Re: Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

by Hicks 20.05.14 23:00

G1 wrote:
worriedmum wrote:G1 writes ''Also, I don't think the Kate's coat as a potential explanation for cadaver is a dud at all. She was said to be examining multiple dead bodies in the weeks before the holiday. It's a coat in hot weather. It goes over the sofa, in the wardrobe and in the hire car boot - but nowhere else - out of the way, *untouched. ''

But what about Cuddlecat? The tyre well of the car? The flower bed?

Oh, I see. You are saying it is easily transferable?

In that case, why wasn't it all over everything?

Can you have it both ways, G1?

* latex gloves lol?

---

Hi worriedmum.

About Kate's coat, I only think it was a possible explanation for scent, but the most important thing is ONE possible explanation, and the least likely of them. When there are a few, the cadaver scent does not remain something so convincing anymore.

why wasn't it all over everything?

In case Kate could have picked up cadaver scent on the coat in attending a morgue or morgues / deceased body scenes 6 times in a short time, then the places of cadaver scent in the Ocean Club flat may correspond with a coat.

It wasn't over everything because the coat ia likely only to have been worn or carried coming in the first time. (Or maybe another evening, but it's unlikely for a winter coat.) It would have been draped on the sofa, maybe just once, for an evening, then put away in the closet for the whole holiday, later put in the car boot. Perhaps it was draped on the terrace, maybe fell, hence alert at the flower bed. But these things do seem, possibly, corresponding to where a coat would be.

Just possibilities. I think this is a possibility. That's important when you think a certain piece of evidence is beyond doubt. I see the cadaver scent is easily doubted.

I have read some experts saying transfer of cadaver scent to clothing at morgues is possible depending on the length of time involved and what was going on. We don't know about that, so can only guess whether or not the coat can have been in enough contact to keep a bit of cadaver scent.

Remember, the dogs handler has said the dogs will alert to even a tiny bit of scent transferred to clothing or something else.

Again, I prefer the other explanation for cadaver - it may have been planted. But that more than one are possibble suggests to me there is nothing so strong in the cadaver evidence.

(Re. 'Cuddlecat', I thought it was fishy until I saw the dogs did not alert to cuddlecat first time, the toy was ignored and tossed away though stuffed in a dog's nose. Only when the toy was placed in the closet where there was cadaver found already did the dog 'alert' to it.)

KM worked one or two days a week as a GP- not a pathologist - this was at a surgery so I doubt very much that she came into contact with six bodies .

by Guest 20.05.14 23:05

G1 wrote:I thought there may have been a good few reasonable dismisaals of the theory I've considered. But andrew77r, just "a load of old tosh" when it all makes rational sense in the land of possibility won't come close to a reasonable dismissal.

There's indisputable evidence that completely debunks your bunkum. I take it you haven't read tasprin's link yet? Do. It'll save you a lot of wasted thought and embarrassment.

by rainbow-fairy 20.05.14 23:13

Dee Coy wrote:
G1 wrote:I thought there may have been a good few reasonable dismisaals of the theory I've considered. But andrew77r, just "a load of old tosh" when it all makes rational sense in the land of possibility won't come close to a reasonable dismissal.
There's indisputable evidence that completely debunks your bunkum. I take it you haven't read tasprin's link yet? Do. It'll save you a lot of wasted thought and embarrassment.

Agree and Thank you for tasprin's link Dee Coy roses

Was then replying to you but lots of replies came in at once!
Its a very illuminating read. Sad to say, I don't believe it will make a jot of difference to G1 nah

by G1 20.05.14 23:17

KM, I think everyone knows Kate was not a pathologist.

I've read a former GP saying the 6 bodies in a short time seems very unusual, but not impossible.

However, it is what Kate has claimed, and I can't believe,
1. That that wouldn't be checked by police when a famous dog seems to be saying "definite dead body scent in there, strangely". It MUST have been checked out.

