The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Page 2 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Guest on 19.10.12 14:59

Moa wrote:Im usually stay out of this debates, but I must say I think we should be able to ask question both ways without beeing treathened to be banned? We all see things with different eyes. And we must be allowed to ask question that maybe not everyone likes, without beeing banned ...Not everyone has followed the case for years, and gets bits and pieces of information and its not very easy to get the puzzle together. And ofcourse there will be questions along the way to get to the facts...

I also have wondered about the cuddle cat, was there two or only one, and why did he not react imediatly to cuddle cat IF it was the same one as in the cup board.? But I dont work with dogs like this, and I dont know how long they sniff around before they pick up sentence.

I 100 % believe the dogs, and I defently do not think anyone planted any evidence or made the dog bark. After all they did find blood where both dogs barked, and why mislead the dogs ( if that is even possible) when you know you need forensic evidence to back it up? Beeing sure of this, I still had questions to how they work, and tried to read and watch videoes to find out. I choose to believe the dogs and has therefor never asked questions about it. But if I did, I would found it mostly unfear to be marked as a troll and threatened to be banned ...

Even if the dogs where never brought in, I still would not have believed the abduction story as there is thousand other things beside the dogs pointing in the direction of her parents beeing involved in this !

All this IMHO ofcourse !


Moa, you know no-one gets banned for asking questions. Surely you can see what is going on here, it is pretty obvious. So clued up on this case, yet so many questions, I have allowed their freedom of speech and have their say, but really, it is so obvious, questioning Mr Grimes motives, as someone did last night, but that person was rather more forthright. All I can say is something is happening or is going to happen, hence this.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Nina on 19.10.12 15:06

@bobbin wrote:
@Springers are FAB wrote:
@Da Troof wrote:In answer to your questions:

I have no idea.

Now I have a question for you.

Are you hoping to in some way discredit the dogs or their handler?

As far as I am concerned the important thing is that the film is there for all to see. The film cannot show everything as there appears to be only one camera so we see only what it is pointing at. I think we have to trust the handler who seems good at his job and the police.

I don't think any inappropriate or exaggerated claims have been made by the handler in relation to alerts by the dogs.
We know that the dogs are good at what they do i.e. identifying particular smells


I agree...we can't possibly know the answers without asking Mr Grime himself. Silly to speculate on this one. I will base my ideas on what I see and what Mr Grime says, which is what I did in the other thread in trying to work out what exactly Eddie was alerting to. No intention on my part to discredit the dogs or their handler. Just looking for clarity.

As you say candyfloss, these new people suddenly arrive, fully cognisent, armed with details in depth, yet they have not posted before nor contributed to the collection of material which they so comprehensively understand.
But why the distraction and desire to diss the dogs' findings. Because the dogs are such a threat to some people.
The fact is, at no time has Mr. Grime, Dr. Amaral or any of the investigators said that the dogs are 'evidence', only an 'indication' to be further investigated.
The fact is that an unknown amount of VITAL information has been with-held.
The public have only seen, from all of the accumulated material in the investigatory files, what the public have been allowed to see.
Vital information, such as the blood/body/liquid tissues referred to by Dr. Amaral, found in the boot of the car, is still only alluded too, and we have no more details than that.
This troubles the McCs to the extent that they have tried to get information by force, firstly when the courts handed them just a few pages and refused the rest, then via this 'call me Dave' investigation where they still haven't got the full access to all of the withheld info that they want.
Goncalo Amaral knows things that we do not. The dogs are an indication.
Recent cases have shown the dogs to be far more useful and reliable than the McCs would wish the public to believe because they have spent their necks trying to get the dogs disbelieved.
As I said in a previous post, the McCs quoted a case where the dogs had 'failed', only to have it shown that the dogs had been absolutely correct, a McC own goal, and a seriously undermining shock to the McC's' dissing of the reliability of the dogs.
This is why there is a flurry of interest.
The Stephen Birch claim, Madeleine being buried on May 3rd, was to dispose of the dogs' later indications.
This particular forum, with its persistent in-depth analysis, risks upsetting the McC's carefully set out apple cart, and in any police investigations and searches, where the dogs show themselves continually, to be reliable indicators, it must set fear into the hearts of any perpetrators who may have thought their cases had gone nice and cold, and would not be 're-opened' at a later date.
Whether blood, cadaver or whatever tissue has been found, and whatever information has been withheld in the files that we have not seen, the apartment had been cleaned in such a way as to damage, remove or destroy the material for forensic analysis.
First forensic reports of samples found under the tiles were declared to be a close match to Madeleine's DNA.
Material was found moreover, in the boot of the car, of a thawed nature. The dogs did 'indicate' at the car but the details of the analysis have not been made public.
This must be very unsettling for certain people.

