Only seen the first 6 episodes and haven't read into the case that much but I do find it odd the people who are convinced the McCanns killed her? Yes there is an element of child neglect that probably should have been looked at but it seems quite clear from what I've watched so far and read before that the likelihood of abduction was far far greater. The way the media treated the family was horrible to watch too, and in a way even watching this documentary adds to this as there's no need for it to be made other than for entertainment for the public.
Their table was booked for between 8 and 1 am.
They did not have line of sight from their table to their apartment as their was a large plastic type gazebo in the way.
Leaving the door unlocked to their apartment, adjacent to a public road, the mind boggles.......!
Deleting your phone calls , around the timings of the disappearance, hmmmm.....not the sign of a innocent person..... why. .? What’s there to hide.
comment by Picasso (U21397)
posted 1 minute ago
Their table was booked for between 8 and 1 am.
They did not have line of sight from their table to their apartment as their was a large plastic type gazebo in the way.
Leaving the door unlocked to their apartment, adjacent to a public road, the mind boggles.......!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it was stupid, even though they had agreement with the rest of the people that sat at the table that they would periodically go up and check each of the kids. This doesn't prove a murder though, just a stupid mistake.
comment by Picasso (U21397)
posted 14 seconds ago
Deleting your phone calls , around the timings of the disappearance, hmmmm.....not the sign of a innocent person..... why. .? What’s there to hide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoube never deleted calls? Did you kill somebody before deleting them?
I've lived about 30km from Luz for the last three years, and have known people on the area longer than that.
The locals here all agree on two things:
1. They feel very, very sorry for the child.
2. They are beyond sick to death of the investigations, and, particularly, the British press, which between them have ruined several people's lives, harassed many others and materially impacted the livelihoods of hundreds, if not thousands more.
They already knew very well about the competency and attitudes of both the GNR and the Polícia Judicial.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
Findings of Operarion Rectangle:-
Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that you understand how Eddie works - he alerts to a spot where he smells that a dead body had been there - NOT that there is a dead body under the concrete.
Like behind the McCanns' sofa - if the police had dug up the floor there would have been no body underneath. Try to read up and UNDERSTAND what you are writing, there' a good chap.
comment by Picasso (U21397)
posted 23 seconds ago
Deleting your phone calls , around the timings of the disappearance, hmmmm.....not the sign of a innocent person..... why. .? What’s there to hide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you delete a phone call?? Deleting phone logs maybe. And texts.
You do realise this is 2007. I am not sure what phones they had, but I remember having to delete messages to recieve new ones.
They are doctors, maybe got loads of messages and calls. Not weird to delete messages that have been read or actions.
And can you imagine, word just got out your kid is missing. Dozens of calls and messages coming in. Your inbox flooding, you delete messages to make sure you can read new ones.
Hypothetical, but not far fetched. People see a crime in literally everything they did.
Queue Barry in 3 2 1
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
Findings of Operarion Rectangle:-
Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that you understand how Eddie works - he alerts to a spot where he smells that a dead body had been there - NOT that there is a dead body under the concrete.
Like behind the McCanns' sofa - if the police had dug up the floor there would have been no body underneath. Try to read up and UNDERSTAND what you are writing, there' a good chap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you blabbering on about now? I never stated any of that. It's you who doesn't understand as you've once again proven.
What I posted about was from a report about the dog, it absolutely does alert to false positives and not only to where a dead body has been. Three reports stated it, Grimes, the handler, himself stated it.
Read the reports as you're full of false information you've read on websites and watched on YouTube, all information that has been refuted in the reports.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
That comment was for Puff not TOOR
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
comment by Hulk's little brother Yoda (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Picasso (U21397)
posted 23 seconds ago
Deleting your phone calls , around the timings of the disappearance, hmmmm.....not the sign of a innocent person..... why. .? What’s there to hide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you delete a phone call?? Deleting phone logs maybe. And texts.
You do realise this is 2007. I am not sure what phones they had, but I remember having to delete messages to recieve new ones.
