View Full Version : Forensic Science Service Results - HELP WANTED
Tony Bennett
09-18-2008, 08:07 AM
I should be grateful if anyone could please look over this point from our proposed booklet: "What happened to Madeleine McCann: 30 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted". Is what we say (a) correct and (b) reasonably comprehensible?
It deals with the forensic findings of the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham.
Or if anyone could please piont me to a good source where their findings are discussed, I'd be grateful also:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++
30 Reasons
Reason (x). The forensic evidence of the DNA of blood found in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment, and in the boot of the McCanns' hired car, analysed by the Forensic Science Service here in England
ANSWER:
There have been claims and counter-claims about the significance of the forensic evidence obtained by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in Birmingham on samples of blood or body fluids found in the McCanns’ apartment and in the boot of the car they hired. The Doctors McCann and their spokesmen have claimed that the FSS results did not confirm that it was Madeleine’s dead body in the apartment and in the car.
So let us look carefully at what the FSS found.
In Apartment 5A, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’ both clearly marked precisely the same location - behind the sofa in the living room (which had been moved by the McCanns from its original location). The tiles where Keela scented the blood were carefully removed and sent to FSS. The blood found by Keela was by then degraded, quite possibly s the result of cleaning agents having been used, and the FSS lab was able to check only 5 markers. Each one of those 5 markers exactly matched Madeleine's DNA.
As for the Renault Scenic, registration no. 59-DA-27, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’, both clearly marked the same car and the same location within the car. The blood found there by Keela (beneath the carpeting in the boot) was also degraded. But the FSS lab was able, on its first analysis, to check 15 markers. All of these 15 markers matched Madeleine's DNA.
A second result showed the same 15 markers, but among a total of 37. An individual only has 19 ‘markers’. That means that the sample from the car had been contaminated by DNA from another individual. However, with 15 markers all matching Madeleine’s DNA, that would still give analysts 99.9% confidence that the samples were from Madeleine.
The DNA of the degraded blood was found not to match with the DNA of the twins, Sean and Amelie.
The law differs from country to country as to how many out of an individual’s 19 DNA ‘markers’ are needed to prove that any DNA sample comes from that individual. Many countries accept 15 markers as sufficient proof. Under Portuguese law, however, the courts require all 19 markers to be confirmed.
This was ‘Low Copy Number’ DNA and so all 19 markers could not be obtained.
The FSS were able to confirm that the results of the analysis were ‘indicative’ that the blood found was Madeleine’s. We might, without exaggeration, that these DNA results were ‘highly indicative’ that it was Madeleine’s blood that was found. But the FSS felt unable to say that these DNA results, on their own, were ‘conclusive’.
The key point to be made is this. The FSS results, on their own, do not provide absolute proof that the blood in the apartment and in the hired car was Madeleine’s. But the strongly indicative results, with all 5 markers being Madeleine’s in one sample and all 15 in another, must be taken together with all the other evidence in this case. And we can say without fear of successful contradiction that it is another piece of evidence in the case that points very strongly in the direction of Madeleine being dead in her holiday apartment on 3rd May 2007, the day she ‘disappeared’.
ENDS
Salem
09-18-2008, 09:53 AM
I agree it points very strongly towards a deceased Maddie. I don't know much about all these tests, but I am very curious why the FSS changed their minds about the DNA samples. They led PLE to believe they had strong samples, PLE makes the McCanns suspects and the the FSs backs off their original position. What happened?
Salem
Tony Bennett
09-18-2008, 10:59 AM
Salem, thank you.
One explanation I have heard is that in extracting DNA from the samples during the first round of testing, the cells became depleted or weakened in some way (i.e. due to the extracting of material for testing) and that therefore the second sample would not yield such conclusive results.
Not being technical on these matters, I am not sure if that is correct or not
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
colomom
09-18-2008, 11:51 AM
Forget about the blood.....what about the hair??