Brilliant post, my head is a shed at the moment but your post has brought much clarity and hope. Thank you roses

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2693
Reputation : 236
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Woofer on 19.10.12 15:08

Yes candyfloss it seems obvious. In fact the isar person came straight out with it last night, but LG has not outwardly said Grimes is lying, he has (been careful to) just posed questions AFAIAA.

I tend to think something is about to happen probably as a consequence of recent other exposures.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by bobbin on 19.10.12 15:12

Moa wrote:Im usually stay out of this debates, but I must say I think we should be able to ask question both ways without beeing treathened to be banned? We all see things with different eyes. And we must be allowed to ask question that maybe not everyone likes, without beeing banned ...Not everyone has followed the case for years, and gets bits and pieces of information and its not very easy to get the puzzle together. And ofcourse there will be questions along the way to get to the facts...

I also have wondered about the cuddle cat, was there two or only one, and why did he not react imediatly to cuddle cat IF it was the same one as in the cup board.? But I dont work with dogs like this, and I dont know how long they sniff around before they pick up sentence.

I 100 % believe the dogs, and I defently do not think anyone planted any evidence or made the dog bark. After all they did find blood where both dogs barked, and why mislead the dogs ( if that is even possible) when you know you need forensic evidence to back it up? Beeing sure of this, I still had questions to how they work, and tried to read and watch videoes to find out. I choose to believe the dogs and has therefor never asked questions about it. But if I did, I would found it mostly unfear to be marked as a troll and threatened to be banned ...

Even if the dogs where never brought in, I still would not have believed the abduction story as there is thousand other things beside the dogs pointing in the direction of her parents beeing involved in this scam !

All this IMHO ofcourse !


exactly Moa, "when you know you need forensic evidence to back it up".
I agree with being able to feel free to ask questions, but given that we know this site attracts serious posters and those who feel threatened, including Carter Ruck observers and information gatherers (and in Tony Bennett's case, to be used against him), then we need to be a bit wise as to the motive for asking questions.
Yes, given the information the we (the public) have had access to, there is no proof that cadaver was found in the boot.
Yes, the dogs' video is incomplete and we do not know what the trained dogs may be signalling.
We need to trust the dogs though for the very reason that they have nose-sense skills that we just cannot imagine.
The only way to try to understand and trust the dogs is to think of a simple 'human' parallel.
If you go into a room where someone has just had a hot vanilla coffee you will detect the vanilla and the coffee.
If the person has already left the room, you will still detect the smells (given that you have a normal (human) sense of smell and no blocked nose through a 'cold' etc.)
The coffee cup is gone, the person is gone, there is no voice or video footage, no roving cameras, there are no witnesses, no drops spilled, there is no "proof" that a vanilla coffee was ever there. But you know it was because the 'intangible' smell, which your nasal senses CAN detect, tell you so.
Now why would a circus act of dogs be brought in to a serious investigation, to give 'indications' which are not claimed by anyone as being 'evidence' or 'proof', when all of the claims are that the dogs give 'indications' to be followed up as you say with "forensic evidence to back it up", such as thawed tissue/liquid found in the boot at a later date, and of which we do not have the details in the public arena.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 127
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Guest on 19.10.12 15:23

I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Woofer on 19.10.12 15:34

Châtelaine wrote:I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

or their responses and Mr. Grimes explanations thereof have been misconstrued. Don`t think dogs can get things wrong.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Guest on 19.10.12 15:36