They are doctors, maybe got loads of messages and calls. Not weird to delete messages that have been read or actions.
And can you imagine, word just got out your kid is missing. Dozens of calls and messages coming in. Your inbox flooding, you delete messages to make sure you can read new ones.
Hypothetical, but not far fetched. People see a crime in literally everything they did.
Queue Barry in 3 2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you had to delete texts and even calls or your inbox or answering machine box(forget what you call it ) became full.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 5 seconds ago
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, a cadaver dog is not evidence at all. It is only alerting to the smell of a cadaver, which could be there or has been there. Then it is up to law enforcement to corroborate that with forensic evidence. Which they never found. So the dog barking on its own is no evidence of anything.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 22 seconds ago
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't conclusive. The same dog has been found alerting to false positives. His own handler stated it also alerted to blood from a living person. The reports stated it, including during Operation Rectangle, when the same dog alerted to a piece of coconut shell, with them believing it was a piece of human skull. It's not in the slightest bit conclusive and therefore not admissible in court, without being backed up with proper evidence, which is what Grimes, the handler, stated in his witness account in the report.
They are innocent as hell
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 6 minutes ago
absolutely no evidence
------------------
Dogs don't lie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they do, if you can be bothered to read the reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reports deduced that the dogs actively lied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
——————-
Thanks for clearing that up.
Nothing new in that documentary. All those theories and arguments have been explored before. It's become one of those soap stories which must remain live and unsolved as a cash machine for conspiracy theorists and film makers, just like Jack the Ripper, JFK and MK370.
I don't know of they're innocent but I know there is no evidence against them for any of the terrible things people accuse them of. Most of the evidence people believed exists, which actually was proven wrong in the reports, especially in the case of the DNA found in the boot of the hire car, hired after Madeleine was missing, came from the idiot detective who was subsequently thrown off the case when he was found to have falsified evidence in another missing g persons case. He told everybody that 15 pieces of DNA out of 19 in the boot of the car were found to be Madeleine's when in actual fact it was 15 pieces out of 37, 15 of which could come from her parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and 22 of which were definitely not hers.
Of people could speak about the actual facts and not lies that have been refuted in the reports, such is their thirst for vengeance then they may be able to look at the evidence with an open mind.
I hate for these idiots to be sitting on a jury, they'd send people to jail as they don't like their face, with no evidence against them.
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 6 minutes ago
absolutely no evidence
------------------
Dogs don't lie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they do, if you can be bothered to read the reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reports deduced that the dogs actively lied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
——————-
Thanks for clearing that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, dogs can't speak mate. So they can't lie. Perhaps you should read the rest of the comment to learn something?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don't know of they're innocent but I know there is no evidence against them for any of the terrible things people accuse them of. Most of the evidence people believed exists, which actually was proven wrong in the reports, especially in the case of the DNA found in the boot of the hire car, hired after Madeleine was missing, came from the idiot detective who was subsequently thrown off the case when he was found to have falsified evidence in another missing g persons case. He told everybody that 15 pieces of DNA out of 19 in the boot of the car were found to be Madeleine's when in actual fact it was 15 pieces out of 37, 15 of which could come from her parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and 22 of which were definitely not hers.
Of people could speak about the actual facts and not lies that have been refuted in the reports, such is their thirst for vengeance then they may be able to look at the evidence with an open mind.
I hate for these idiots to be sitting on a jury, they'd send people to jail as they don't like their face, with no evidence against them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also the DNA was found to have come from 3-5 people.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 22 seconds ago
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't conclusive. The same dog has been found alerting to false positives. His own handler stated it also alerted to blood from a living person. The reports stated it, including during Operation Rectangle, when the same dog alerted to a piece of coconut shell, with them believing it was a piece of human skull. It's not in the slightest bit conclusive and therefore not admissible in court, without being backed up with proper evidence, which is what Grimes, the handler, stated in his witness account in the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SORRY but you are confused - you do know there were TWO dogs, one for the smell of dead bodies and the other for blood and other body fluids.