I read numerous times that hair can be tested to show if it came from a deceased person. What happened to the hair that was sent to the FSS? I read somewhere that the FSS did not have the capability to do the test. Does this make sense? I seriously doubt that one of the finest forensics labs in the world would not have this test.
We need to find out what happened to the hair!!
Tony Bennett
09-18-2008, 01:20 PM
Forget about the blood.....what about the hair?? I read numerous times that hair can be tested to show if it came from a deceased person. What happened to the hair that was sent to the FSS?...
We need to find out what happened to the hair!!
REPLY: Yes. I have scoured the published police reports, colomom, but I cannot so far find any reference to the hair said to have been found in the car boot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gatinho
09-18-2008, 04:52 PM
I think that is an excellent summary. However I would question this statement :
"Each one of those 5 markers exactly matched Madeleine's DNA."
I'm not sure whether you can have an 'exact' match form 5 markers - I think the point is that there were no markers that could not have come from Madeleine so the idea that it was her blood could not be discounted - but that 5 markers does not give positive identification either.
Barnaby
09-18-2008, 06:15 PM
I agree that it is an excellent summary Tony.
Colomon, I believe that I read somewhere that the hair samples were lost. I am so sorry I cannot think where I read this or I would provide link.
rashomon
09-19-2008, 06:39 PM
I read numerous times that hair can be tested to show if it came from a deceased person. What happened to the hair that was sent to the FSS? I read somewhere that the FSS did not have the capability to do the test. Does this make sense? I seriously doubt that one of the finest forensics labs in the world would not have this test.
The Caylee Anthony Case is interesting in that respect:
http://www.wftv.com/news/17315205/detail.html
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Orange County detectives were expected to meet with the State Attorney's office to discuss new evidence in the Caylee Anthony case. A source close to the investigation confirmed for Eyewitness News, that FBI test results show hair and a stain in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car belong to her daughter, 3-year-old Caylee Anthony. Eyewitness News was also told the evidence found proves that she is dead.
The State Attorney's Office also confirmed on Wednesday that Casey Anthony was invited to their office to shed light on the disappearance of Caylee. The State Attorney's Office is not revealing details about the offer of limited immunity. Eyewitness News has learned there is a time limit on that offer, however.
Eyewitness news spoke to a forensic expert to find out how investigators are able to use DNA to determine that a dead body was in Casey's trunk.
"Just putting the hair under the microscope one can tell the difference between a normal hair root and one that's been infected with bacteria after death." stated forensic expert Michael Baden.
So it seems if the hair contains the root, it can be determined whether it is from a a living or a deceased person.
Texana
09-19-2008, 07:15 PM
I remember we went through the discussion about the hair sample a month or so ago but I can't remember who gave us the links--I thought it was Tony B. but I could be wrong.
The FSS reportedly did not have the capacity to test for whether or not the hair was from living or deceased person. They refused to release the sample to another European lab that could test, as requested by the Portuguese authorities. They basically shut down on making any conclusions about the sample stating only the number of matching markers and that a definitive identification as Madeleine's could not be made.
However, they did NOT say that Madeleine was ruled out.
I thought of this immediately when the news about Caylee Anthony surfaced.
colomom
09-19-2008, 07:39 PM
That's what I remember too Tex.
Rashomon, do you think it is because there was no root attached to the Scenic hair sample? I seem to recall this being reported too.
Texana
09-19-2008, 08:54 PM
That's what I remember too Tex.
Rashomon, do you think it is because there was no root attached to the Scenic hair sample? I seem to recall this being reported too.
That could possibly be it...but the FSS also stalled in a very obvious way. They didn't announce that they couldn't rule out Madeleine and said only that they couldn't positively (99% match) identify the evidence as Madeleine's.
CaliKid
09-19-2008, 09:02 PM
I remember we went through the discussion about the hair sample a month or so ago but I can't remember who gave us the links--I thought it was Tony B. but I could be wrong.