@Woofer wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

or their responses and Mr. Grimes explanations thereof have been misconstrued. Don`t think dogs can get things wrong.
***
I mean "wrong" in the sense that both of them reacted to [dried] blood and not cadaver.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by bobbin on 19.10.12 15:36

Châtelaine wrote:I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

Interesting chatelaine, but in both cases you are considering Madeleine to be dead which is not what the McCs want us to believe.
The fund needs a 'live' Maddie.
The dogs were brought in to try to shine light on the PJ's and UK police suspicion that a genuine stranger-abduction (i.e. one not planned by close family/friends etc.) had not taken place.
They feared a death and that is why blood and cadaver dogs were brought in.
Both dogs signalled only to McCann items, regardless of the dates (apartment/clothes relative to the 3rd May, car at a later date) but not to other sites which as has been said may well have had blood, rotten meat and nappies around.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 127
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by ShuBob on 19.10.12 15:39

Is it a coincidence that there's renewed interest in the dogs' abilities since TB posted that the McCanns' case against him may go to full trial with the dogs' evidence allowed to be cross-examined in court?

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 58
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by bobbin on 19.10.12 15:42

@ShuBob wrote:Is it a coincidence that there's renewed interest in the dogs' abilities since TB posted that the McCanns' case against him may go to full trial with the dogs' evidence allowed to be cross-examined in court?

Ahaaaah yes. Nail on head, perhaps.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 127
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Guest on 19.10.12 15:43

@bobbin wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

Interesting chatelaine, but in both cases you are considering Madeleine to be dead which is not what the McCs want us to believe.
The fund needs a 'live' Maddie.
The dogs were brought in to try to shine light on the PJ's and UK police suspicion that a genuine stranger-abduction (i.e. one not planned by close family/friends etc.) had not taken place.
They feared a death and that is why blood and cadaver dogs were brought in.
Both dogs signalled only to McCann items, regardless of the dates (apartment/clothes relative to the 3rd May, car at a later date) but not to other sites which as has been said may well have had blood, rotten meat and nappies around.
***
We definitively need a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon.
My ;-) is far too subtle ...

I will use this one next time: dance

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by tiny on 19.10.12 15:44

@ShuBob wrote:Is it a coincidence that there's renewed interest in the dogs' abilities since TB posted that the McCanns' case against him may go to full trial with the dogs' evidence allowed to be cross-examined in court?

No,No coincidence,imo

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Springers are FAB on 19.10.12 15:47

Châtelaine wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

or their responses and Mr. Grimes explanations thereof have been misconstrued. Don`t think dogs can get things wrong.
***
I mean "wrong" in the sense that both of them reacted to [dried] blood and not cadaver.

Chatelaine: yes, I think this is where I am at with all of this. I don't think the dogs got anything wrong, it just seems from what Grime says that we can't definitively say whether Eddie was alerting to cadaver or blood. It could be cadaver but if he alerts to both how would we know??? that's all I ever wanted to know.
I'm more interested in the fact that SOMETHING was found in the car...it merely being Madeleine's blood is suspicious enough without it being cadaver.
If, and its a big if Eddie was alerting to dried blood and not cadaver then that might, MIGHT dispense with the need to tie moving the body at a later date into the equation.
If the 'fluid' found in the car is a good match to Madeleine's DNA, then THAT is bad enough, IMO

____________________

"Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality."
(T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton)

Springers are FAB

Posts : 60
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : Leicestershire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by bobbin on 19.10.12 15:56

@Springers are FAB wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

or their responses and Mr. Grimes explanations thereof have been misconstrued. Don`t think dogs can get things wrong.
***
I mean "wrong" in the sense that both of them reacted to [dried] blood and not cadaver.

