Justice or Whitewash?

Jauna Loca wrote:For the first time too I now feel it is a whitewash. That SY are preparing the public for a stalemate ending says it all.
Very disappointed.

dantezebu wrote:SY would have a considerable problem to whitewash this. 
Simply because of the alerts of Eddie to human decomposition in 5a.
They are using dogs as we speak. They must have faith in the dogs ability. How can they dismiss Eddie's findings? All of them? All of the other cases where dogs have been or will be used.
And this is where the MC's shot themselves in the foot with their "checking" story.
I really don't believe that TM ever realised the capabilities of cadaver dogs. I don't even think they thought they would be used inside the flat. And if they did they didn't realise the time scale for detecting cadaverine.
In providing the checking story they excluded the possibility of any burglar, drug addict or paedophile entering and murdering Madeleine in the apartment. They were just covering the base for an abduction, not a murder. 
There was not time in ROB's handy time-lines for it to have happened.
Could they back track now and say MO didn't do his check 5a at 9.30 ish? That GM didn't have his proud father moment at 9.15?

Through all this debate I keep reminding myself of the words of Andy Redwood when he said "abduction may not follow with all our thinking".

candyfloss wrote:

dantezebu wrote:SY would have a considerable problem to whitewash this. 
Simply because of the alerts of Eddie to human decomposition in 5a.
They are using dogs as we speak. They must have faith in the dogs ability. How can they dismiss Eddie's findings? All of them? All of the other cases where dogs have been or will be used.
And this is where the MC's shot themselves in the foot with their "checking" story.
I really don't believe that TM ever realised the capabilities of cadaver dogs. I don't even think they thought they would be used inside the flat. And if they did they didn't realise the time scale for detecting cadaverine.
In providing the checking story they excluded the possibility of any burglar, drug addict or paedophile entering and murdering Madeleine in the apartment. They were just covering the base for an abduction, not a murder. 
There was not time in ROB's handy time-lines for it to have happened.
Could they back track now and say MO didn't do his check 5a at 9.30 ish? That GM didn't have his proud father moment at 9.15?

Through all this debate I keep reminding myself of the words of Andy Redwood when he said "abduction may not follow with all our thinking".

Exactly.  Why bother training these dogs at considerable cost, why bother using them if they are going to ignore their findings.  They are using them more and more, which means the police have great faith in their ability to detect what they are supposed to.  So how can the findings in PDL be ignored.

Jauna Loca wrote:For the first time too I now feel it is a whitewash. That SY are preparing the public for a stalemate ending says it all.
Very disappointed.

Newintown wrote:So in fact you're saying that you agree with GM that the findings of Eddie and Keela are useless and the evidence they found in the McCann's apartment 5A cannot be taken as substantial evidence and any other findings by cadaver and blood sniffer dogs can be ignored in any future cases.

So evidence found by the dogs is just pushed aside and ignored because SY and PJ can't be bothered to take it any further and take into the account the contradictory statements given by the Tapas 9

dantezebu wrote:

Jauna Loca wrote:For the first time too I now feel it is a whitewash. That SY are preparing the public for a stalemate ending says it all.
Very disappointed.

In these days where there is much confusion and misdirection from an uninformed MSM it is easy to believe in a whitewash.
However the way I see it: 
The only way there will be a stalemate is if there is not enough evidence to prosecute the MC's.
There cannot be a whitewash, you cannot make evidence disappear as much as the MC's want it to.
The evidence points in only one direction. 
Any evidence that may be found now can only also point in that direction.
To doubt this is to doubt where the guilt lies.
If nothing is found it doesn't change the situation.
I will not subscribe to the idea that the PJ or SY would plant evidence. So I believe no evidence will be found that incriminates another party.
I have confidence in my belief of their guilt so I cannot accept there will be a whitewash.
Maybe the case will be shelved again, but the finger can only ever point in one direction.
I can live with that. 

ETA this is not an advert for a really crappy pop group.  

Jauna Loca wrote:

Newintown wrote:So in fact you're saying that you agree with GM that the findings of Eddie and Keela are useless and the evidence they found in the McCann's apartment 5A cannot be taken as substantial evidence and any other findings by cadaver and blood sniffer dogs can be ignored in any future cases.

So evidence found by the dogs is just pushed aside and ignored because SY and PJ can't be bothered to take it any further and take into the account the contradictory statements given by the Tapas 9

No, I believe the dogs but I think Eddie and Keela will be kept under wraps by the MSM and a passing paedo will be blamed for any evidence found outside the appartment.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong but to me at the moment it looks like a "can't find a body so can't solve it" ending. I do not know what political protection the McCanns seem to have,
but political intervention shelved the case once and it seems to be gearing up for a patsy/whitewash. There is so much evidence already pointing in one direction it seems like
willful ignorance to go chasing every other (mis)lead instead. All this IMO of course, and I would dearly love to be wrong.

dantezebu wrote:

Jauna Loca wrote:For the first time too I now feel it is a whitewash. That SY are preparing the public for a stalemate ending says it all.
Very disappointed.