The FSS reportedly did not have the capacity to test for whether or not the hair was from living or deceased person. They refused to release the sample to another European lab that could test, as requested by the Portuguese authorities. They basically shut down on making any conclusions about the sample stating only the number of matching markers and that a definitive identification as Madeleine's could not be made.
However, they did NOT say that Madeleine was ruled out.
I thought of this immediately when the news about Caylee Anthony surfaced.
From what I've learned through the Caylee case, the root is tested to determine whether the hair is from a dead or living person. In decomposition, black rings begin to form around the shaft of the hair at root level. So if the lab didn't have any roots for Madeleine's hair sample, it would be impossible to determine death.
colomom
09-19-2008, 09:57 PM
But Cali, even if the lab could not confirm decomposition couldn't they test for sedatives? I remember reading that the hair tested positive as belonging to someone from Kate's lineage.
There are so many tests that can be done and yet we do not hear word one about the results of the tests on the hair.
There should be some report with some sort of results.....
rashomon
09-20-2008, 03:30 AM
That's what I remember too Tex.
Rashomon, do you think it is because there was no root attached to the Scenic hair sample? I seem to recall this being reported too.
Possibly this was the case - that there was no root attached.
If they had found out the hair was form a dead Madeleine, the McCanns' story would have collapsed like a house of cards.
How many hairs were found in the trunk? One or more?
And where excactly was the hair (or were the hairs) found? Under the carpeting of the boot?
rashomon
09-20-2008, 04:03 AM
That could possibly be it...but the FSS also stalled in a very obvious way. They didn't announce that they couldn't rule out Madeleine and said only that they couldn't positively (99% match) identify the evidence as Madeleine's.
So there is the high probability that hair was Madeleine's.
I only know little about DNA, (therefore correct me if I'm wrong) but I think if they had had the root they could have done nuclear DNA testing which would yield more info.
So it seems they only did mitochondrial (?) DNA tests on the hair.
Have the other family members been ruled out?
Did the sniffer dog Eddie find cadaver odor in the trunk also?
twinkiesmom
09-20-2008, 09:59 AM
I wish they would tell or show us the hair....Cadavers shed scalp hair in clumps during decomp...If it was a large clump of hair rather than a few strands, it would have been obvious to investigators they were investigating a homicide.
The other thing they should have been able to tell is if the hair was pulled out or cut.
Salem
09-20-2008, 10:39 AM
That's what I remember too Tex.
Rashomon, do you think it is because there was no root attached to the Scenic hair sample? I seem to recall this being reported too.
I think it was because someone bought off the FSS. Might be the most famous lab in the country/world, but I will never believe results from them again.
There is no "test" for the hair. You put the hair under the microscope and look at it. Test done! That's all there is to it. Now if they were going to test for drug remnants in the hair, that might be harder and actually require some kind of test.
From all reports, there was more than one strand of hair. I honestly believe someone interfered with the work and the results of the FSS leaving me to conclude that if any politics are involved in a case at all, the FSS can not be trusted. Very sad comment on what supposedly is an outstanding lab with great capability and the ability to use the greatest and lastest research tools and techniques.
I don't see any other reason for not being able to "test" the hair?:eek:
Salem
rashomon
09-20-2008, 12:57 PM
I think it was because someone bought off the FSS. Might be the most famous lab in the country/world, but I will never believe results from them again.
There is no "test" for the hair. You put the hair under the microscope and look at it. Test done! That's all there is to it. Now if they were going to test for drug remnants in the hair, that might be harder and actually require some kind of test.
From all reports, there was more than one strand of hair. I honestly believe someone interfered with the work and the results of the FSS leaving me to conclude that if any politics are involved in a case at all, the FSS can not be trusted. Very sad comment on what supposedly is an outstanding lab with great capability and the ability to use the greatest and lastest research tools and techniques.