2. Or that Kate wouldn't be totally certain the police would check her statement about visiting 6 dead bodies when accused of keeping a dead body, publicised all over the world. It seems to me she would be insane to lie about something that must be going to be checked out by police, where if she was found to have lied, everything is over. The McCanns wouldn't be so stupid. Simply, if she was responsible for what happened to Madeleine, and then lied about 6 dead bodies, it's sudden suicide. She would know that.

So - either there were morgue visits and hospital / home visit deceased people, 6 of them.

Or - there is a huge conspiracy involving at least the British police who are protecting the McCanns.

I'm not saying everything's right and expectable with the world or the police, but I prefer the former possibility.

by G1 20.05.14 23:31

To those above, I have skimmed through Tasprin's link. It is a very, very attached, prescriptive statement about the dogs. The author wants you the think what they think. But I'm not at all convinced by the case made.

OK, anyway, I'd just read an opinion about HdG and was not as informed as some people here. (Still, strangely I don't see the same clear proof that the dogs are infallible that they do, and think there is some room for doubt, definitely.)

I estimate it is more likely there was cadaver scent in the flat. But, to me, that it came from Madeleine is less likely than other possibilities anyway, as it would involve another conspiracy of staff and guests of the Ocean Club. If Madeleine was killed between being last seen on May 3rd and Kate and Gerry going out to dinner, it doesn't leave much time for scent to develop. It would barely be there, at that coolish evening temperature in early May before 1 hour or more after death.

I may be wrong, but the timing doesn't easily add up for the death scent of the little girl, if killed early evening on the 3rd.

by j.rob 20.05.14 23:34

So - either there were morgue visits and hospital / home visit deceased people, 6 of them.

Or - there is a huge conspiracy involving at least the British police who are protecting the McCanns.

I'm not saying everything's right and expectable with the world or the police, but I prefer the former possibility.

I think most of us would prefer the former theory. Presumably that is why so many people have believed the McCann's absurd account of what happened to their daughter. I think you will find that it is the McCanns and their friends that conjured up a conspiracy theory.

Many other people, including the police on the scene of the crime, were inclined to not believe in any conspiracy theories as advanced by the McCanns and their acoltytes.

Frankly, I would imagine that most people in the Uk, and probably most places elsewhere - especially Portugal - are sick to the back-teeth of the McCanns and their ghastly friends, resent the amount of money, publicity and so on that has gone into this stupid farce and want to draw a very big line under it.

Not to mention - STOP SPENDING PUBLIC MONEY ON IT.

by j.rob 20.05.14 23:38

G1 wrote:KM, I think everyone knows Kate was not a pathologist.

I've read a former GP saying the 6 bodies in a short time seems very unusual, but not impossible.

However, it is what Kate has claimed, and I can't believe,
1. That that wouldn't be checked by police when a famous dog seems to be saying "definite dead body scent in there, strangely". It MUST have been checked out.

2. Or that Kate wouldn't be totally certain the police would check her statement about visiting 6 dead bodies when accused of keeping a dead body, publicised all over the world. It seems to me she would be insane to lie about something that must be going to be checked out by police, where if she was found to have lied, everything is over. The McCanns wouldn't be so stupid. Simply, if she was responsible for what happened to Madeleine, and then lied about 6 dead bodies, it's sudden suicide. She would know that.

So - either there were morgue visits and hospital / home visit deceased people, 6 of them.

Or - there is a huge conspiracy involving at least the British police who are protecting the McCanns.

I'm not saying everything's right and expectable with the world or the police, but I prefer the former possibility.

Oh stop waffling. You know the whole thing is BS.....unless you are a complete idiot.......shurely not.......

by plebgate 20.05.14 23:40

Well said j.rob, re. stop waffling. User name G1, so funny NOT.

