Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today

by monkey mind 07.01.13 13:49

Châtelaine wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Slightly OT and maybe better on another thread [Mods please move as you please]: I'm presently reading a very interesting book about forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, forensic pathologists and you name it, working together on criminal & crime scene analysis. Fascinating. It's originally German language. Will try and find out if an English version exists.

I won't go into depth here and now, but just mention a phrase [one of the many] that hit me this afternoon.
Psychoanalysts maintain that basically all of us are a kind of narcisist. Meaning that most of us thrive to do good and better and thus better ourselves and achieve another level. But then there are dangerous narcisists, who cannot achieve their goal other than by destroying the ones left, right, in front and behind, crush them down and thus achieve a superior level. Interesting.
Soon there will be no need for detectives, the boffins will have taken over the asylum.

There’s a place for forensic science and its multiplicity of branches, and as with all things there are good, bad and varying degrees, but I wouldn’t swap that rare good detective for all the sacks of letters they may try to replace him with. The man with empathy and insight, who deals with the victims, questions the witnesses, examines the crime scene not with a brush or glass but with his mind, the man who can ‘be’ victim or perpetrator with equal ease, who investigates, eliminates and interviews the suspects. Well, a good one, he is all of those forensic scientists rolled into one, only he learned it on his feet, not from a book. To him it is a blend of first hand knowledge and instinct woven into the fabric of his being, not speculation to rule. He knows it to be so because he has seen it and smelt it not because he was told it. He's seen most kind of filth the human psyche can create and tasted the beauty too, he's open to be shocked but beyond surprise. He’s rare these days but I should hate to see him extinct.
***
They don't replace the detectives, Monkey Mind, they help them. In a lot of cases, they're called in and work together. And they don't learn everything from books, but do a lot of field work. Building extensive databases with details of crimes e.g., organising seminars to exchange experiences & theories and interviewing convicted criminals to try and get to the "why" of the "how" ...

Thanks for the info Chatelaine. I’m fully aware of what they do and their usefulness or otherwise in any given situation. For the record I didn’t learn that from a book, organised databases seminars, exchange discussions or chatting with convicted felons behind bars and after the fact, activities which in themselves are useful but do little to enhance one’s empathy or intuition. If you want to know what an orange is like someone’s description or a photograph will give an understanding but no more, holding one in your hand getting a smell adds dimension to the picture and words, gives you a feel, but to get the whole story you got to walk to the orchard and pluck one of those bad boys from a tree and taste it right there off the branch, not just the flesh but the whole thing, pith, peel and seed bitter taste right there in your mouth and then digest it. Then the knowledge is yours, first hand. The flavours of fruits are many and varied. The more you eat, the better you know them. But like I said, there is good, bad and mixtures in betwixt in everything in this dualistic world. Just because you’ve eaten lots of fruit doesn’t mean you are any good at remembering their flavours, or that you’ve been to an orchard, or even how to find it for that matter.

by Guest 09.01.13 8:34

Châtelaine wrote:
tigger wrote: [...]

I liked this definition of narcisism, but just one niggle - do you mean 'try to do well'? Doing good isn't exactly a definition of narcisists.
Can't find Muller or Mueller on Amazon.

[...]
***
Yes, thanks for correcting me, Tigger. I meant "well" ...
I'll PM you re the German and Dutch version of the book.

Please would you be so kind as to post the title of that book.

parapono

by Guest 09.01.13 8:34

double post

parapono

by Guest 09.01.13 13:04

Thomas Müller

" Bestie Mensch: Tarnung - Lüge - Strategie"

"Beestmensen: vermomming, leugens en strategie van seriemoordenaars"

by Guest 09.01.13 13:26

Thank you.

parapono

by Eddie 18.01.13 12:49

Tony, do you think you have done yourself any favours by saying on this forum that the cadaver dog evidence is hotly disputed. Doesn't this rather weaken your case?

by Guest 18.01.13 13:18

Aren't the McCanns the ones who dispute the dog evidence?

To coin a phrase, well they would, wouldn't they?

by tiny 18.01.13 13:22

Yes it was the mccanns who said this,cant remember tony saying it,have you got a link ed1976 where tony said this.

by T4two 18.01.13 13:28

tiny wrote:Yes it was the mccanns who said this,cant remember tony saying it,have you got a link ed1976 where tony said this.

This is what Tony Bennett actually wrote in his letter to CR on page one of this thread:

1. I
say that the cadaver dogs brought to Praia da Luz alerted to 11
locations where there had been a body. I expressly add that this is
hotly disputed (by your clients). I am not sure how there can be any
objection to that statement

So no, IMO it does not weaken his case - it strengthens it.

by Eddie 18.01.13 13:34

"In this case (I'll be brief), we have:

* cadaver dogs who alerted to 11 locations where a body had been [I realise this is hotly disputed] (*1)

* circumstantial evidence (arguably, in spades) (*2)

* an entire police team which pulled in the couple for questioning and made them both suspects (*3)

* the investigation co-ordinator laying out in a 200-page book his basis for suggesting that Madeleine died in G5A and there has been a cover-up (*4)

the above is a copy of TB's staement on the firdt page of this thread.

by saltnpepper 18.01.13 13:39

I dont think it will damage his case...do you?

