The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!


Forensics Revisited

Page 6 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by skyrocket on 16.11.17 7:52

Perhaps new members on here are now seeing the light.

@Verdi - once again, and I'll shout this time:

MARTIN GRIME STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT EDDIE INDICATED CUDDLECAT.


 
There is nothing on the released video to suggest Martin Grime or anyone else was involved in any wrongdoing. So unless you have PROOF to the contrary it would be a good idea if you stopped suggesting otherwise. You are extremely fond of telling other members (usually with a lot less justification) that they are not experts in a particular field - is it a case of don't do as I do, do as I say? There is no problem with having an opinion but if it's about an individual (professional) rather than an idea or concept, it would be a good idea to put up proof; keep it to private converstion; or, zip up!

Right now, you are damaging the reputation of this forum (IMO) and you seem to be hell bent on annoying as many members as you can (please don't come back with some less than smart remark such as this forum isn't a popularity contest).

You make the comment, 'every man has his price', not naming Martin Grime, but in a discussion directly about him. Less than wise, I would say. As my old chemistry teacher used to say, 'Watch your mouth young man!"
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 715
Reputation : 689
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 16.11.17 8:00

Verdi,

I've been here a long time like yourself and many other posters in this thread.

I've respect your contributions to this forum, they have been excellent in the main. We don't always agree on stuff but that's life.

I'm finding your responses a little odd here though.

I haven't seen any hysterical responses, my own responses have been reasoned and not in line with your own position.

I don't believe Martin Grime is "in on it".

If he was then it would be much easier for him to find nothing. I don't buy the idea that he did what he did in the videos to discredit the dogs process 10 years down the line.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4800
Reputation : 2490
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by kaz on 16.11.17 8:48

@BlueBag wrote:Verdi,

I've been here a long time like yourself and many other posters in this thread.

I've respect your contributions to this forum, they have been excellent in the main. We don't always agree on stuff but that's life.

I'm finding your responses a little odd here though.

I haven't seen any hysterical responses, my own responses have been reasoned and not in line with your own position.

I don't believe Martin Grime is "in on it".

If he was then it would be much easier for him to find nothing. I don't buy the idea that he did what he did in the videos to discredit the dogs process 10 years down the line.
Martin Grimes could well be a fine upstanding man and Eddie, a fine upstanding dog. Certainly I'm not implying they weren't but is it not possible that they followed a set trail?
Do you not think that it's strange the dogs were brought in at the suggestion of the British ......................................the very people who appear to be doing everything to thwart the truth from entering the light of day?
Had Amaral ( in all good faith )  already set the scene of the child's death before Eddie usefully confirmed it?
How do you explain the car?
It's certainly strange that Cuddlecat was in a prime location when Kate was constantly seen carrying it around. Did she wash it before or after Eddie's manhandling?
Like setting the events on the 'Thursday ', the cadaver trail  certainly closes our minds to other possibilities.

kaz

Posts : 482
Reputation : 391
Join date : 2014-08-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 16.11.17 8:57

"It's certainly strange that Cuddlecat was in a prime location when Kate was constantly seen carrying it around."
It was in a bag when Eddie picked it up and threw it.

On top in a bag.

Most probably Kate's bag.

Not strange at all.

You think the PJ allowed them to take stuff with them when asked to vacate the apartment for the search?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4800
Reputation : 2490
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 16.11.17 9:01

According to Gerry's Blog, Kate washed CC 5 days after Madeleine's disappearance "because it smelt of suntan lotion and everything". Gerry's sister, Aunty Phil, allegedly said it was cleaned again two months later because it was filthy after being carried around.

polyenne

Posts : 963
Reputation : 567
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 16.11.17 9:05

@plebgate wrote:

BTW I hope that verdi replies without the back up of Mark Willis joining in.
Excuse me? What I say is my opinion!
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 636
Reputation : 227
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 63
Location : Beverley

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 16.11.17 9:07


Bag.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4800
Reputation : 2490
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 16.11.17 9:32

@Verdi wrote:
@Mark Willis wrote:What do they say, Mr Verdi? The Devil is in the detail?
Quote: "Over the years following this case, I've learned that nothing, nothing is cast iron.." end quote.
It is inherently easy to accept facets of this case which fit in neatly with one's current theory. Not so obliging when details emerge that queer that theory's pitch. However frustrating, we must adhere to the pieces that fit, not those we want to hammer into place.
I have had to rip up some encouraging lines of inquiry when met with, what at first, seemed a trivial detail, yet turns out to be the fly in the ointment.
No aspect of this case, or person thought to be involved, is inviolable. 
It may just be, that some long accepted standing pillars of the case, crumble, revealing they had no substantial foundation after all, and have served to inadvertently deflect us from a more beneficial route of inquiry.
The waters remain very muddy, so we need continue to pan what we have unearthed with ever increasingly finer sieves and eschew the Fool's Gold.
Quite so!  As they say - every man has his price. 