Could stand for Gin 1 or maybe two or three or four or more. big grin

by Guest 20.05.14 23:41

G1
I'm not saying everything's right and expectable with the world or the police, but

You're replacing existing clues with some evil conspiracy of a criminal network, and expect people to debunk it as impossible. That's like saying "goblins exist and people, prove they don't."

Prove the conspiracy criminals. Prove they stole the original photos. It's codswallop. An OJ Simpson's defence.

by Guest 20.05.14 23:43

I think you have given us your theories and opinions G1, but I also think you are rather taking the Michael. So perhaps leave it there eh?

by rainbow-fairy 20.05.14 23:46

G1, please can you provide a link to where you read that "a former GP saying the 6 bodies in a short time seems very unusual, but not impossible."

Also, could you please provide a link to where Kate claimed she had attended to six dead patients?
Kate herself did not claim that.

I am very confused - was it Kate in contact with cadavers (through work, natch) causing the (impossible) transfer? As you have theorised.
OR was it a 'highly organised trafficking gang' (as you have also claimed as likely).

It seems that you are indeed accepting that the dogs are correct, are you not? Or why the wild suggestions for cadaver scent?

by rainbow-fairy 20.05.14 23:51

candyfloss wrote:I think you have given us your theories and opinions G1, but I also think you are rather taking the Michael. So perhaps leave it there eh?

Missed your post candyfloss friends

Does that mean I can also give it a rest? My head hurts!
That brick wall is starting to hurt my forehead laughat

by G1 20.05.14 23:56

D Candyfloss

"I think you have given us your theories and opinions G1, but I also think you are rather taking the Michael. So perhaps leave it there eh?"

I'd be really happy to, Candyfloss, I'd that's the prevalent attitude. But I'd have to point out first there's not much of an adult discussion, if any, if you simply want people with an open mind to the subject, or going against the long stated grain, to leave.

I don't really know what it is, some weird fan club passtime or something, rather than an adult discussion. (Anti fanclub, with a target, rather.) I don't actually want to hinder you in any unthinking, blinkered target practice, if that's what you want. It's not for me (I didn't expect it would be, in fact). But I thought I'd test the water, see just what it was.

by Guest 21.05.14 0:04

No one said anything about leaving. Just simply to give it a rest, for a start this has gone off topic and onto discussing the dogs, there are many threads you can discuss the dogs on. We are talking here about the tennis ball photo. ontopic

by G1 21.05.14 0:11

Rainbow-fairy

"It seems that you are indeed accepting that the dogs are correct, are you not? Or why the wild suggestions for cadaver scent?"

---

Quickly before I go. Why do people think you have to kind of know something outright, as I'd you've got access to the truth of eternity, or not?

We don't know here, we can only make guesses, estimations or have feeling from reported evidence. It's a reckoning thing, to do with each element being likely, unlikely, near certain or not and so on. Each element must consider if there are other possibilities instead of / as well as ... ... So where there appears more than 1 possibility, where everything else can't be ruled out, you can't decide on any one thing.

The dogs: I think it's more likely they are trustworthy but, as others have, I'd really doubt the really, really high purported percentage of accuracy.

So I guess they're right, but not enough to take it beyond doubt there was cadaver.

The "wild" suggestions for cadaver are for considering the dogs are right - IF they are right.

If you leave out the value of each possibility, and close yourself to any valid possibility, if you ignore the 'ifs' and 'buts' and 'when's' and 'wherefores', you aren't really doing very much. You wouldn't be investigating the subject much at all.

Anyway, must go.

Good wishes. Night.

by rainbow-fairy 21.05.14 0:12

G1 wrote:D Candyfloss

"I think you have given us your theories and opinions G1, but I also think you are rather taking the Michael. So perhaps leave it there eh?"

I'd be really happy to, Candyfloss, I'd that's the prevalent attitude. But I'd have to point out first there's not much of an adult discussion, if any, if you simply want people with an open mind to the subject, or going against the long stated grain, to leave.