by tiny 18.01.13 13:44

ed1976 wrote:"In this case (I'll be brief), we have:

* cadaver dogs who alerted to 11 locations where a body had been [I realise this is hotly disputed] (*1)

* circumstantial evidence (arguably, in spades) (*2)

* an entire police team which pulled in the couple for questioning and made them both suspects (*3)

* the investigation co-ordinator laying out in a 200-page book his basis for suggesting that Madeleine died in G5A and there has been a cover-up (*4)

the above is a copy of TB's staement on the firdt page of this thread.

yes by the mccanns,

by Eddie 18.01.13 13:57

its tony who is making the accusation so he is going to need an expert in court to substantiate his claims. Lets hope he has one. This is particularly true as Grime has stated that in his opinion the dogs may have been reacting to cadaverine contaminant and that contamination could have resulted through several scenarios. He certainly has not stated that the dogs reaction meant that there had been a body there.

by Guest 18.01.13 14:08

ed1976 wrote:Tony, do you think you have done yourself any favours by saying on this forum that the cadaver dog evidence is hotly disputed. Doesn't this rather weaken your case?

@ed1976, sorry I cannot follow what you are saying.
The cadaver dog evidence is hotly disputed, ever since the files and video's became public.
Not denied, but discussed.
And how could stating that obvious fact could not be in favour of Tony Bennetts case is beyond me.
This is what brings us here in the first place, freedom of speech, press freedom...
We need more facts and less innuendo, speculation
, me thinks
IMHO of course,
parapono

by saltnpepper 18.01.13 14:10

So can we expect many appeals from prisoners convicted of murder where no body was found/recovered ?
its not what you know...err erm you know
Will the dogs findings be mentioned in this case? maybe in a libel trial ??
Im sure Tony appreciates your concerns though

by tiny 18.01.13 14:28

hi ed1976 ,this sentence does not seem like tony is saying this,he doesnt say "i dispute the dogs finding",but perhaps we had better wait for tony to answer

* cadaver dogs who alerted to 11 locations where a body had been [I realise this is hotly disputed] (*

by Guest 18.01.13 14:40

Tony has said what is true. He states the evidence is 'hotly disputed' and we know it is by the McCanns, and 'others.' In any case where there is any evidence, whether circumstantial or even positive the other side will always dispute it, and either dismiss it with their counter arguments or 'hotly dispute' it, and give their reasons as to how or why that evidence got there, that there was a perfectly innocent explanation. So no, Tony is not harming his cause at all, it is a fact of life that in a case such as this things will be disputed.

After all didn't Clarence Mitchell say..........

There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/

by Eddie 18.01.13 15:36

It is my understanding that the dog's reaction is not evidence but a indication of where to look for evidence. This is why the dogs are so sought after. They help find the evidence that eventually convicts someone.

by tiny 18.01.13 15:44

[quote="ed1976"]It is my understanding that the dog's reaction is not evidence but a indication of where to look for evidence. This is why the dogs are so sought after. They help find the evidence that eventually convicts someone.[/quote.

can i ask you ed1976,how long have you been following this case,also do you think the mccanns had anything to do with Madeleines "abduction"

by ShuBob 18.01.13 15:46

ed1976 wrote:It is my understanding that the dog's reaction is not evidence but a indication of where to look for evidence. This is why the dogs are so sought after. They help find the evidence that eventually convicts someone.

Like in the Kate Prout and Suzanne Pilley cases, you mean?

by Guest 18.01.13 15:52

ed1976 wrote:It is my understanding that the dog's reaction is not evidence but a indication of where to look for evidence. This is why the dogs are so sought after. They help find the evidence that eventually convicts someone.

#

Sometimes they do find blood etc., to help corroborate their findings, but as we know with Prout and Gilroy cases her, and D'Andre Lane in America there was really no evidence, yet they were still convicted.

by ShuBob 18.01.13 21:09

So no come back from ed1976 when the Prout and Pilley cases are referenced? Why am I not surprised? "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today - Page 5 619981

"Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today - Page 5 619981

by Smokeandmirrors 18.01.13 21:14

ShuBob wrote:So no come back from ed1976 when the Prout and Pilley cases are referenced? Why am I not surprised?

Probably trundled off home to JATYK.

by Inspectorfrost 18.01.13 21:30

ed1976 wrote:its tony who is making the accusation so he is going to need an expert in court to substantiate his claims. Lets hope he has one. This is particularly true as Grime has stated that in his opinion the dogs may have been reacting to cadaverine contaminant and that contamination could have resulted through several scenarios. He certainly has not stated that the dogs reaction meant that there had been a body there.

No, he didnt say that THEY MAY have been reacting to cadaver scent, well apart from the fact that he was not talking about both dogs, as only one is a cadaver dog, he actually said in his conclusion in his report that it was his opinion professionally that WAS cadaver scent...contaminant

that is what the word suggest means

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however.....etc

What else could it be? Eddie was trained to smell out dead bodies. And please don't say blood as that argument is null and void

by Guest 18.01.13 21:38

Right. And whatever the source, somehow this contamimant of a corpse was related to Apartment 5A and McCs clothing only ... Sh*t happens, but not always and exclusively ... IMO, of course ;-)

Log in for more topics