Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

HB

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:38 am

I never said that Eddie had corroborated anything.

I said that Eddie and Keela's markings are different. (they are)

I said that the dog in the boot was Keela (it is)

Eddie has never been in the boot.

Grimes quite clearly says that he has no intention of putting the dog in the boot (meaning Eddie)

So Eddie could not have corroborated evidence in the boot, if he has never been in it.

People keep saying that it is Eddie in the boot and it is not, it is Keela. Grimes said on video as Eddie had indicated at the seal, he had no intention of putting the dog in the boot. Also a dog cannot corroborate evidence, they may find corroborating evidence. But in this case Eddie found NOTHING, because he was not in the boot. Keela was and indicated, but even she had to be forced to do so and kept trying to jump out.

Personally, I do not think there was ever any evidence in the hire care for these dogs to find and if there was some kind of scent, it as not something these dogs were used to scenting, which is why they had great trouble doing it. Make of that what you will, but I know what I think of it.

The whole damn thing was a charade and on that they made these poor parents suspects? Disgraceful!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:04 pm

Rosiepops wrote:I never said that Eddie had corroborated anything.

I said that Eddie and Keela's markings are different. (they are)

I said that the dog in the boot was Keela (it is)

Eddie has never been in the boot.

Grimes quite clearly says that he has no intention of putting the dog in the boot (meaning Eddie)

So Eddie could not have corroborated evidence in the boot, if he has never been in it.

People keep saying that it is Eddie in the boot and it is not, it is Keela. Grimes said on video as Eddie had indicated at the seal, he had no intention of putting the dog in the boot. Also a dog cannot corroborate evidence, they may find corroborating evidence. But in this case Eddie found NOTHING, because he was not in the boot. Keela was and indicated, but even she had to be forced to do so and kept trying to jump out.

Personally, I do not think there was ever any evidence in the hire care for these dogs to find and if there was some kind of scent, it as not something these dogs were used to scenting, which is why they had great trouble doing it. Make of that what you will, but I know what I think of it.

The whole damn thing was a charade and on that they made these poor parents suspects? Disgraceful!

OK. We're on identical wavelengths, then. It's just that after another post of mine recently (which I can't now find) you reminded me about Keela being the dog in the boot which I don't think I'd disputed in that post (although I certainly had on another occasion before that, when you also corrected me.)

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

HB

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:43 pm

No problem, :D :D :D I remember saying something to you recently about it, however, I don't think I meant directly at you (if you know what I mean? - sorry for the confusion) If I mentioned it and I know I may well have, it may have been because I read something about it as the thread progressed and probably thought I would mention it. highfive

I just went and had a quick look and I found it and I can see now why we both thought the way we did.

by honestbroker on Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:28 pm

Pedro Silva wrote:
How can that in a car which was rented 25 days followed her abduction, how could she be there? The answer is no way, Madeleine was never in that car, the only things from her were clothes, toys, from her, from her twins, and that car, was used by the couple when they moved to new houses. How can the couple dispose a body, when everytime they went out or appear in public the media and lots of people were follow them wherever they go? The couple was the first time they visited PDL, it´s totally impossible for them to have the right knowledge of where to go, all the streets, al the persons, everything and everyone related to PDL under their knowledge.

Quite right, Pedro. Most significant is that Eddie the wonder-dog didn't verify forensic material recovered from the boot as 'cadaver'. That is, he didn't bark at all in the boot. And the area of the car where he did react to, no forensic material was recovered

The important thing is that people reading know that Eddie was never in that boot and that it was Keela. Have you read over on the 3 As, they are always going on about Eddie being in the boot, I am not sure if they are conveniently forgetting the facts or they are in denial and do not want to admit it.

After reading that post that Shingle produced about the doubts the PJ had about these dogs, which turns out to be exactly the same doubts we immediately had about that supposed 'so-called' dog evidence, I think the lot of them are in denial.

How come they just cannot see what is right before their eyes? I think because this sniffer dog thing is the last and remaining hope they have of trying to prove their ridiculous points and they see the holes, so they just do not want to admit it. Probably why Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy did the off shortly after these video clips appeared! They probably realise that they have been comprehensively wrong all along!

