Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

by Merrymo 06.04.12 0:50

aiyoyo wrote:I
made two points. (1) that the cadaver scent can drift and (2) that it can be transferred from one object to another. Those are not my opinions those are opinions of people who have studied this subject. I was then asked by Aiyoyo to make up my mind which point I thought was correct as if I had said it was one or the other. As I have never said that - then Aiyoyo was putting his/her words in my mouth.

Oh really, OPINIONS of people who have studied this subject? Tapas 9 or is it Tapas 1? Opinions you said, so not facts then!

Either you are getting your knickers twisted or you are queen of obfuscation!

One moment you said drift, then next moment you said rub - is that putting words in your mouth? OK, so you said both, fair is fair.

So we now have a crystal clear idea you believed it is both driftable and rubbable from OPINIONS you heard!

I haven't 'heard' anything from anyone. I have read up on the subject of Cadaver dogs including papers on cueing by handlers and cadaver scent drift. Obviously you haven't.

It's not me who has got my knickers in such a twist that I am reduced to posting childish spiteful posts. That would be you.

Night night.

by Guest 06.04.12 0:59

Merrymo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I
made two points. (1) that the cadaver scent can drift and (2) that it can be transferred from one object to another. Those are not my opinions those are opinions of people who have studied this subject. I was then asked by Aiyoyo to make up my mind which point I thought was correct as if I had said it was one or the other. As I have never said that - then Aiyoyo was putting his/her words in my mouth.

Oh really, OPINIONS of people who have studied this subject? Tapas 9 or is it Tapas 1? Opinions you said, so not facts then!

Either you are getting your knickers twisted or you are queen of obfuscation!

One moment you said drift, then next moment you said rub - is that putting words in your mouth? OK, so you said both, fair is fair.

So we now have a crystal clear idea you believed it is both driftable and rubbable from OPINIONS you heard!

I haven't 'heard' anything from anyone. I have read up on the subject of Cadaver dogs including papers on cueing by handlers and cadaver scent drift. Obviously you haven't.

It's not me who has got my knickers in such a twist that I am reduced to posting childish spiteful posts. That would be you.

Night night.

Could you post a link to where you have read about cadaver scent drift merrymo.

by Kololi 06.04.12 6:57

candyfloss wrote:Death scent can drift? So can a fart, but it doesn't contaminate anything else around[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It can do damage though - think of the glorious days of our youth, husbands and Dutch ovens.

by Merrymo 06.04.12 9:14

candyfloss wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I
made two points. (1) that the cadaver scent can drift and (2) that it can be transferred from one object to another. Those are not my opinions those are opinions of people who have studied this subject. I was then asked by Aiyoyo to make up my mind which point I thought was correct as if I had said it was one or the other. As I have never said that - then Aiyoyo was putting his/her words in my mouth.

Oh really, OPINIONS of people who have studied this subject? Tapas 9 or is it Tapas 1? Opinions you said, so not facts then!

Either you are getting your knickers twisted or you are queen of obfuscation!

One moment you said drift, then next moment you said rub - is that putting words in your mouth? OK, so you said both, fair is fair.

So we now have a crystal clear idea you believed it is both driftable and rubbable from OPINIONS you heard!

I haven't 'heard' anything from anyone. I have read up on the subject of Cadaver dogs including papers on cueing by handlers and cadaver scent drift. Obviously you haven't.

It's not me who has got my knickers in such a twist that I am reduced to posting childish spiteful posts. That would be you.

Night night.

Could you post a link to where you have read about cadaver scent drift merrymo.

This is not the paper I mentioned Candyfloss, I haven't been able to find that yet - but the paper below refers to the movement of cadaver scent.

Extract from

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool: An Analysis of Prior Studies -- Crime Scene Investigator Network

Whether a dog is searching for narcotics, explosives, a live person, or a cadaver, scent is what the dog uses to find its quarry. Scent will have a propensity to pool around the source and, without outside interference, it will slowly spread.

--------------------

There are many other factors that affect scent. Terrain causes variation in the direction that scent flows, which will affect how a dog may indicate on the substance sought

End quote.

(there is also mention of how the demeanour of the handler (nervousness for example) can cause the dog to give false alerts). i.e. cueing.