I don't really know what it is, some weird fan club passtime or something, rather than an adult discussion. (Anti fanclub, with a target, rather.) I don't actually want to hinder you in any unthinking, blinkered target practice, if that's what you want. It's not for me (I didn't expect it would be, in fact). But I thought I'd test the water, see just what it was.

Then let's have an adult discussion, in the way we do here, G1!
Are you able to provide the links I requested previously please?
And as asked by myself earlier, and then prompted by plebgate, WHY, if the pool photo was doctored without the McCann's prior knowledge (by a highly organised trafficking gang looking to bamboozle the cops) have they not screamed it from the rooftops?

I'd also be interested to know why you think MBM is not the most likely source for cadaver odour? When logic says nobody died in 5A before May 3rd 2007, she is the only one missing etc...
You really think synthetic planted cadaver odour is more likely?

by Guest 21.05.14 0:12

Can you please keep the posts the normal text size please G1.

by rainbow-fairy 21.05.14 0:17

candyfloss wrote:No one said anything about leaving. Just simply to give it a rest, for a start this has gone off topic and onto discussing the dogs, there are many threads you can discuss the dogs on. We are talking here about the tennis ball photo.

Missed your post yet again candyfloss!
I think that getting back to the tennis ball photo is a very sensible idea yes

by G1 21.05.14 0:17

Very quickly. So, if I shouldn't leave, Candyfloss, ought I to wait until you call upon me for input if you feel like it?

Off for real this time.

Best.

Have a read over the thoughts I've posted, because they're very different to what you read generally on this subject. I just think maybe a new perspective is refreshing, potentially.

Candyfloss I wrote on this post specifically as people were mentioning the last photo, coming from the tennis balls photo. It was only in answering other replies that I got off the topic of the photos - maybe not the tennis photo, but not far. Anyway, it was the photo analysis and what it leads to I came to post about, and it's done. :)

I've no idea what the preferred font size is here, Candyfloss, nor how to change it. Is there actually a font size rule? Gosh. :) :)

by rainbow-fairy 21.05.14 0:23

But still no links for me - didn't think so...

Back to photo... Re the description of Maddie a few pages back, does anybody have any idea what 'TEETH: EUA' means?
I ask because it has been suggested by several posters that a comparison of teeth could be useful.
I googled the above, and got nothing?

by Guest 21.05.14 0:25

EUA means examination under anaesthetic

by rainbow-fairy 21.05.14 0:42

dantezebu wrote: EUA means examination under anaesthetic

Ah, thanks dantezebu roses

I hate the dentist so little wonder I didn't know!
I wonder what that means in the context of her description? thinking

by Guest 21.05.14 6:19

However Madeleine was very young to have needed an examination of her teeth under anaesthetic.
Two thoughts if this is what it means;
Is this where her "fear of pain" comes from?
A family with poor dental hygiene sharing one tooth brush.

by rainbow-fairy 21.05.14 9:00

dantezebu wrote:However Madeleine was very young to have needed an examination of her teeth under anaesthetic.
Two thoughts if this is what it means;
Is this where her "fear of pain" comes from?
A family with poor dental hygiene sharing one tooth brush.

It certainly could be, it is a strange phrase to use about a 3year old. They shouldn't normally have a 'fear of pain'
I did wonder about the anaesthetic. One of my boys has Asd and can be quite challenging behaviour-wise. One thing he hates (which means pretty much total non-cooperation) is the dentist - but even he hasn't have to have had EUA.
It is very odd...

by worriedmum 21.05.14 9:58

Now we are back on topic, I am wondering if anyone has a link to the Dutch paper which carried the tennis photo facing the other way? It would be interesting to see which was released first.

If
the writing on the balls could be identified,
the mark on Madeleine's leg could be corroborated
the hair/direction of the fringe could be compared
it might be easier to tell which is the correct reproduction of this image.

Log in for more topics