I don't see any other reason for not being able to "test" the hair?:eek:
Salem
I know from another criminal case (the Jeffrey MacDonald case) that DNA tests can be conducted on hair so there is much more to it than mere microscopic comparison.
Convicted family murderer Jeffrey MacDonald claimed for decades that the alleged 'mystery hair' found in his dead wife's hand was from an intruder. For back in 1970 when she was killed, DNA analysis did not yet exist, and the lab tech (having only microscopic analysis as a tool) had concluded the hair was not MacDonald's.
A few yers ago, the hair was finally DNA tested and the result was unequivocal: the 'mystery hair' WAS Jeffrey MacDonald's own hair. The lab tech had made a mistake back in 1970.
But I think a lot depends on whether or not the lab techs have the root of the hair.
colomom
09-20-2008, 02:03 PM
I know from another criminal case (the Jeffrey MacDonald case) that DNA tests can be conducted on hair so there is much more to it than mere microscopic comparison.
Convicted family murderer Jeffrey MacDonald claimed for decades that the alleged 'mystery hair' found in his dead wife's hand was from an intruder. For back in 1970 when she was killed, DNA analysis did not yet exist, and the lab tech (having only microscopic analysis as a tool) had concluded the hair was not MacDonald's.
A few yers ago, the hair was finally DNA tested and the result was unequivocal: the 'mystery hair' WAS Jeffrey MacDonald's own hair. The lab tech had made mistake back in 1970.
But I think a lot depends on whether or not the lab techs have the root of the hair.
I know for a fact that you can do drug testing from cut hair so, at minimum, we should have an absolute positive or negative for drugs on the hair.
I find it difficult to believe that the FSS has been bought but, if they have, I will become a very suspicious person....
Salem
09-20-2008, 04:58 PM
You guys are right - but if I remember correctly, FSS was asked to determine if the hair was pre- or post- mortum. That can be done by looking under a microscope. You or I could do it according to the forensic experts on Nancy Grace discussing Caylee's hair. It is my recollection that FSS said they could not do this "test" because they did not have the equipment. They never indicated that they did not have a "root" and supposedly there was a clump of hair, not just one strand. So... in my mind, FSS's response is highly suspect. Why do they not come out and say there were no hair roots or that there was only one strand of hair? Why say they don't have the equipment? Also, if I recollect, they said they could not distinguish the DNA of the hair with certainty from that of Kate or the twins. However, if the hair was from a post mortum body, it would go a long way toward establishing who's hair it was, because Kate and the twins are still alive.
Just my opinion, of course. And Colomom, I'm like you in that I try hard to discount conspiracy theories. Generally I trust LE and those associated with the investigation to be truthful and forthcoming. But in this case, I just don't believe the response that came from FSS. I think the final results were contradictory to their early responses.
Salem
Texana
09-20-2008, 05:28 PM
You guys are right - but if I remember correctly, FSS was asked to determine if the hair was pre- or post- mortum. That can be done by looking under a microscope. You or I could do it according to the forensic experts on Nancy Grace discussing Caylee's hair. It is my recollection that FSS said they could not do this "test" because they did not have the equipment. They never indicated that they did not have a "root" and supposedly there was a clump of hair, not just one strand. So... in my mind, FSS's response is highly suspect. Why do they not come out and say there were no hair roots or that there was only one strand of hair? Why say they don't have the equipment? Also, if I recollect, they said they could not distinguish the DNA of the hair with certainty from that of Kate or the twins. However, if the hair was from a post mortum body, it would go a long way toward establishing who's hair it was, because Kate and the twins are still alive.
Just my opinion, of course. And Colomom, I'm like you in that I try hard to discount conspiracy theories. Generally I trust LE and those associated with the investigation to be truthful and forthcoming. But in this case, I just don't believe the response that came from FSS. I think the final results were contradictory to their early responses.