Funny business that, perhaps someone should report their disappearance to the PJ? No hope they will be found then, even if they left a map with, I am here located on it for them! :doyouwantdirec
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Also

Post by Rosie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:24 pm

Four thoughts just occurred to me.

1....The short clips of film of the dogs searching the cars, apartment and villa only revealed a mild passing interest in the car etc (and this was only after the dogs were actually forced to indicate). I consider this a damning indictment once again on Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, because Amaral, actually had the McCanns made suspects on this 'so-called' evidence! He and the Portuguese prosecutor 'must' have known that this was just nowhere near what would be required.
We have only been allowed to see short and highly edited clips of this video, I wonder what was on the full unabridged version? How much has actually been kept away from us? I wonder if there is a full unedited version of this film around?

ALSO

2....It has been revealed that in fact the dogs 'DID' search the beach. Considering that the search of the cars, apartment and villa was filmed, is it safe to assume that the search of the beach was filmed too? If so then where is the film of that search? If the search of the beach was 'NOT' filmed, why was it not filmed? Something is not adding up here. First we are led to believe by Amaral that Madeleine was buried on the beach and that the beach was NOT searched and then we discover that it was searched.

3....Where is the film of the dogs searching the beach? (The film if it exists probably showed Eddie and Keela having a good old romp about on the beach, sniffing and indicating at people's left overs all over the place!)

4....If the beach was searched as indicated by Martin Grimes and considering how important Amaral thinks this was, then why didn't Amaral include it officially in his book? Why did he only mention this 'AFTER' his book came out? Or has this got something to do with the other book deal and this film he has signed for? Just how much money is Amaral hoping to make out his incompetence and absolute failures concerning Madeleine and her parents?

I smell a smellarat does anyone else?

When is the Portuguese government going to stop this man and his charade, not only does he imo appear to be making a laughing stock of Portugal and bringing his former profession into disrepute, he is still failing Madeleine badly, to this very day! Because of him and his fairy tales, people that may hold that one vital piece of information, may be being discouraged from coming forward because they are being led to believe that Madeleine is dead and her parents killed her in some kind of bizarre set of events, apparently cooked up in the mind of Amaral.

The Truth of the Lie? I do not think that if the truth jumped up and bit Amaral's fat behind that he would recognise it. He is too far gone.

Time for a full and independent public inquiry into this dreadfully sad and tragic affair, if dear little Madeleine is to stand any chance at all of being found and the truth exposed, then this inquiry MUST happen.

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:02 pm

I´m sick of listening Amaral did this, Amaral did that. What he did was really wrong. Forget about him. Our concern is Madeleine welfare and her safe return to her parents where she really is. That is the most important. People, please, focus only on this achievement.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:05 pm

I´m sick of listening the dogs did this, the dogs did that. What the dogs were lead to do or trying to, were wrong. Forget the dogs. They are not reliable and so Amaral is not reliable too. Our concern must and should be uppermost in our minds the safe return of Madeleine to her parents where she really must be, where she really belongs. People, please, focus only on that concern, she is the most important.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:22 pm

If this is a forum to discuss certain topics, then, lets put aside Amaral and the dogs, none of them are reliable. Lets do some positive work, lets all think in ideas which can help in the search for Madeleine, she deserves to be found and reunited safe and sound with her family, so people, please, focus only in this concern. Any positive ideas are welcome here and please write them here and then send them to the couple. thumbsup2

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:30 pm

From Rosiepops:

The important thing is that people reading know that Eddie was never in that boot and that it was Keela. Have you read over on the 3 As, they are always going on about Eddie being in the boot, I am not sure if they are conveniently forgetting the facts or they are in denial and do not want to admit it.

I'd not read that, Rosie, no. But I'll bet the one thing they don't comment on over there is that the dog, whatever the name, never barked. So even (or perhaps especially) if it had been Eddie, what would be their explanation of the fact that he never responded to the only area where forensic material was gathered from the boot be?

After reading that post that Shingle produced about the doubts the PJ had about these dogs, which turns out to be exactly the same doubts we immediately had about that supposed 'so-called' dog evidence, I think the lot of them are in denial.