Just looking at Operation Grange alone, I don't believe for a moment the 40'ish strong team were doing anything untoward but following orders from their superiors.  Amazing what people will do to safeguard their careers or are in total ignorance of what's going on around them.

In forum world and to a certain extent outside forum world, over the years it has become an established fact that Madeleine McCann's disappearance is not straightforward and is the subject of a massive powerful conspiratorial blanket cover-up.  How can anyone say with any degree of certainty that anyone involved with the case, directly or on the periphery, are 100% straight?  How can anyone gauge a total strangers motive or actions just because of what they read, see or hear.   Even those nearest and dearest in real life can surprise you - it's impossible to second guess anyone.

Clearly across the board, there is a blinkered element of believing what you want to believe and dismissing anything that might rock the very foundation of that belief.  I've no particular truck with the attitude but it would be extremely helpful if the deluded would/could at least provide a solid argument to justify their belief rather than a vapid hysterical response without reasoned justification.

I used to work alongside London politicians, I had some working knowledge of them but it was years later I learned how many were implicated in the nationwide institutional child sex abuse scandal.  Utter filth but you would never know by superficial contact. 

Trust nobody until they earn your trust - even then, don't trust them.
That is a pertinent fact of life. That and "Never meet your heroes"
The point here is, we may forever reach a block end if we take too much as a given.
We all do it. This whole case is analogous to a coder writing a massive software program for the NHS. A million lines in he realises that he is bolting on bad practice patches to make it all work. Eventually he has to admit he started off from the wrong place, and either scraps it and starts again or ends up with a poor, bug-ridden product, no use to man nor beast.
Therefore, I would recommend going right to the beginning (again, a given, being 03:05:2007) and before that time, and re-examine/question everything. I would always advise against accepting anything purely based solely on an "expert's" point of view. No one gets it right all the time. Trust your own nous.
I may sound misanthropic but I'd rather call it realistic.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 636
Reputation : 227
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 63
Location : Beverley

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 16.11.17 9:42

Occam's Razor springs to mind..................

polyenne

Posts : 963
Reputation : 567
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 16.11.17 9:47

@polyenne wrote:Occam's Razor springs to mind..................
I try a lot of 'brute force' theorising, that is, "What if such and such...?" until that falls to ashes. So I repeat the process with another avenue of thought. Again and again. And still get nowhere.
I have tried applying Occam's Razor to this case as a whole and end up with about half a dozen possible scenarios. It refuses to break down simply. For me, at least.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 636
Reputation : 227
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 63
Location : Beverley

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 16.11.17 9:50

It's been done well, hasn't it ? Either intentionally or by sheer good luck (and a huge dose of obfuscation)

polyenne

Posts : 963
Reputation : 567
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by skyrocket on 16.11.17 10:11

@TB - thank you for your input.

@MayMuse - very glad to hear from @GeG that you're still here! thumbup
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 715
Reputation : 689
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 16.11.17 10:11

@polyenne wrote:It's been done well, hasn't it ? Either intentionally or by sheer good luck (and a huge dose of obfuscation)
It reminds me of the Warren Commission and JFK. My first taste of TPTB deliberately muddying the waters, that very phrase, to forever leave any investigator deluged by too much (dis)information. I think the term "conspiracy theorist" was coined same time, ostensibly as a pejorative to tar every one with an alternative theory as a total nutter rendering their POV as worthless.
I think this case may have evolved into utter confusion, but even so, that evolution was rapid. So I'd err on the side of it being deliberate.
It remains opaque. Still baffles me why the Mcs didn't just stay out of the limelight after September 9, 2007, but especially after the Press volte face mid-late 2008 and let the whole affair fade.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 636
Reputation : 227
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 63
Location : Beverley

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Jill Havern on 16.11.17 10:16

MayMuse hasn't been banned.
avatar
Jill Havern


Posts : 13301
Reputation : 5920
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 16.11.17 10:23

@skyrocket wrote:@TB - thank you for your input.

@MayMuse - very glad to hear from @GeG that you're still here! thumbup
Me too.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4800
Reputation : 2490
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by nglfi on 16.11.17 10:28

Perhaps the whole problem of the dogs begins right back with the McCanns arrogance. They did whatever they did with Madeleine, and they couldn't possibly conceive that their clean up operation wouldn't be 100% successful. By sheer arrogance they probably assumed that no cadaver or blood scent would be detected. Whilst they are doctors they are by no means what I would call intelligent or forward thinking. Don't forget the internet wasn't so freely available as it is now, so information about how long cadaver scent takes to dissipate could have been misunderstood or not been available.

They then managed to convince whoever is protecting them in the UK that there wouldn't be anything to find, so they were happy to send Grimes over, perhaps even anticipating it would fully clear them, or at least cast a huge shadow of doubt over their culpability when no alerts were forthcoming.