Salem
I agree, the FSS final response was highly suspect, not only for what it did say, but for what it didn't. Usually reports start out by saying as well what cannot be ruled out, but you had to infer that from the final statement. It sounded as if it couldn't be Madeleine at all, but the possibility of the source being Madeleine was quite clear--once you read the statement two or three times.
It was obfuscating and like you Salem, I discard conspiracy theories as just impractical, but this one had the heavy hand of a powerful hand all over the editing.
CaliKid
09-22-2008, 02:47 AM
I agree. It's like a lab technician giving evidence during a trial when the defense atty. asks if there is a possibility that the specimen isn't the victim's. And even though it is 99.99% positive, that .01% prevented the lab from stating it as fact. So it's very possible the hair was Madeleine's, but some major player squashed the evidence... or caused the specimen to be lost during transit.
Barnaby
09-22-2008, 05:58 AM
Sadly, I believe that something went awry in the FSS lab. I think that we could have had conclusive proof if someone powerful had not intervened!
Stranger things have happened in this corrupt world of ours!
rashomon
09-23-2008, 06:39 PM
In Apartment 5A, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’ both clearly marked precisely the same location - behind the sofa in the living room (which had been moved by the McCanns from its original location).
Could it be establshed when exactly the McCanns moved the sofa next to the window? Was it right after they moved into the apartment?
jmo
colomom
09-23-2008, 06:52 PM
Could it be establshed when exactly the McCanns moved the sofa next to the window? Was it right after they moved into the apartment?
jmo
Only the McCanns know for sure....
Tony Bennett
09-29-2008, 02:23 PM
Just a short note to thank everyone here for their contributions.
The press in August/September mentioned hairs and even a 'clump' of hairs.
I am wondering if Amaral mentions hair in the car boot in his book?
If anyone knows one way or the other, please post here or 'pm' me, many thanks.
++++++
So far as possible corruption in British forensic circles is concerned, look no further than the discredited, part-qualified, non-University-attached former Home Office pathologist Dr Michael Heath.
Guess who was brought in to pronounce that government scientist Dr David Kelly, who had embarrassed the British government over so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, had committted suicide?
And guess who Essex Police brought in to pronounced that Stuart Lubbock had died from drowning in a tragic swimming accident, when - later - three other pathologists thought that the likeliest cause of death was asphyxiation and/or massive internal injuries caused by anal penetration by a large firm object?
You are only allowed one guess in each case.
P.S. Last year Dr Michael Heath was disciplined by the Central Criminal Court and the General Medical Council over unacceptable shortcomings in several of his autopsies
--------------------------------------------------------------------
anne11
10-14-2008, 05:17 AM
I found an old article from the times, saying that "a surprising amount" of Madelaines hair was found in the hire car.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2424822.ece
Tony Bennett
10-14-2008, 01:04 PM
I found an old article from the times, saying that "a surprising amount" of Madeleines hair was found in the hire car.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2424822.ece
Hallo Anne11, thanks for posting, unfortunately the link didn't work.
Are you able to post the key points in that article please?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morag
10-14-2008, 02:07 PM
Hallo Anne11, thanks for posting, unfortunately the link didn't work.
Are you able to post the key points in that article please?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, Tony, I'm not Anne, but here is a link that works:
Morag
Leviosa
10-14-2008, 11:35 PM
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Simply as an interested person, and living in the USA, coverage of Maddie's plight was difficult and sporadic at best.
First, how would one find, write to, or procure the police report, such as the one you referenced in your writing?
Pursuant to your submission, each statement must (for me anyway) go through the process of plausibility and truth. Moreover, each statement must meet my criteria of "Reasonable doubt."
As for me, the question begins with this notion: Why on earth was Maddie's hair, blood, perhaps even bodily fluids, found in the boot of one's hire car?
I loved the remark "...crashing down like a house of cards..." insofar as it certainly fits in this regard. It is unusual at best to find these types of idyosyncracies where they were found.