The dog either alerted to a smell or to body fluids, which was it ? Eddie, the corpse dog does not alert to bone per se so could NOT mistake a coconut for a skull. He isn't trained to look for bones, just the smell of a corpse - do you understand that ?
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 22 seconds ago
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't conclusive. The same dog has been found alerting to false positives. His own handler stated it also alerted to blood from a living person. The reports stated it, including during Operation Rectangle, when the same dog alerted to a piece of coconut shell, with them believing it was a piece of human skull. It's not in the slightest bit conclusive and therefore not admissible in court, without being backed up with proper evidence, which is what Grimes, the handler, stated in his witness account in the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SORRY but you are confused - you do know there were TWO dogs, one for the smell of dead bodies and the other for blood and other body fluids.
The dog either alerted to a smell or to body fluids, which was it ? Eddie, the corpse dog does not alert to bone per se so could NOT mistake a coconut for a skull. He isn't trained to look for bones, just the smell of a corpse - do you understand that ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do know. I'm not confused, this is contained in reports from experts, not some idiot who looks through co piracy websites and videos and believes everything he is told.
The experts stated, including the handler, that the dogs alert to blood from the living and produce false positives. Cant you read? I've stated this several times already. Look up the police report on these dogs which employed Grimes. Operation Rectangle, Grimes himself and the report on the McCann case. It is all there. Stop believing what people tell you on conspiracy websites and videos you nut job. Read the bloody report and put an end to your nonsense.
Sign in if you want to comment
Off topic - McCann documentary
Page 7 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 20/3/19
Only seen the first 6 episodes and haven't read into the case that much but I do find it odd the people who are convinced the McCanns killed her? Yes there is an element of child neglect that probably should have been looked at but it seems quite clear from what I've watched so far and read before that the likelihood of abduction was far far greater. The way the media treated the family was horrible to watch too, and in a way even watching this documentary adds to this as there's no need for it to be made other than for entertainment for the public.
posted on 20/3/19
Their table was booked for between 8 and 1 am.
They did not have line of sight from their table to their apartment as their was a large plastic type gazebo in the way.
Leaving the door unlocked to their apartment, adjacent to a public road, the mind boggles.......!
posted on 20/3/19
Deleting your phone calls , around the timings of the disappearance, hmmmm.....not the sign of a innocent person..... why. .? What’s there to hide.
posted on 20/3/19
comment by Picasso (U21397)
posted 1 minute ago
Their table was booked for between 8 and 1 am.
They did not have line of sight from their table to their apartment as their was a large plastic type gazebo in the way.
Leaving the door unlocked to their apartment, adjacent to a public road, the mind boggles.......!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it was stupid, even though they had agreement with the rest of the people that sat at the table that they would periodically go up and check each of the kids. This doesn't prove a murder though, just a stupid mistake.
posted on 20/3/19
comment by Picasso (U21397)
posted 14 seconds ago
Deleting your phone calls , around the timings of the disappearance, hmmmm.....not the sign of a innocent person..... why. .? What’s there to hide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoube never deleted calls? Did you kill somebody before deleting them?
posted on 20/3/19
I've lived about 30km from Luz for the last three years, and have known people on the area longer than that.
The locals here all agree on two things:
1. They feel very, very sorry for the child.
2. They are beyond sick to death of the investigations, and, particularly, the British press, which between them have ruined several people's lives, harassed many others and materially impacted the livelihoods of hundreds, if not thousands more.
They already knew very well about the competency and attitudes of both the GNR and the Polícia Judicial.
posted on 20/3/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
Findings of Operarion Rectangle:-
Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that you understand how Eddie works - he alerts to a spot where he smells that a dead body had been there - NOT that there is a dead body under the concrete.
Like behind the McCanns' sofa - if the police had dug up the floor there would have been no body underneath. Try to read up and UNDERSTAND what you are writing, there' a good chap.
posted on 20/3/19
comment by Picasso (U21397)
posted 23 seconds ago
Deleting your phone calls , around the timings of the disappearance, hmmmm.....not the sign of a innocent person..... why. .? What’s there to hide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you delete a phone call?? Deleting phone logs maybe. And texts.