Chatelaine: yes, I think this is where I am at with all of this. I don't think the dogs got anything wrong, it just seems from what Grime says that we can't definitively say whether Eddie was alerting to cadaver or blood. It could be cadaver but if he alerts to both how would we know??? that's all I ever wanted to know.
I'm more interested in the fact that SOMETHING was found in the car...it merely being Madeleine's blood is suspicious enough without it being cadaver.
If, and its a big if Eddie was alerting to dried blood and not cadaver then that might, MIGHT dispense with the need to tie moving the body at a later date into the equation.
If the 'fluid' found in the car is a good match to Madeleine's DNA, then THAT is bad enough, IMO

yes but the angle being put forward is that it could have been Gerry's blood on the fob etc.
To my mind, the dogs would have alerted many, many times if old blood is all they seek, anybody anywhere can have shed some blood.
The fact that there were alerts exclusively to Kate's trousers, to a red T shirt, to cuddlecat etc. must imply 'cadaver' contamination otherwise there could potentially be no article in the world that would not cause an alert to dry blood.
The dogs selectively chose McCann articles and not those of other cars, friends apartments, their clothes etc. This must imply some selectivity which we do not understand.
Once again, information has been withheld, along with analysis of material found in the boot.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 127
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by cath2756 on 19.10.12 15:58

@Springers are FAB wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

or their responses and Mr. Grimes explanations thereof have been misconstrued. Don`t think dogs can get things wrong.
***
I mean "wrong" in the sense that both of them reacted to [dried] blood and not cadaver.

Chatelaine: yes, I think this is where I am at with all of this. I don't think the dogs got anything wrong, it just seems from what Grime says that we can't definitively say whether Eddie was alerting to cadaver or blood. It could be cadaver but if he alerts to both how would we know??? that's all I ever wanted to know.
I'm more interested in the fact that SOMETHING was found in the car...it merely being Madeleine's blood is suspicious enough without it being cadaver.
If, and its a big if Eddie was alerting to dried blood and not cadaver then that might, MIGHT dispense with the need to tie moving the body at a later date into the equation.
If the 'fluid' found in the car is a good match to Madeleine's DNA, then THAT is bad enough, IMO

I am getting very confused with this! From my understanding Eddie alerted to Cadaver and blood so if Eddie were to alert they bring in Keela (or the opposite way around) Why would they train a dog to alert to both cadaver and blood as surely only alerting to cadaver would add more weight to the dog's findings? My understanding was that Eddie definately alerted to cadaver but without forensic/DNA evidence to back it up it wouldn't stand up in court?

Maybe Gerry knew there would be ongoing difference of opinion hence the sentence ' Ask the dogs Sandra'

cath2756

Posts : 95
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Springers are FAB on 19.10.12 16:13

Bobbin, you said:

"yes but the angle being put forward is that it could have been Gerry's blood on the fob etc.
To my mind, the dogs would have alerted many, many times if old blood is all they seek, anybody anywhere can have shed some blood.
The fact that there were alerts exclusively to Kate's trousers, to a red T shirt, to cuddlecat etc. must imply 'cadaver' contamination otherwise there could potentially be no article in the world that would not cause an alert to dry blood.
The dogs selectively chose McCann articles and not those of other cars, friends apartments, their clothes etc. This must imply some selectivity which we do not understand.
Once again, information has been withheld, along with analysis of material found in the boot."

bobbin


I am inclined to agree with what you have written above. There must be some selectivity that we don't understand. Thankyou for your thoughtful answer to my query.


____________________

"Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality."
(T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton)

Springers are FAB

Posts : 60
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : Leicestershire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Springers are FAB on 19.10.12 16:16

@cath2756 wrote:
@Springers are FAB wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I have a tendency to look at most things in a positive way [with the exclusion of my French taxations]. If, I say IF, the theories being developed in two threads here hold some water:

1. Dogs got it wrong in the rented car;
2. Madeleine was buried straight away [in Murat’s garden or wherever];

we finally can drop the agonising and so far unanswered question:
what the heck happened with the body between early May and the rental of the car 3 weeks later???

It would also implicate close circle involvement, as a stranger-abductor, having killed the child, would not have bothered to bury her.

Why am I suddenly reminded again at one of Gerry’s inimitable bent phrases? [non verbatim]: "I am absolutely convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”. Who would abduct a dead child? ;-)

or their responses and Mr. Grimes explanations thereof have been misconstrued. Don`t think dogs can get things wrong.
***
I mean "wrong" in the sense that both of them reacted to [dried] blood and not cadaver.