Predicated upon these particulars alone, I am still amazed at how PLE and BLE have handled this case. Cheers mate.
Morag
10-16-2008, 06:43 PM
Sometime around the time the information about the hair in the trunk came out, Kate was said to describe how she washed M's hair and 'gently removed' the pink bead that had been woven into her hair. I always thought that was an odd thing to say and wondered if she was trying to tell us or herself some story about why a clump of hair might have been found. Does anyone else remember the pink bead story?
Here is the link again- it seems to have disappeared from my previous post: (?)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2429822.ece
Texana
10-16-2008, 11:30 PM
Sometime around the time the information about the hair in the trunk came out, Kate was said to describe how she washed M's hair and 'gently removed' the pink bead that had been woven into her hair. I always thought that was an odd thing to say and wondered if she was trying to tell us or herself some story about why a clump of hair might have been found. Does anyone else remember the pink bead story?
Here is the link again- it seems to have disappeared from my previous post: (?)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2429822.ece
I don't recall ever seeing the pink bead story. That certainly sounds like something Kate would say to explain any pieces or clumps of hair--I've got to say having had children who had their hair braided and beaded, "gently" is the last way you can undo the braids and beads. They're not really meant to undo easily.
Thanks for reposting the link!
I think that is an excellent summary. However I would question this statement :
"Each one of those 5 markers exactly matched Madeleine's DNA."
I'm not sure whether you can have an 'exact' match form 5 markers - I think the point is that there were no markers that could not have come from Madeleine so the idea that it was her blood could not be discounted - but that 5 markers does not give positive identification either.
Legally, 5 markers can not be used as positive identification, however, scientists know that 5 markers is pretty positive. The only reason it isn't totally positive is because close relatives may have the same 5 markers. So, it could be a relative.
Just an aside, I have participated in a "crime lab" to study DNA testing in a group of about 100 students. We only checked 3 markers. ON personal served as a pretend criminal that donated his DNA for the purposes of the experiment. There was not a single other student with those same markers. And when we compared his marker combinations with the general population for his race...it was a 99.2% match.
j
thentherewere4
12-05-2008, 09:29 AM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/3076553839_63aa151c02.jpg?v=0
rashomon
12-12-2008, 06:03 PM
I remember we went through the discussion about the hair sample a month or so ago but I can't remember who gave us the links--I thought it was Tony B. but I could be wrong.
The FSS reportedly did not have the capacity to test for whether or not the hair was from living or deceased person. They refused to release the sample to another European lab that could test, as requested by the Portuguese authorities. They basically shut down on making any conclusions about the sample stating only the number of matching markers and that a definitive identification as Madeleine's could not be made.
However, they did NOT say that Madeleine was ruled out.
I thought of this immediately when the news about Caylee Anthony surfaced.
Texana, do you have the source where it says the FFJ did not have the capacity to test the hair for whether or not it was form a living or dead person?
Salem
12-12-2008, 07:26 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/3076553839_63aa151c02.jpg?v=0
We all know the McCanns are "in the frame" because of the DNA results. The problem is that LE can not or will not act.
I sincerely hope that the McCanns are hearing a lot of news on the Caylee Anthony case and that it is keeping them awake at night.
Salem
Texana
12-13-2008, 08:35 PM
Texana, do you have the source where it says the FFJ did not have the capacity to test the hair for whether or not it was form a living or dead person?
I don't think so anymore. Some of the links that used to work, don't work anymore. :-( It was this summer though that I did have the links before for the British media reports.
However, the reports made absolute sense as to why we heard nothing further from the testing. The strands/clumps of hair had a significant number of markers that tied them to Madeleine or a member of her family, but there were not enough to undeniably say they were from Madeleine. SO, the official word was "not able to identify" and nothing more. The fact that the clumps or strands WERE enough to identify the source as a McCann family member was left out.