The whole subject is very interesting, and the one conclusion that I have come to from what I have read so far is that it is not by any means the exact science some people think it is and basically that is the point I was trying to make to people who have drawn conclusions that may not necessarily be correct.

To answer other queries :

The fact that the scent was only detected on KM and in the car flies in the face of the evidence regarding scent transference. Why wasn't the scent found on GM's clothing or one of the twins or other places. If KM had been in contact with a 'fresh' cadaver then she would have been reeking of the scent at that point and it would have been easily transferred.

There is one possible reason for this and that is that there was no scent present until after the clothes and car were removed and stored elsewhere for some time. Contamination could have occurred during that time.

I cannot understand why it was decided to take the clothes away rather than be tested by the dog in the apartment. That would have eliminated any possibililty of cross contamination from elsewhere. Surely from an evidential point of view of the police - testing the clothing at the apartment should have been insisted upon for that very reason.

by Merrymo 06.04.12 9:28

Me wrote:
Merrymo wrote:

It would be appreciated if you would stop putting words in my mouth. At no time have I said either/or.

So can you tell us was it kate pants or cuddle cat she used to rub onto the hired car sills?
Dont tell us you think the odour got drifted onto the sills from her pants?

If you were to read up on the studies into Cadaver dogs which can be found on the net you wouldn't need to ask.

Before you come back with some gibberish about the hired renault .....tell us how many cars the police used in that operation and why only the mccanns' hired car was marked? And if she was wearing the "dead" pants when she was in contact with that car and the scent is driftable how come only selective areas are marked by the dogs?

Anyone who watched the video can see why. - it was farcical. The dog was persistently brought back to the McCann car which was supposed to be anonymous - but which was instantly identifiable by the maddie stickers in the window. The dog was allowed to whiz past the other cars. We have no idea what would have happened if the dog has been persistently called back to every other car in the same way. It was blatent cueing.

I posted a link to a Study about cueing carried out by Scientists from an American University. 4 Church rooms were chosen for the test on the grounds that church rooms would be least likely to have been contaminated with drugs or explosives. The handlers were then lied to and told that specimens had been placed in 2 of the rooms -marked with red tape. Actually no specimens had been put in any of the rooms. More false alerts were made in the 2 rooms where the handlers BELIEVED specimens would be found.

The study concluded that the beliefs of the handlers could affect the 'alerts' of the dogs.

The only valid criticism that was made by people on here was that just because they were church rooms it didn't follow that they were sterile. That is true. However that does not invalidate the fact that the dogs made more false alerts in the two rooms where their handlers expected specimens to be than the 2 rooms where they thought there were no specimens.

Explosiveanddrugsniffingdogs.pdf

As for the clothing. Unless the same number of items of clothing from other people as the McCanns was included in the exercise, then it was not an unbiased test and so is useless.

Can you provide details of your qualifications and expertise in the field of EVRD dogs, their training, methods of operation and your expertise in the field of cadaver scent and decomposition which qualifies you to rebutt the work and report of Martin Grime in this case?

The only qualification anyone needs in order to find out about cadaver dogs and their handlers is to be able to read.

by **tigger** 06.04.12 9:31

Sometimes I can't resist the pearls of wisdom Merrymo so generously shares with us.
Such as:
quote:This is not the paper I mentioned Candyfloss, I haven't been able to find that yet - but the paper below refers to the movement of cadaver scent.
Extract from

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool: An Analysis of Prior Studies -- Crime Scene Investigator Network

Whether a dog is searching for narcotics, explosives, a live person, or a cadaver, scent is what the dog uses to find its quarry. Scent will have a propensity to pool around the source and, without outside interference, it will slowly spread.
unquote

Not only is it not the paper she mentioned, this paper is not referenced at all, apart from the title.
I've never come across such a persistent WUM - please stop answering this topic! We're on page 56 in what? two-three weeks?

This WUM is very efficient, stopping members from having intelligent discussions on many other topics. The best thing everyone can do is ignore Merrymo's posts completely.