Yep! That's dynamite.

How come they just cannot see what is right before their eyes? I think because this sniffer dog thing is the last and remaining hope they have of trying to prove their ridiculous points and they see the holes, so they just do not want to admit it. Probably why Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy did the off shortly after these video clips appeared! They probably realise that they have been comprehensively wrong all along!

All they need, now, is for their hero Gonaclo to face a spot of bird, and their cup of happiness will be overflowing ... .

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:52 pm

Why do you people, insists about talking about the dogs and PJ and Amaral? Instead of talks about them, people, focus only on finding positive ideas which can help find this little girl who needs her parents.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Hi Pedro

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:59 pm

I understand your frustration, but there are many people that were sold this information by Amaral and now Mr. Bent it.

Where we see untruths we must correct them. So many lies have been printed.

IMO dispelling the lies is important, it was these lies that detracted the investigation away from Madeleine. How many people did not come forward with information because they had been convinced the parents were guilty.

My concern has always been for Madeleine and that will not change, but the witch hunt of her parents needs to stop also. And that can only be stopped by real facts being posted.
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:20 pm

Touché

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:21 pm

Touché my friend, you´re absolutely right. :D

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:39 pm

Quite right my friend, quite right.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:41 pm

Although. that experts indication (dogs) is totally wrong. The same about Gonzo.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Hey Pedro

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:42 am

I agree, :D
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Dog thread

Post by Dreamin on Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:25 am

There's a good thread on the 3A's at the moment called "The Elephants in the Room" started by sans-souci mentioning some of the points you've been bringing up!

ETA It started off being a good thread anyway! lol!

Dreamin
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 16
Registration date : 2008-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:55 am

Dreamin wrote:There's a good thread on the 3A's at the moment called "The Elephants in the Room" started by sans-souci mentioning some of the points you've been bringing up!

ETA It started off being a good thread anyway! lol!

Sans_souci is one of the few excellent posters left on that board. I've not read that thread, though. I must go and take a peek.

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Dreamin on Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:39 am

honestbroker wrote:

Sans_souci is one of the few excellent posters left on that board. I've not read that thread, though. I must go and take a peek.

I agree honestbroker, and I love his last post too saying " Anyway, back to the original post. Interesting to see which questions have been studiously ignored. And who is obviously a bit uncomfortable with the discussion. ;)"

I enjoyed reading your posts too though even though most of your posts now say "assorted insults deleted" or "goading and off-topic" lol!

Dreamin
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 16
Registration date : 2008-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Guest on Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:01 am

BIG up Sans souci. Same post by the one and only elswhere has a completely different response.

I'm not surprised at the response on 3A's by the usual suspects. The general opinion seems to be that because the dogs smelled something, never mind that the something is nothing, then there is no abduction theory. Only of death.

Talk about clutching at straws. This straw is imaginary!!

Sans Souci makes for some enjoyable reading on 3A's.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by honestbroker on Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:21 am

Dreamin wrote:
honestbroker wrote:

Sans_souci is one of the few excellent posters left on that board. I've not read that thread, though. I must go and take a peek.

I agree honestbroker, and I love his last post too saying " Anyway, back to the original post. Interesting to see which questions have been studiously ignored. And who is obviously a bit uncomfortable with the discussion. ;)"

I enjoyed reading your posts too though even though most of your posts now say "assorted insults deleted" or "goading and off-topic" lol!

Well, firstly, thank you for your kind words about my posts on that board. Alas, for the reason you allude to (and that I have described more fully elsewhere on this board) I can no longer post on 3As as I have been banned, which is frustrating, as I'd love to get my teeth into that debate sans_souci has begun. Curiously, on another board I visit, I was recently 'accused' of being sans_souci. I was actually quite flattered by the 'accusation'. But I am not!

At least two important questions sans_souci raises: does Eddie detect blood or a cadaver scent; and is his record of accuracy 100%?