Or perhaps it simply didn't matter because the McCanns et al knew that just because a cadaver was present in 5A/the hire car, there's nothing to prove *which* cadaver.

nglfi

Posts : 560
Reputation : 267
Join date : 2014-01-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 16.11.17 10:32

Or perhaps it simply didn't matter because the McCanns et al knew that just because a cadaver was present in 5A/the hire car, there's nothing to prove *which* cadaver.

And with no body, it is extremely difficult, but possible, to prove culpability.

polyenne

Posts : 963
Reputation : 567
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by nglfi on 16.11.17 10:34

Or a further possibility, Grimes was indeed sent over as part of the cover up, instructed to NOT let his dogs find anything (although I'm not sure how he would do that), and he played along, but then let the dogs do their job once he got there. He was forward thinking enough to have a job lined up in America to go to afterward. This is purely guesswork though, I have no evidence for this.

nglfi

Posts : 560
Reputation : 267
Join date : 2014-01-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by JRP on 16.11.17 10:50

@BlueBag wrote:
@skyrocket wrote:@TB - thank you for your input.

@MayMuse - very glad to hear from @GeG that you're still here! thumbup
Me too.

And me  thumbsup

JRP

Posts : 601
Reputation : 550
Join date : 2016-03-07
Age : 61
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by JRP on 16.11.17 11:01

Martin Grimes and his EDVR Eddie also did an amazing job in Jersey too, only to face ridicule because Eddie was far better at sniffing out corpses than anyone anticipated.

They tested Eddie on a beach in Jersey by burying swabs in the sand with minute particles of blood, he found them no matter the size of the area. They also buried a vial of sand taken from an Egyptian tomb and buried that in the sand, and Eddie found that too.

This was witnessed by politicians and TV, politicians who would later help to discredit him and Grimes... Go figure that one!
...........

What happened to the evidence found in the apartments and the car and the clothes and cuddlecat to back the dogs up? 
I think they rather than Grimes, Eddie and Keela are worth scrutiny.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/exclusive-footage-of-eddie-cadaver-dog.html

JRP

Posts : 601
Reputation : 550
Join date : 2016-03-07
Age : 61
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Phoebe on 16.11.17 11:17

If Martin Grime had, indeed, been working on behalf of those wishing to exonerate the McCanns, he could have seen to it very easily that the dogs found zilch and given the McCanns a clean bill of suspect-health. Rather than encourage a thorough search of areas/items with repeated examination he could have said "Showing no interest here move on". Only persistence found the blood traces behind the sofa and in the hire-car. Remember too, Keela is ONLY called into play if Eddie alerts.
Two points re. some comments upthread. As I understand it the McCanns were in the pool at the villa with the twins when the P.J. and Grime arrived to carry out the search. They could hardly insist on racing back in to retrieve cuddlecat without drawing attention so I don't read anything into to it being in the bag in the villa.
I have always understood that it was elements of the P.J. who filmed the searches and this would be normal evidential practice as part of an investigation.
The following comment upthread has horrified me - 

   @Kaz  "Had Amaral ( in all good faith )  already set the scene of the child's death before Eddie usefully confirmed it?" 


Good grief!!  Are we now suggesting Dr. Amaral had the evidence planted?  The dissing of the dogs and Martin Grime and now the questioning of Goncalo Amaral's role is more akin to something I would expect to read on a rabidly pro-McCann website. I hope I have misinterpreted !!

Phoebe

Posts : 1107
Reputation : 1334
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 16.11.17 11:23

@Phoebe, I read the Amaral setting the scene comment as being that Amaral had already strongly surmised that Madeleine had been killed in the apartment (for him, on 3 May)

polyenne

Posts : 963
Reputation : 567
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 16.11.17 12:32

Comments noted for future reference. 

Thank you all for your input 2thumbs .

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 11056
Reputation : 4169
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 16.11.17 12:37

Didn't Eddie show interest as soon as he entered the apartment?


Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises ...


I think Martin Grime said he could tell from Eddie's first reaction on entering. 

It seems Eddie has a threshold that goes from "interesting" to "alert".
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4800
Reputation : 2490
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by kaz on 16.11.17 13:15

@Phoebe wrote:

   @Kaz  "Had Amaral ( in all good faith )  already set the scene of the child's death before Eddie usefully confirmed it?" 


Good grief!!  Are we now suggesting Dr. Amaral had the evidence planted?  The dissing of the dogs and Martin Grime and now the questioning of Goncalo Amaral's role is more akin to something I would expect to read on a rabidly pro-McCann website. I hope I have misinterpreted !!
What do you think, '' in good faith '' means?
You have indeed misinterpreted and I certainly have not 'dissed' Martin Grimes or Eddie. You need to read the my post properly before rushing to comment.

kaz

Posts : 482
Reputation : 391
Join date : 2014-08-18

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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