Off topic isn't even in it anymore! hijacked

by Merrymo 06.04.12 10:06

tigger wrote:Sometimes I can't resist the pearls of wisdom Merrymo so generously shares with us.
Such as:
quote:This is not the paper I mentioned Candyfloss, I haven't been able to find that yet - but the paper below refers to the movement of cadaver scent.
Extract from

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool: An Analysis of Prior Studies -- Crime Scene Investigator Network

Whether a dog is searching for narcotics, explosives, a live person, or a cadaver, scent is what the dog uses to find its quarry. Scent will have a propensity to pool around the source and, without outside interference, it will slowly spread.
unquote

Not only is it not the paper she mentioned, this paper is not referenced at all, apart from the title.
I've never come across such a persistent WUM - please stop answering this topic! We're on page 56 in what? two-three weeks?

This WUM is very efficient, stopping members from having intelligent discussions on many other topics. The best thing everyone can do is ignore Merrymo's posts completely.

Off topic isn't even in it anymore! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You only have to c&p the link and you will find the whole article I was asked for a link and I gave it. I am also constantly asked to reply to posts.

Nitpicking and sneering at little bits of my posts and ignoring the evidence I have given to back up my statements hardly comes under the heading of 'intelligent discussion' IMO

by **tigger** 06.04.12 10:24

Merrymo wrote:
tigger wrote:Sometimes I can't resist the pearls of wisdom Merrymo so generously shares with us.
Such as:
quote:This is not the paper I mentioned Candyfloss, I haven't been able to find that yet - but the paper below refers to the movement of cadaver scent.
Extract from

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool: An Analysis of Prior Studies -- Crime Scene Investigator Network

Whether a dog is searching for narcotics, explosives, a live person, or a cadaver, scent is what the dog uses to find its quarry. Scent will have a propensity to pool around the source and, without outside interference, it will slowly spread.
unquote

Not only is it not the paper she mentioned, this paper is not referenced at all, apart from the title.
I've never come across such a persistent WUM - please stop answering this topic! We're on page 56 in what? two-three weeks?

This WUM is very efficient, stopping members from having intelligent discussions on many other topics. The best thing everyone can do is ignore Merrymo's posts completely.

Off topic isn't even in it anymore! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You only have to c&p the link and you will find the whole article I was asked for a link and I gave it. I am also constantly asked to reply to posts.

Nitpicking and sneering at little bits of my posts and ignoring the evidence I have given to back up my statements hardly comes under the heading of 'intelligent discussion' IMO

Your link is:
a) in your previous post to the one I answered
b) is entitled Explosives and sniffer dogs - to the best of my knowledge explosives were not an issue in this case - therefore this is irrelevant
c) you mentioned a paper which you could not find and then gave an extract from another paper without reference.

Your best answer to my last post would have been to supply the correct reference. This is not about advancing Maddie's case at all, it's about you insisting you are right and all experts were wrong in their analyses of the evidence on which we are basing our theories.

This really is over and out, Merrymo, goodbye from me and thanks for the spit coffee

by Merrymo 06.04.12 10:37

tigger wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
tigger wrote:Sometimes I can't resist the pearls of wisdom Merrymo so generously shares with us.
Such as:
quote:This is not the paper I mentioned Candyfloss, I haven't been able to find that yet - but the paper below refers to the movement of cadaver scent.
Extract from

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool: An Analysis of Prior Studies -- Crime Scene Investigator Network

Whether a dog is searching for narcotics, explosives, a live person, or a cadaver, scent is what the dog uses to find its quarry. Scent will have a propensity to pool around the source and, without outside interference, it will slowly spread.
unquote

Not only is it not the paper she mentioned, this paper is not referenced at all, apart from the title.
I've never come across such a persistent WUM - please stop answering this topic! We're on page 56 in what? two-three weeks?

This WUM is very efficient, stopping members from having intelligent discussions on many other topics. The best thing everyone can do is ignore Merrymo's posts completely.

Off topic isn't even in it anymore! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You only have to c&p the link and you will find the whole article I was asked for a link and I gave it. I am also constantly asked to reply to posts.