Chatelaine: yes, I think this is where I am at with all of this. I don't think the dogs got anything wrong, it just seems from what Grime says that we can't definitively say whether Eddie was alerting to cadaver or blood. It could be cadaver but if he alerts to both how would we know??? that's all I ever wanted to know.
I'm more interested in the fact that SOMETHING was found in the car...it merely being Madeleine's blood is suspicious enough without it being cadaver.
If, and its a big if Eddie was alerting to dried blood and not cadaver then that might, MIGHT dispense with the need to tie moving the body at a later date into the equation.
If the 'fluid' found in the car is a good match to Madeleine's DNA, then THAT is bad enough, IMO

I am getting very confused with this! From my understanding Eddie alerted to Cadaver and blood so if Eddie were to alert they bring in Keela (or the opposite way around) Why would they train a dog to alert to both cadaver and blood as surely only alerting to cadaver would add more weight to the dog's findings? My understanding was that Eddie definately alerted to cadaver but without forensic/DNA evidence to back it up it wouldn't stand up in court?

Maybe Gerry knew there would be ongoing difference of opinion hence the sentence ' Ask the dogs Sandra'

I don't know why they would train Eddie in both, but Grime has said he is. As bobbin says, there must be information here that we are not party to.

____________________

"Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality."
(T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton)

Springers are FAB

Posts : 60
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : Leicestershire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by tigger on 19.10.12 16:20

Eddie is referred to as the cadaver dog, Keela reacts to blood.
Both are referred to as EVRD dogs, but Keela is I believe separately referred to as the CSI dog.

The short video is not a good guide to the thorough investigation of M. Grime. The longer one is 45 mins.

Eddie reacted to cuddlecat, when cuddlecat was put in a different location it was for the benefit of Keela who did not react.
Only the cadaver dog Eddie reacted in the villa.

The blood found under the tiles in 5a must surely mean that a considerable quantity of blood must have run to get underneath the tiles. That, together with the blood spatter on the wall and the curtains, the fact that Eddie also alerted in the same place, does not indicate a minor accident. imo

It also follows that some intensive cleaning must have taken place soon after all this blood was deposited.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by cath2756 on 19.10.12 16:30

@tigger wrote:Eddie is referred to as the cadaver dog, Keela reacts to blood.
Both are referred to as EVRD dogs, but Keela is I believe separately referred to as the CSI dog.

The short video is not a good guide to the thorough investigation of M. Grime. The longer one is 45 mins.

Eddie reacted to cuddlecat, when cuddlecat was put in a different location it was for the benefit of Keela who did not react.
Only the cadaver dog Eddie reacted in the villa.

The blood found under the tiles in 5a must surely mean that a considerable quantity of blood must have run to get underneath the tiles. That, together with the blood spatter on the wall and the curtains, the fact that Eddie also alerted in the same place, does not indicate a minor accident. imo

It also follows that some intensive cleaning must have taken place soon after all this blood was deposited.

I have always thought that the cleaning operation took place when the Government became involved. The blood 'spatters' definately don't point to a minor accident and imo more look as though someone was held up against the wall while being assaulted

cath2756

Posts : 95
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by bobbin on 19.10.12 16:32

I also tried to add to my last post, but it got lost in the ether....namely that Kate, under oath at the Leveson Enquiry, stated that no liquids/blood (not verbatim) were found in the boot.
They also claimed some way back, that they had had their own private forensic analysis of the boot done (with the help of the older English man in the Algarve [name?]) and absolutely nothing was found.
Well, that's their word only, and would the PJ have left anything to be found and analysed anyway. I rather doubt it.
Clearly the McCs have gone to the greatest length possible to disparage the dogs, to put doubt on their 'signalling' to lie under oath about the Official Investigation findings, which Lord Justice Leveson can easily check out.
This dog/boot information must represent a very serious threat to them, and yes, with the upcoming Bennett case, one must wonder if they have any regrets about having taken Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral on, to try to silence both of them, the amount of force and threat being used, being "extreme", to say the least.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 127
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by cath2756 on 19.10.12 16:37