You do realise this is 2007. I am not sure what phones they had, but I remember having to delete messages to recieve new ones.
They are doctors, maybe got loads of messages and calls. Not weird to delete messages that have been read or actions.
And can you imagine, word just got out your kid is missing. Dozens of calls and messages coming in. Your inbox flooding, you delete messages to make sure you can read new ones.
Hypothetical, but not far fetched. People see a crime in literally everything they did.
Queue Barry in 3 2 1
posted on 20/3/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
Findings of Operarion Rectangle:-
Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that you understand how Eddie works - he alerts to a spot where he smells that a dead body had been there - NOT that there is a dead body under the concrete.
Like behind the McCanns' sofa - if the police had dug up the floor there would have been no body underneath. Try to read up and UNDERSTAND what you are writing, there' a good chap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you blabbering on about now? I never stated any of that. It's you who doesn't understand as you've once again proven.
What I posted about was from a report about the dog, it absolutely does alert to false positives and not only to where a dead body has been. Three reports stated it, Grimes, the handler, himself stated it.
Read the reports as you're full of false information you've read on websites and watched on YouTube, all information that has been refuted in the reports.
posted on 20/3/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/3/19
That comment was for Puff not TOOR
posted on 20/3/19
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
posted on 20/3/19
Asked admin to delete it
posted on 20/3/19
comment by Hulk's little brother Yoda (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Picasso (U21397)
posted 23 seconds ago
Deleting your phone calls , around the timings of the disappearance, hmmmm.....not the sign of a innocent person..... why. .? What’s there to hide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you delete a phone call?? Deleting phone logs maybe. And texts.
You do realise this is 2007. I am not sure what phones they had, but I remember having to delete messages to recieve new ones.
They are doctors, maybe got loads of messages and calls. Not weird to delete messages that have been read or actions.
And can you imagine, word just got out your kid is missing. Dozens of calls and messages coming in. Your inbox flooding, you delete messages to make sure you can read new ones.
Hypothetical, but not far fetched. People see a crime in literally everything they did.
Queue Barry in 3 2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you had to delete texts and even calls or your inbox or answering machine box(forget what you call it ) became full.
posted on 20/3/19
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 5 seconds ago
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, a cadaver dog is not evidence at all. It is only alerting to the smell of a cadaver, which could be there or has been there. Then it is up to law enforcement to corroborate that with forensic evidence. Which they never found. So the dog barking on its own is no evidence of anything.
posted on 20/3/19
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 22 seconds ago
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't conclusive. The same dog has been found alerting to false positives. His own handler stated it also alerted to blood from a living person. The reports stated it, including during Operation Rectangle, when the same dog alerted to a piece of coconut shell, with them believing it was a piece of human skull. It's not in the slightest bit conclusive and therefore not admissible in court, without being backed up with proper evidence, which is what Grimes, the handler, stated in his witness account in the report.
posted on 20/3/19
They are innocent as hell
posted on 20/3/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 6 minutes ago
absolutely no evidence
------------------
Dogs don't lie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they do, if you can be bothered to read the reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reports deduced that the dogs actively lied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
——————-
Thanks for clearing that up.
posted on 20/3/19
Nothing new in that documentary. All those theories and arguments have been explored before. It's become one of those soap stories which must remain live and unsolved as a cash machine for conspiracy theorists and film makers, just like Jack the Ripper, JFK and MK370.
posted on 20/3/19
I don't know of they're innocent but I know there is no evidence against them for any of the terrible things people accuse them of. Most of the evidence people believed exists, which actually was proven wrong in the reports, especially in the case of the DNA found in the boot of the hire car, hired after Madeleine was missing, came from the idiot detective who was subsequently thrown off the case when he was found to have falsified evidence in another missing g persons case. He told everybody that 15 pieces of DNA out of 19 in the boot of the car were found to be Madeleine's when in actual fact it was 15 pieces out of 37, 15 of which could come from her parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and 22 of which were definitely not hers.