Nitpicking and sneering at little bits of my posts and ignoring the evidence I have given to back up my statements hardly comes under the heading of 'intelligent discussion' IMO

Your link is:
a) in your previous post to the one I answered
b) is entitled Explosives and sniffer dogs - to the best of my knowledge explosives were not an issue in this case - therefore this is irrelevant

It doesn't matter in what area sniffer dogs are trained to alert. Their olfactory skills are the same and the principles that apply to Explosive sniffer dogs also apply equally to cadaver dogs and to ALL HANDLERS which is what the study was about.

c) you mentioned a paper which you could not find and then gave an extract from another paper without reference.

So what if I couldn't find a paper?

Because I couldn't find it I gave the link to another paper saying the same thing. To claim I did that without reference is clearly not true.

Your best answer to my last post would have been to supply the correct reference. This is not about advancing Maddie's case at all, it's about you insisting you are right and all experts were wrong in their analyses of the evidence on which we are basing our theories.

I did supply the correct reference, I took extracts to save people having to trawl through the whole article. The subject of cadaver dogs forms a huge part of this case and without knowing all the information available on this subject how can people come to any definite conclusions.
This really is over and out, Merrymo, goodbye from me and thanks for the [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Have a nice day.

by rainbow-fairy 06.04.12 11:06

Merrymo wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I
made two points. (1) that the cadaver scent can drift and (2) that it can be transferred from one object to another. Those are not my opinions those are opinions of people who have studied this subject. I was then asked by Aiyoyo to make up my mind which point I thought was correct as if I had said it was one or the other. As I have never said that - then Aiyoyo was putting his/her words in my mouth.

Oh really, OPINIONS of people who have studied this subject? Tapas 9 or is it Tapas 1? Opinions you said, so not facts then!

Either you are getting your knickers twisted or you are queen of obfuscation!

One moment you said drift, then next moment you said rub - is that putting words in your mouth? OK, so you said both, fair is fair.

So we now have a crystal clear idea you believed it is both driftable and rubbable from OPINIONS you heard!

I haven't 'heard' anything from anyone. I have read up on the subject of Cadaver dogs including papers on cueing by handlers and cadaver scent drift. Obviously you haven't.

It's not me who has got my knickers in such a twist that I am reduced to posting childish spiteful posts. That would be you.

Night night.

Could you post a link to where you have read about cadaver scent drift merrymo.

This is not the paper I mentioned Candyfloss, I haven't been able to find that yet - but the paper below refers to the movement of cadaver scent.

Extract from

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool: An Analysis of Prior Studies -- Crime Scene Investigator Network

Whether a dog is searching for narcotics, explosives, a live person, or a cadaver, scent is what the dog uses to find its quarry. Scent will have a propensity to pool around the source and, without outside interference, it will slowly spread.

--------------------

There are many other factors that affect scent. Terrain causes variation in the direction that scent flows, which will affect how a dog may indicate on the substance sought

End quote.

(there is also mention of how the demeanour of the handler (nervousness for example) can cause the dog to give false alerts). i.e. cueing.

The whole subject is very interesting, and the one conclusion that I have come to from what I have read so far is that it is not by any means the exact science some people think it is and basically that is the point I was trying to make to people who have drawn conclusions that may not necessarily be correct.

To answer other queries :

The fact that the scent was only detected on KM and in the car flies in the face of the evidence regarding scent transference. Why wasn't the scent found on GM's clothing or one of the twins or other places. If KM had been in contact with a 'fresh' cadaver then she would have been reeking of the scent at that point and it would have been easily transferred.

There is one possible reason for this and that is that there was no scent present until after the clothes and car were removed and stored elsewhere for some time. Contamination could have occurred during that time.

I cannot understand why it was decided to take the clothes away rather than be tested by the dog in the apartment. That would have eliminated any possibililty of cross contamination from elsewhere. Surely from an evidential point of view of the police - testing the clothing at the apartment should have been insisted upon for that very reason.

Stored where exactly? The morgue?!?
I would love to hear, a coherent argument, WHY the handler was so nervous when near Kate's clothes, the toy, the red t-shirt that it caused Eddie to alert - why not all the other clothes? And if as its been alleged, that the scent transfers, all the other clothes weren't so scented.
The same reason can't be given for the Scenic key, seeing as it was hidden in a bucket and Eddie found it.