In these days where there is much confusion and misdirection from an uninformed MSM it is easy to believe in a whitewash.
However the way I see it: 
The only way there will be a stalemate is if there is not enough evidence to prosecute the MC's.
There cannot be a whitewash, you cannot make evidence disappear as much as the MC's want it to.
The evidence points in only one direction. 
Any evidence that may be found now can only also point in that direction.
To doubt this is to doubt where the guilt lies.
If nothing is found it doesn't change the situation.
I will not subscribe to the idea that the PJ or SY would plant evidence. So I believe no evidence will be found that incriminates another party.
I have confidence in my belief of their guilt so I cannot accept there will be a whitewash.
Maybe the case will be shelved again, but the finger can only ever point in one direction.
I can live with that. 

ETA this is not an advert for a really crappy pop group.  

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I accept a whitewash is very possible BUT currently think it isn't.

The McCanns were demanding a review for a long time (why? double bluff?) and were told no by at least two? home secretaries before Cameron jumped in when RB got involved.

The case was then reviewed for a good while before being upgraded to an investigation, which has been going for 3+ years.

I just can't see how the above simplified sequence of events can equal a whitewash? If the M's were/are being protected why didn't the government tell them to shut up, thank your lucky stars we got you out the situation and get on with life?

If it turns out that this re-investigation ends (as it seems to be ATM) in....we tried our best and there's nothing more we can do, what has this long and expensive investigation achieved? 

The only thing I can think of that fits with the above is if the perps are someone other than the Tapas 9, at least directly AND somebody/something of a very sensitive nature that required government handling from the very beginning.

What that could be has bothered me for 7 years and can't for the life of me think what could be so big as to require such massive government intervention. And there have been some big revelations in the last 7 years....

Next month is a big month in all this, I think.

Newintown wrote:


So in fact you're saying that you agree with GM that the findings of Eddie and Keela are useless and the evidence they found in the McCann's apartment 5A cannot be taken as substantial evidence and any other findings by cadaver and blood sniffer dogs can be ignored in any future cases.

So evidence found by the dogs is just pushed aside and ignored because SY and PJ can't be bothered to take it any further and take into the account the contradictory statements given by the Tapas 9.

Realist wrote:

Newintown wrote:


So in fact you're saying that you agree with GM that the findings of Eddie and Keela are useless and the evidence they found in the McCann's apartment 5A cannot be taken as substantial evidence and any other findings by cadaver and blood sniffer dogs can be ignored in any future cases.

So evidence found by the dogs is just pushed aside and ignored because SY and PJ can't be bothered to take it any further and take into the account the contradictory statements given by the Tapas 9.

The findings of canines will always be useful in any walk of life, but with respect to criminal proceedings, they can only ever be used as an indication, if for no other reason, they can't give evidence in a court of law on their respective fields of expertise, neither can they be cross examined.

Furthermore, contradictory statements don't constitute evidence.

Realist wrote:

Newintown wrote:


So in fact you're saying that you agree with GM that the findings of Eddie and Keela are useless and the evidence they found in the McCann's apartment 5A cannot be taken as substantial evidence and any other findings by cadaver and blood sniffer dogs can be ignored in any future cases.

So evidence found by the dogs is just pushed aside and ignored because SY and PJ can't be bothered to take it any further and take into the account the contradictory statements given by the Tapas 9.

The findings of canines will always be useful in any walk of life, but with respect to criminal proceedings, they can only ever be used as an indication, if for no other reason, they can't give evidence in a court of law on their respective fields of expertise, neither can they be cross examined.

Furthermore, contradictory statements don't constitute evidence.

willowthewisp wrote:

Hi Realist,"Contradictory statements don't constitute evidence", if statements are contradictory, they must be evidence of a verbal conversation given to people employed by the regulated Authorities in pursuance of any Criminal activity that has been perpetrated in the event of possible future prosecutions and can be used as evidence in a Court of Law, as a statement of Facts?

whodunit wrote:



We civilians studying the case are not a court of law. What do the findings of the dogs indicate to YOU? Do they lead you to hold a particular opinion about the case? If not why not?

Realist wrote:

whodunit wrote:



We civilians studying the case are not a court of law. What do the findings of the dogs indicate to YOU? Do they lead you to hold a particular opinion about the case? If not why not?

The findings of the dogs indicate to me that there was a corpse in the McCann's apt. In the vein that there was no history of anyone else dying in the aforementioned, it is a violent presumption that it was that of their daughter, Madeleine.

Nevertheless, in legal terms, this cannot be classified as evidence, only an indication for the reasons previously stated. I am certainly not a McCann sympathiser, but by the same hypothesis, neither am I a fantasist and am only interested in reality, hence my chosen username.

whodunit wrote:


So let me get this straight. According to you:

It is a 'violent presumption' to think the corpse indicated by the dogs was MBM?

That is correct.

People who believe the dog findings indicate a corpse are fantasists?

No and that has never been my assertion

Most courts hold that cadaver dog alerts must be corroborated.