Of people could speak about the actual facts and not lies that have been refuted in the reports, such is their thirst for vengeance then they may be able to look at the evidence with an open mind.
I hate for these idiots to be sitting on a jury, they'd send people to jail as they don't like their face, with no evidence against them.
posted on 20/3/19
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 6 minutes ago
absolutely no evidence
------------------
Dogs don't lie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they do, if you can be bothered to read the reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reports deduced that the dogs actively lied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
——————-
Thanks for clearing that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, dogs can't speak mate. So they can't lie. Perhaps you should read the rest of the comment to learn something?
posted on 20/3/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don't know of they're innocent but I know there is no evidence against them for any of the terrible things people accuse them of. Most of the evidence people believed exists, which actually was proven wrong in the reports, especially in the case of the DNA found in the boot of the hire car, hired after Madeleine was missing, came from the idiot detective who was subsequently thrown off the case when he was found to have falsified evidence in another missing g persons case. He told everybody that 15 pieces of DNA out of 19 in the boot of the car were found to be Madeleine's when in actual fact it was 15 pieces out of 37, 15 of which could come from her parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and 22 of which were definitely not hers.
Of people could speak about the actual facts and not lies that have been refuted in the reports, such is their thirst for vengeance then they may be able to look at the evidence with an open mind.
I hate for these idiots to be sitting on a jury, they'd send people to jail as they don't like their face, with no evidence against them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also the DNA was found to have come from 3-5 people.
posted on 20/3/19
*MH370
posted on 20/3/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 22 seconds ago
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't conclusive. The same dog has been found alerting to false positives. His own handler stated it also alerted to blood from a living person. The reports stated it, including during Operation Rectangle, when the same dog alerted to a piece of coconut shell, with them believing it was a piece of human skull. It's not in the slightest bit conclusive and therefore not admissible in court, without being backed up with proper evidence, which is what Grimes, the handler, stated in his witness account in the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SORRY but you are confused - you do know there were TWO dogs, one for the smell of dead bodies and the other for blood and other body fluids.
The dog either alerted to a smell or to body fluids, which was it ? Eddie, the corpse dog does not alert to bone per se so could NOT mistake a coconut for a skull. He isn't trained to look for bones, just the smell of a corpse - do you understand that ?
posted on 20/3/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 22 seconds ago
If the cadaver dog evidence is so conclusive then why isn't being used as evidence? Im no cadaver dog expert but surely if it's as fool proof as you're making out then it would be used to convict the McCanns?
Even if the cadaver dog was correct, then how exactly did the McCanns dispose of the dead body while being surround by the police and media pretty much 24/7?
Abduction just seems to be so much more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't conclusive. The same dog has been found alerting to false positives. His own handler stated it also alerted to blood from a living person. The reports stated it, including during Operation Rectangle, when the same dog alerted to a piece of coconut shell, with them believing it was a piece of human skull. It's not in the slightest bit conclusive and therefore not admissible in court, without being backed up with proper evidence, which is what Grimes, the handler, stated in his witness account in the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SORRY but you are confused - you do know there were TWO dogs, one for the smell of dead bodies and the other for blood and other body fluids.
The dog either alerted to a smell or to body fluids, which was it ? Eddie, the corpse dog does not alert to bone per se so could NOT mistake a coconut for a skull. He isn't trained to look for bones, just the smell of a corpse - do you understand that ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do know. I'm not confused, this is contained in reports from experts, not some idiot who looks through co piracy websites and videos and believes everything he is told.
The experts stated, including the handler, that the dogs alert to blood from the living and produce false positives. Cant you read? I've stated this several times already. Look up the police report on these dogs which employed Grimes. Operation Rectangle, Grimes himself and the report on the McCann case. It is all there. Stop believing what people tell you on conspiracy websites and videos you nut job. Read the bloody report and put an end to your nonsense.
Page 7 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11