I agree with tigger, this blatant diversion has gone on too long - 550 posts and the title is 'Why Didn't You Come Last Night' NOT 'Dogs - Discuss'.
I was very disappointed when reading the 80 page thread 'Theory' discussing 'Unterdenteppichgekehrt'. I'd wanted to discuss that for a while. After trawling through all 80 pages, which took me 3 days, it was all Garth and his claptrap.
This thread, courtesy of a Mo that apparently is 'Merry' (probably because she's stopping us properly debating the topic).
I pity any poor newcomer, to wade through these 50-odd pages of deflection!

by aiyoyo 06.04.12 11:25

Merrymo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I
made two points. (1) that the cadaver scent can drift and (2) that it can be transferred from one object to another. Those are not my opinions those are opinions of people who have studied this subject. I was then asked by Aiyoyo to make up my mind which point I thought was correct as if I had said it was one or the other. As I have never said that - then Aiyoyo was putting his/her words in my mouth.

Oh really, OPINIONS of people who have studied this subject? Tapas 9 or is it Tapas 1? Opinions you said, so not facts then!

Either you are getting your knickers twisted or you are queen of obfuscation!

One moment you said drift, then next moment you said rub - is that putting words in your mouth? OK, so you said both, fair is fair.

So we now have a crystal clear idea you believed it is both driftable and rubbable from OPINIONS you heard!

I haven't 'heard' anything from anyone. I have read up on the subject of Cadaver dogs including papers on cueing by handlers and cadaver scent drift. Obviously you haven't.

It's not me who has got my knickers in such a twist that I am reduced to posting childish spiteful posts. That would be you.

Night night.

Oh dear! And i thought we are on the Madeleine forum and you are talking about general reading.
Without knowing what you are reading in specifics or which human cadaver dog expert handler's opinion, I can't see how your general reading applies here.

So you read about cueing of dogs. What dogs? For what purpose? training purpose? What? cue to find narcotics, bomb what? Cadaver of what?
no one knows what you're going on about.

So you said handler can due dogs, but you havent answered it in context to my question which is:
did you see Martin Grime cueing the dog where and when to bark? Did you see him cueing the dog in the 5A?

Same with the drifting. Ir's pure common sense everyone knows scent drifts, even fart scent drifts!

How does that apply when it comes to cadaver. Again, you haven't answered my question in context to Madeleine case.
So how come Kate's pants didnt contaminate the whole apt if the scent drifts?
Did she drop her pants in those marked areas and didnt take off her pants when she goes to sleep or when she goes to the toilet for example? And if it drifts, even if she didn't take off her pants to sleep, her bedroom should be contaminated if dead scent on her pants drifts.

Its no use discrediting it by saying why didnt they test the clothes in the Apt? Because the scent was found in selective areas in the apt and on the flower bed and renault car hire as well not just her pants!

By your logic did they have to take the car into the apt or do it right in front to mccanns to prove anything?
And you also didnt answer what the sticker on the car with Maddie's name or image has got to do with it since dog can't read?

Or how it can drift onto the sills? I would remind you we are discussing Madeleine case and evidence as marked by a specialized dog with 200 impeccable records and a professional expert handler, best in the field, and best in the country.
And, not some general reading you chose to throw in without any back up.

@ George Galloway
The DNA and blood evidence in the boot may not, after all, be Madeleine's and the forensic scientists may be mistaken.

The blood in the boot of the McCanns' hire car may be somebody else's, in which case Goodfellas comes to the Algarve and the family are the victims of the most grotesque coincidence.

The DNA could have been planted in the boot of the McCanns' car, presumably by the police.

The sort of thing which happened to Mr O J Simpson.

The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it.

Either way, the name McCann is now well and truly in the history books.

BTW, what do you think of George Galloway's observations about the mccanns, especially the bits I bolded?
Do you think their renault car hire with DNA in it was a freaky coincidence?
How do you explain the 15 out of 19 markers matched to Maddie DNA from bodily fluid found in the car boot well?

If you cant answer in context to evidence on Police files on Maddie's case, but apply some generalisation to it, how is that intellectual debate or specific to the case?