I don't know of any that don't

This means biological material of some kind must be found in the spot/area where the dogs alert. You are aware that biological material, that was tested in labs, was found in the spot/area where the dogs alerted in the apartment and in the rental car? Results were firm at first but morphed into ambiguous. The disputed identity of the person who deposited the biological material in the areas indicated by the cadaver [and blood] dog notwithstanding, that a corpse had most certainly lain in those spots/areas is surely beyond dispute.

I am aware that the laboratory tests were inconclusive and by inconclusive, I mean that there weren't sufficient identification points to identify the findings as being those of Madeleine McCann, or for that matter, anyone else. Had the test results been conclusive, undoubtably the McCanns would have been charged at the time. I think the paramount difference between our opinions are that I am only interested in tangible evidence which is admissible in a court of law, whereas you appear to only be willing to deal in fantasy, speculation and to a degree, distortion of the facts..

This really is a very simple case to understand, but difficult to prove. All the fantasists are achieving is providing ammunition for the opposition to dismiss them as cranks. Gerry McCann's philosophy is, yes of course we are guilty, but prove it and all these wild conspiracy theories don't achieve anything other than to detract from the real issue, which is of course, to find tangible evidence which is admissible in a court of law. Therein lies the difficulty.

Realist wrote:

whodunit wrote:


So let me get this straight. According to you:

It is a 'violent presumption' to think the corpse indicated by the dogs was MBM?

That is correct.

People who believe the dog findings indicate a corpse are fantasists?

No and that has never been my assertion

Most courts hold that cadaver dog alerts must be corroborated.

I don't know of any that don't

This means biological material of some kind must be found in the spot/area where the dogs alert. You are aware that biological material, that was tested in labs, was found in the spot/area where the dogs alerted in the apartment and in the rental car? Results were firm at first but morphed into ambiguous. The disputed identity of the person who deposited the biological material in the areas indicated by the cadaver [and blood] dog notwithstanding, that a corpse had most certainly lain in those spots/areas is surely beyond dispute.

I am aware that the laboratory tests were inconclusive and by inconclusive, I mean that there weren't sufficient identification points to identify the findings as being those of Madeleine McCann, or for that matter, anyone else. Had the test results been conclusive, undoubtably the McCanns would have been charged at the time. I think the paramount difference between our opinions are that I am only interested in tangible evidence which is admissible in a court of law, whereas you appear to only be willing to deal in fantasy, speculation and to a degree, distortion of the facts..

This really is a very simple case to understand, but difficult to prove. All the fantasists are achieving is providing ammunition for the opposition to dismiss them as cranks. Gerry McCann's philosophy is, yes of course we are guilty, but prove it and all these wild conspiracy theories don't achieve anything other than to detract from the real issue, which is of course, to find tangible evidence which is admissible in a court of law. Therein lies the difficulty.

Realist wrote:

The findings of the dogs indicate to me that there was a corpse in the McCann's apt. In the vein that there was no history of anyone else dying in the aforementioned, it is a violent presumption that it was that of their daughter, Madeleine.

Nevertheless, in legal terms, this cannot be classified as evidence, only an indication for the reasons previously stated. I am certainly not a McCann sympathiser, but by the same hypothesis, neither am I a fantasist and am only interested in reality, hence my chosen username.

whodunit wrote:


You must be new

Again, you appear to exhibit signs of speculative conclusions without first checking the facts. I actually joined this forum in 2013, a couple of yrs. prior to your good self. Maybe, Ladyinred would be willing to confirm this if you care to check with her.


. A little advice: If you wish to be mistaken for a sincere person, you should scale back your use of words and phrases like 'wild conspiracy theories' and 'fantasists'. At least try and restrain yourself to every other post instead of  unleashing each time your fingers hit the keyboard. Oh, and stop pretending to be so concerned that we will be dismissed as 'cranks'.

Maybe I should add 'authoritarian' to my other adjectives.

"Had the test results been conclusive, undoubtably the McCanns would have been charged at the time."

You're hilarious.

I'm not sure I understand what you are intimating here by describing me as being hilarious. You appear to be inferring that my assertion that had the tests been conclusive, the McCanns would undoubtably have been charged as a ridiculous statement.

Why, there may even be a school of thought who would subscribe to this as being somewhat ambiguous at best and hypocritical at worst, particularly in the vein that you appear to be advocating the indictment of the McCanns on the findings of the dogs, even although the laboratory tests were inconclusive. 

The object of the exercise is not to convince others of the guilt of the McCanns, everyone already knows this, even Clarence Mitchell, but to prove their guilt. This will not be achieved by muddying the waters with unsubstantiated claims of paedophiles, swingers pimps, comic singers et al. The only people suggestions of paedophiles, negligence etc. will benefit are the McCanns. It is the McCanns who would have us believe paedophiles are involved, hence the abduction claim. It is the McCanns who would have us believe there was an element of negligence involved, because without the negligence aspect, there couldn't have been an abduction.

There is a direct conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, in that it is in the interests of the McCanns to infer negligence, but not in the case of their acquaintances, hence the contradictions in their statements.

BlueBag wrote:So anyone who looks at the shortlist of people who could have died in that apartment and left cadverine in all those places (and clothes) and is of the opinion it was MBM is a fantasist?

Wow... what kind of realist-->fantasist scale are you using? Are there any increments inbetween?