The simple answer to the first question is one that, superficially, lends succour to the lynchKate&GerryRus mob. Eddie (and other dogs of his type) react to a scent, the scent of death. But scents originate from something, not nothing. That something might be blood, other bodily fluids, flesh or virtually anything else that is a component part of a body. However, two points are key: The component part (that triggers the scent) must have come from the body after death and at least two hours after death. Anything that comes from a body before then (including anything that comes from a body after death) will not be impregnated with the death scent. And, where blood, specifically, is concerned, independent corroboration from a cadaver dog is not necessary. From a link I unearthed from The Telegraph, citing a forensic expert on this subject, I learnt that it is possible to tell by microscopic examination in a laboratory whether blood examined has come from the body of someone living or someone dead. None of the forensic reports from Birmingham indicated blood from the body of anyone dead.

The second question: does Eddie have a 100% record. I'd guarantee that if you put that question to Martin Grimes, he'd shrug and say haven't a clue. A few years ago in Germany there was a study of cadaver dogs. Brand new squares of carpet were impregnated with the bodies of recently (longer than two hours) deceased bodies. Every effort was made to protect these squares of carpet from cross-contaminations, and control squares of carpets impregnated with the scents of living people were used. Then the accuracy of dogs were tested in repeated trials, using the same squares of carpets, lasting one month.

The key point is that, because all variables were set in advance and known, it was possible to monitor faithfully the accuracy of the dogs' reactions. In a real-life crime scene, you just don't get any of that, so you just can't know. This Eddie has never been wrong canard is an internet inspired myth, circa the McCann case.

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Dreamin on Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:37 pm

Honestbroker, I've just read your previous posts where you say you were banned and i would say I'm gobsmacked... but I'm not! The only thing that I'm gobsmacked at is that sans_souci is still there!

I thought they were excellent questions that he brought up and you've also answered them excellently too, I get a little lost when talking about the dogs to be honest but what you say makes perfect sense. Out of curiousity what did the results of the controlled tests show? 100% reliability? Although like you say they had something to measure against and no unknown quantities, in real life that is never going to happen and therefore could never be infallible. The fact that Martin Grimes has never come out and said that there was definitely a corpse in apartment 5A or in the scenic speaks volumes to me anyway. The same applies to the FSS, no one (other than Amaral) will actually commit themselves to any statement like that, and they are the professionals! Therefore if they are not 100% certain then how on earth can anyone else claim to be?

Thanks for that anyway :)

Dreamin
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 16
Registration date : 2008-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:39 pm

With all do respect, but, how many times do I have to say, that those dogs made a mistake, can´t you people see, that these dogs are not reliable, they made mistakes, think about this, how can a dog find some such flimsy evidences of a corpse (who was never been there) when lots of people, starting with the persons who cleans the 5A, visitors, PJ officers, GNR officers, after, during, before the couple arrived at PDL, rented the 5A, staff who belongs and owned the resort, been inside the 5A? The answer is: no way, I don´t buy that. I say again, about the Renault, how can the couple dispose a body with all the press on top of them? Come on people, get real, it was their first time at PDL, the couple had not now people knowed, they never knowed the names of people / persons, streets, shop and shop owners and everything related to PDL, so, how can they do that? Come on people, get real, the answer is: no way, impossible to be done. And their friends were at the same position as the couple, everytime they went out the press was all over them, they never been there at PDL before. Think about this before take wrong conclusions. Get real people.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:43 pm

Remember, several persons were inside the 5A looking for her, the 5 A was badly locked. My suspicion is (still is) from the very start, that someone planted evidences to switch the investigation to the wrong side: the couple. Come on people, grow up, get real.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:07 pm

We do not put faith in the dogs findings either, but like all other areas of the investigation, this is a topic for discussion. I object to you telling people to grow up and get real, I think that is an unfair comment.

We are actually, by way of discussion, proving that the dogs were not reliable.

Pedro you have to remember, although they do not post, we have guests that visit this forum, some are not of the same opinion as us.

Rather than just saying the dogs are unreliable, to change someones opinion you have to supply them with facts. Hopefully this thread will do that.
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Pedro Silva on Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:21 pm

That grow up, get real is not for any of you supporters at this forum, it´s for Gonzo and Bennet. Sorry, if it looks for you.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5572
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dog Evidence - Only An Indication - Experts

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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