@bobbin wrote:I also tried to add to my last post, but it got lost in the ether....namely that Kate, under oath at the Leveson Enquiry, stated that no liquids/blood (not verbatim) were found in the boot.
They also claimed some way back, that they had had their own private forensic analysis of the boot done (with the help of the older English man in the Algarve [name?]) and absolutely nothing was found.
Well, that's their word only, and would the PJ have left anything to be found and analysed anyway. I rather doubt it.
Clearly the McCs have gone to the greatest length possible to disparage the dogs, to put doubt on their 'signalling' to lie under oath about the Official Investigation findings, which Lord Justice Leveson can easily check out.
This dog/boot information must represent a very serious threat to them, and yes, with the upcoming Bennett case, one must wonder if they have any regrets about having taken Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral on, to try to silence both of them, the amount of force and threat being used, being "extreme", to say the least.

Not just TB but Ben Needham as well. If the dogs alert and they find poor Ben's body then it discredits TM's argument. U.K. police going to an EU country with sniffer dog's and GPR.!! Everything TM have discredited up until now

cath2756

Posts : 95
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by tigger on 19.10.12 16:40

@cath2756 wrote:
@bobbin wrote:I also tried to add to my last post, but it got lost in the ether....namely that Kate, under oath at the Leveson Enquiry, stated that no liquids/blood (not verbatim) were found in the boot.
They also claimed some way back, that they had had their own private forensic analysis of the boot done (with the help of the older English man in the Algarve [name?]) and absolutely nothing was found.
Well, that's their word only, and would the PJ have left anything to be found and analysed anyway. I rather doubt it.
Clearly the McCs have gone to the greatest length possible to disparage the dogs, to put doubt on their 'signalling' to lie under oath about the Official Investigation findings, which Lord Justice Leveson can easily check out.
This dog/boot information must represent a very serious threat to them, and yes, with the upcoming Bennett case, one must wonder if they have any regrets about having taken Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral on, to try to silence both of them, the amount of force and threat being used, being "extreme", to say the least.

Not just TB but Ben Needham as well. If the dogs alert and they find poor Ben's body then it discredits TM's argument. U.K. police going to an EU country with sniffer dog's and GPR.!! Everything TM have discredited up until now

I think that was the very helpful John Geraghty, who also got them the key to the church.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Woofer on 19.10.12 16:47

In reply to cath2756 - "Why would they train a dog to alert to both cadaver and blood" >

Maybe because you can`t have cadaver without blood.

But you can have blood without cadaver.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Guest on 19.10.12 16:48

@bobbin wrote:I also tried to add to my last post, but it got lost in the ether....namely that Kate, under oath at the Leveson Enquiry, stated that no liquids/blood (not verbatim) were found in the boot.
They also claimed some way back, that they had had their own private forensic analysis of the boot done (with the help of the older English man in the Algarve [name?]) and absolutely nothing was found.
Well, that's their word only, and would the PJ have left anything to be found and analysed anyway. I rather doubt it.
Clearly the McCs have gone to the greatest length possible to disparage the dogs, to put doubt on their 'signalling' to lie under oath about the Official Investigation findings, which Lord Justice Leveson can easily check out.
This dog/boot information must represent a very serious threat to them, and yes, with the upcoming Bennett case, one must wonder if they have any regrets about having taken Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral on, to try to silence both of them, the amount of force and threat being used, being "extreme", to say the least.

bobbin, I seem to recall a conversation, and it may have been Mr Amaral, though I would not like to say for definite, anyway, one of the investigation team, when it was mentioned that they (the McCanns) had had their own tests done, something about the mat in the wheel well had been changed for an identical one, and the PJ had the real one. I can remember reading or seeing it on video. Way back now, on 3a's or Mirror forum. Can't prove it though.

I really can't see how they would give the car back if there was forensic evidence in the boot, so that would make sense. I don't think I imagined it anyway, not trying to start a forum myth.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the Cuddlecat toy in a bin?

Post by Guest on 19.10.12 16:51

@Woofer wrote:In reply to cath2756 - "Why would they train a dog to alert to both cadaver and blood" >

Maybe because you can`t have cadaver without blood.

But you can have blood without cadaver.

Eh? Why not. If a body is not injured in any way at all, lies somewhere for just a couple of hours or so, without any decompostion, then yes, cadaver without a trace of blood.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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