If we use your logic, can we use general reading about the mccanns coldness and adeptness at lying and compare it to hardcore serial killers who are psychopaths, because I can assure you, if you want to apply generalisation to anything, there are always similarities. Like for example, psychopath are infamous for lying, they are cold without emotion, tough cookie to crack, and they are deluded, so can we say then the mccanns are psychopath in that sense? I am not saying they are. so dont jump on me, just using an analogy to your style of debate.

And if we want to stretch the imagination further, the way you stretched it to cadaver detection dog and dog handler without logic and support of evidence, just by generalising from general reading, can we in fairness then say that opinions out there that states that the mccanns portrayed themselves to be more evil than psychopath because at least psychopath doesnt go out of their way to con pensioners and school children's money for a bogus search! Do we then take that to be accurate and applicable to mccanns' personality?

I mean if we were to apply your logic, then what we read about them must be accurate isnt it?
If you think, NO, it is not fair to say, then by the same token you cant expect people to take you seriously when you apply generalisation of what you read and tried to apply it in context to evidence on Maddie's case.

The knub of the matter that is a problem here is you did not address the evidence on file about the cadaver detection specific to Madeleine's case. You are simply saying it cannot be Madeleine, without giving reason, how there can be 11 markings specific only to the mccanns when other apts and cars were also checked, and nothing found. Even Murat's house was checked and nothing marked.
And be it whether you read scent is driftable or rubbable, how does that apply to those found by the dogs in mccanns apt and hire car?

IN fact, I notice you did exactly what kate did. She gave excuse for dead scent on her pants - 6 corpses!
And, you gave excuses on how the scent could have been deposited there, by drift contamination, and/or by rub contamination.

Doesn't matter which style of contamination by your argument, it would mean there was a cadaver in the apt and the hire car, right?

Otherwise, what did the dog marked?

by Guest 06.04.12 11:38

Merrymo is quoting bits from articles that apply to dogs in general. There are many types of dogs, and it is only the search dogs that follow human drifting scent. Cadaver dogs do not. Here are two links that say just that...........

[snipped]

Search Dogs

Search dogs are used to locate missing people and criminals. There are several sub-categories of these animals. Trailing dogs follow the trail of a fugitive or other person of interest based on the scent of an item (e.g. clothing) associated with their target. If no scent article is available, tracking dogs physically track the path of a person via footprints or other evidence. Air scent dogs also do not require a scent item. Instead, they pick up traces of human scent that drift through the air and follow that smell to its source.

Post-Mortem Search Dogs

This subcategory of search dogs specializes in locating human remains. Water search dogs detect bodily gasses that rise up from corpses under water. They alert police divers of their location so they can retrieve the bodies. Cadaver dogs react to the scent of dead people. During a crime scene investigation, they can detect minute amounts of human remains and even blood drops

Read more: Dogs That Help the Police Department | eHow.com [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And this link which will not let me copy also says the same thing..........

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by puzzled 06.04.12 13:13

Merrymo wrote:

This is not the paper I mentioned Candyfloss, I haven't been able to find that yet - but the paper below refers to the movement of cadaver scent.

Extract from

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool: An Analysis of Prior Studies -- Crime Scene Investigator Network

Whether a dog is searching for narcotics, explosives, a live person, or a cadaver, scent is what the dog uses to find its quarry. Scent will have a propensity to pool around the source and, without outside interference, it will slowly spread.

--------------------

There are many other factors that affect scent. Terrain causes variation in the direction that scent flows, which will affect how a dog may indicate on the substance sought

End quote.

(there is also mention of how the demeanour of the handler (nervousness for example) can cause the dog to give false alerts). i.e. cueing.

Granted, sniffer dogs can give false positives, and granted, there is a risk of cueing. However, their success rate is still very high. In the case of Eddie and Keela, who had a 100% success rate (so we are told), why should we make exceptions just for this particular case? What are the odds that they would both make a mistake - independently - in exactly the same place - for the first time, in this particular case? (A clue: they're about 40,000 to one.) Or, is it not the case that Eddie and Keela have a 100% success record? If that's so, surely the details of those cases will be on record. Likewise, if Kate McCann really was in contact with corpses in the weeks before the holidays, the details of those death should be on record. It should be possible to establish if this is true or not.

