some sort of memorial service without absoloute proof of the little girl's death.

I just find it extremely odd to watch Mr McCann make comments such as, "Ask the dogs Sandra" which appears to me to be totally dismissive that the dogs might actually have alerted to something worth alerting to and he didn't want whatever it was checked out further. It is my opinion - it is not necessarily right nor wrong but it is given politely and aprat from Vaguely nobody else has come close to making me change my mind :)

Take care

I don't want to change your mind, I am asking a civil question to help me understand what would convince you in the absence of a body that your daughter is dead, you seem to be suggesting that you would expect parents who on being told that a cadaver dog barked will accept that's it, that's the end, it's now all about a dead body. See I don't think I would think that way but of course I don't know for sure. I think I would need hard evidence of some sort, I think I would need more than a fallible dog and no forensic evidence to back it up, but I could be weird, I fully accept that.

hedge

Posts : 318
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by hedge on 25.02.10 20:28

@Kololi wrote:
@hedge wrote:
@Kololi wrote:Hey the one thing I do agree with you guys on is that a pair of dogs waggling their tails and barking is not enough to send anybody to prison for - my goodness, of course you need that actual extra evidence which there might have been initially.

Take care

It's not so much about prison, that's essentially the least of the reasons to question what the dog reactions mean, we are talking about the life of a child and how much proof parents need to accept their child is gone in the absence of a body, what would convince you that your daughter is dead?

Well put like that it would probably be time but I think I would have a continual nag in the back of my head that maybe Bundleman or whoever could have hurt her on the way out.

I truly do not mean to be flippant Hedge and I suppose in my tinpot way I would be hoping that maybe Bundleman knocked himself on the way out and the specks of blood could be his and used to identify him.

Take care

Who is bundleman? And what makes you think any specks of blood would not be checked out?

hedge

Posts : 318
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 20:30

Hhe no you aren't weird - maybe you think with your head and I use my heart more so apologies if I am hard work and don't see the obvious right off. big grin

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by Kololi on 25.02.10 20:32

Bundleman, a swarthy individual, the bogieman, the monster who stole her, the abductor - the person who should not have been in that apartment if there was somebody in there.

You're playing with me now - bad man.....

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: On it goes...

Post by hedge on 25.02.10 20:35

@Kololi wrote:Bundleman, a swarthy individual, the bogieman, the monster who stole her, the abductor - the person who should not have been in that apartment if there was somebody in there.

You're playing with me now - bad man.....

maybe I am a bit, it's just that bundleman really was the name given the the person the Pj said they were looking for that may or may not have been the same man as jane tanner saw. See the police kept the description vague, looking for a man with longish hair, dark jacket, paler trousers possibly carrying a bundle. Whereas jane tanner saw a man carrying a child with bare feet.

So you can see the difference, by referring to bundleman you are essentially referring to a potential person that may not even exist and who may or may not be the same man jane saw.

I was just being picky.

hedge

Posts : 318
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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