Also, what would you think about the dogs if they had alerted in Robert Murat's house, or one of the other apartments in Praia da Luz? Would they be so unreliable then?

by aiyoyo 06.04.12 13:21

Ribisl wrote:Kololi wrote
And it is wonderful to see that some people are acknowledging that some of what has been typed is actually opinion, of which, of course, we are all entitled. Meerymo's opinion is worth as much as the next person's then and shouldn't be ridiculed.

Don't think so, really. An opinion based on expert knowledge, personal experience or deductive reasoning, expressed without prejudice, is worth much more than absurdly illogical and incoherent gibberish written by those whose critical faculty seems to have gone on sabbatical.

by Kololi 06.04.12 16:01

aiyoyo wrote:
Ribisl wrote:Kololi wrote
And it is wonderful to see that some people are acknowledging that some of what has been typed is actually opinion, of which, of course, we are all entitled. Meerymo's opinion is worth as much as the next person's then and shouldn't be ridiculed.

Don't think so, really. An opinion based on expert knowledge, personal experience or deductive reasoning, expressed without prejudice, is worth much more than absurdly illogical and incoherent gibberish written by those whose critical faculty seems to have gone on sabbatical.

Maybe you know Aiyoyo. Who are the experts here on this board as I haven't worked it out yet? It isn't you and me that's for sure as I am no expert and you rarely post without prejudice.

daft1

by aiyoyo 06.04.12 16:45

Kololi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Ribisl wrote:Kololi wrote
And it is wonderful to see that some people are acknowledging that some of what has been typed is actually opinion, of which, of course, we are all entitled. Meerymo's opinion is worth as much as the next person's then and shouldn't be ridiculed.

Don't think so, really. An opinion based on expert knowledge, personal experience or deductive reasoning, expressed without prejudice, is worth much more than absurdly illogical and incoherent gibberish written by those whose critical faculty seems to have gone on sabbatical.

Maybe you know Aiyoyo. Who are the experts here on this board as I haven't worked it out yet? It isn't you and me that's for sure as I am no expert and you rarely post without prejudice.

Oh absolutely Kololi, neither you nor me are experts. I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim to be expert on this case.

I admit I have no patient for bullshitters who bulldozed onto here with some gibberish because they happen to admire kate or know Jane or what not, all under the guise of seeking the truth for Madeleine when God only knows why they are here when they cant debate intellectually with deductive reasoning or discerning capabiltiy and chose to ignore evidence completely.

Not so bad if they are prepared to debate reasonably by positing how an abduction could have happened when even the Police had stated there is not an iota of evidence to support that theory. Not too much for us to ask surely if they believe in the abduction theory and want to convince us to believe the same. Cant just expect people to believe blindly, by shooting down every evidence flying in their face,
and then not come up with an argument that holds water.

I dont know who you think I am prejudiced? the mccanns?
Well I dont trust them as far as I can spit.
They are SO abnormal.
I abhor bare face liars trying to rump their theory down my throat without doing anything to get themselves eliminated. Is there anything wrong with that?

All they have to do is cooperate with police or take a polygraph to at least stop their critics, instead of suing people who dont believe them. Sorry I have no respect for scammers. Maybe I am too blunt, but that's me.

by Spaniel 06.04.12 17:21

FGS can we stop this, and hopefully the team will ban two from here.

As a member I click the portal to read the latest posts and then? It's yanyinyiyanyan in almost every thread. Imagine a visitor landing here and reading the rows!

I'm surprised that you here don't realise that you are being played like a fiddle! I know who one is, even though it tries to disguise itself with a spelling error now and again.

Please let us discuss freely and send them back to their swamp.

Thanks Admin.

by anil39200 06.04.12 17:52

Spaniel wrote:FGS can we stop this, and hopefully the team will ban two from here.

As a member I click the portal to read the latest posts and then? It's yanyinyiyanyan in almost every thread. Imagine a visitor landing here and reading the rows!

I'm surprised that you here don't realise that you are being played like a fiddle! I know who one is, even though it tries to disguise itself with a spelling error now and again.

Please let us discuss freely and send them back to their swamp.

Thanks Admin.

Hear, Hear! bravo

by Kololi 06.04.12 18:21

I was teasing you a tadge Aiyoyo.

And Spaniel did you get out of the wrong side of the bed again?

by rainbow-fairy 06.04.12 18:35

anil39200 wrote:
Spaniel wrote:FGS can we stop this, and hopefully the team will ban two from here.

As a member I click the portal to read the latest posts and then? It's yanyinyiyanyan in almost every thread. Imagine a visitor landing here and reading the rows!

I'm surprised that you here don't realise that you are being played like a fiddle! I know who one is, even though it tries to disguise itself with a spelling error now and again.

Please let us discuss freely and send them back to their swamp.

Thanks Admin.

Hear, Hear! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I absolutely 100% agree with both of you. This thread has not only gone wildly O/T, but debate is stifled because certain posters put such breathtakingly daft posts up its almost impossible that no-one will respond.
Those visitors who are suspicious of the McCanns, who think they've found a like-minded forum, will undoubtedly be put off by this.
Before anyone bleats about 'open-mindedness' can I just state now, with absolute certainty, that there is nothing open-minded about Merrymo and the like!
At least most of us will concede a point if we are wrong - certain posters just twist and turn and desperately throw ever-more ridiculous scenario's into the mix.
Enough is enough. IMHO Wink

by Guest 06.04.12 23:28

Yes I agree that the joke has gone on for too long. How about whenever a topic is hijacked by wafflers, wasters or wind-up merchants, their comments are transferred to a separate topic, perhaps called The 3 Ws - or possibly 4 as I've thought of another appropriate word beginning with W - and leave them to talk only to themselves!

To the genuine members of the forum, I really would advise you not to continue feeding the trolls.

by rainbow-fairy 06.04.12 23:58

Jean wrote:Yes I agree that the joke has gone on for too long. How about whenever a topic is hijacked by wafflers, wasters or wind-up merchants, their comments are transferred to a separate topic, perhaps called The 3 Ws - or possibly 4 as I've thought of another appropriate word beginning with W - and leave them to talk only to themselves!

To the genuine members of the forum, I really would advise you not to continue feeding the trolls.

I like your thinking Jean - and I'm all out of troll pellets now. Like Old Mother Hubbard, my cupboard is bare!
There are those trying to get at the truth, and those desperately trying to cover the truth. It really is that simple, and I know which side I am on!

by Ollie 07.04.12 14:49

What I have found hard to understand is that one of the McCann family (IIRC) said that if a stranger tried to take Madeleine she would of screamed the place down. So why the night of the abduction didn't she scream? I find it hard to believe that while the abductor was walking round with her she didn't wake. IMO it shows either Madeleine wasn't abducted or she was sedated to prevent her waking during the night.

by Shibboleth 07.04.12 14:54

Ollie wrote:What I have found hard to understand is that one of the McCann family (IIRC) said that if a stranger tried to take Madeleine she would of screamed the place down. So why the night of the abduction didn't she scream? I find it hard to believe that while the abductor was walking round with her she didn't wake. IMO it shows either Madeleine wasn't abducted or she was sedated to prevent her waking during the night.

Yes Ollie. She was sedated. The raptor went there the previous night to test it. This is howcome poor Maddie had a medicine stain on her pyjama, and was very sleepy in the créche the next day. Of course, the twins were not sedated, as they were of no value to the pedofile gang. This is the story we are asked to believe.

by rainbow-fairy 07.04.12 15:57

Shibboleth wrote:
Ollie wrote:What I have found hard to understand is that one of the McCann family (IIRC) said that if a stranger tried to take Madeleine she would of screamed the place down. So why the night of the abduction didn't she scream? I find it hard to believe that while the abductor was walking round with her she didn't wake. IMO it shows either Madeleine wasn't abducted or she was sedated to prevent her waking during the night.

Yes Ollie. She was sedated. The raptor went there the previous night to test it. This is howcome poor Maddie had a medicine stain on her pyjama, and was very sleepy in the créche the next day. Of course, the twins were not sedated, as they were of no value to the pedofile gang. This is the story we are asked to believe.