Second, the fact that the British lab did not have the testing ability to tell whether or not the strands came from a living or dead person, was absolutely correct as well--as reported, they "could not identify" or words to that effect, the life status of the source.
Nice parsing of words there, because the reason they could not identify, was that they lacked the testing ability.
FSS refused to send their sample on to another European lab that did claim to have that ability, and so there it ended.
I've got some sources bookmarked on other computers, I"ll look at them., but I've found it increasingly hard to get some of these sources. I'd say "Clarence at work" but that sounds so gosh darned conspiracy theorist--and yet--I can pull reports and sources for the darndest old things. Just not this. Hmm.
thentherewere4
12-15-2008, 04:28 AM
We all know the McCanns are "in the frame" because of the DNA results. The problem is that LE can not or will not act.
I sincerely hope that the McCanns are hearing a lot of news on the Caylee Anthony case and that it is keeping them awake at night.
Salem
Sorry can you tell me what LE stands for?
LE = Leicestershire Police / Constabulary?
colomom
12-15-2008, 09:49 AM
Sorry can you tell me what LE stands for?
LE = Leicestershire Police / Constabulary?
I'll jump in here TTW4...LE=Law Enforcement, so it could be any law enforcement agency involved in this case. None of them can/will do anything to bring justice to Maddie, or so it seems....
colomom
12-15-2008, 10:06 AM
I read the same thing about the FSS not being able to conduct certain testing and that was why we never heard any conclusive results about the hair. There is a good thread (or 2 or 3) on 3As about the testing. One of them is here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=24964
Most of the final reports from the FSS are outlined and discussed here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26484&p=770982&hilit=FSS+final+report#p770982
Another good thread is here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=26115&hilit=+FSS+final+report
And also: http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=26338&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=DVD+Forensics+science
Lots of good reading....
thentherewere4
12-17-2008, 06:34 AM
Thank you for the info colomon.
Yeah, Law Enforcement is kind of arbitary in this case. It was subverted a while back.
Pinkhammer
12-29-2008, 10:41 PM
Interesting thread. The Caylee case does indeed have many similarities to the Maddie case.
The two mothers share some characteristics, too. Narcissistic and deceitful.
scandi
12-29-2008, 11:49 PM
REPLY: Yes. I have scoured the published police reports, colomom, but I cannot so far find any reference to the hair said to have been found in the car boot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tony, Great to see you;}
The hair found in the boot might be one of those things LE or the prosecutor is still holding close to their vest. We have been told there is info which is still witheld from the public.
The hair from a dead person can be determined with the naked eye in that after death a dark ring forms around the hair at the root.
At 3A's I read there were only 2 hairs tested that were reported on and I was totally Gobsmacked at reading that.
I usually put credence in first reports as there has not been time yet for the SPIN to go round and round. The first thing we learned was there was a massive amount of hair found in the boot. I tend to believe that, it rolled out of the 'package' when put in or taken out of the boot and not noticed as they were either too drunk or traumatized by the events!
xox
brit1981
06-24-2012, 08:28 AM
was this thread started by the same Tony bennett who is now facing prison for making false allegations?
SapphireSteel
07-14-2012, 06:11 PM
was this thread started by the same Tony bennett who is now facing prison for making false allegations?
Regardless of who started it, it is a very interesting thread by several posters, and raises some compelling questions about the DNA and missing hair.
:moo:
brit1981
07-17-2012, 09:13 AM
No it does not, all it shows is that a lot of misinformation was put about.
SapphireSteel
07-17-2012, 05:38 PM
No it does not, all it shows is that a lot of misinformation was put about.
I don't see how misinformation was "put about"? The McCanns have been particularly litigious and tried (and partially succeeded) to gag anyone who raised any questions that did not fit into their prescribed story. If anyone is "putting misinformation about" it was the McCanns, by attempting widespread censorship via court order.
Either the hair existed or it didn't (it did)
Either the hair went missing at FSS Ltd or it didn't (it did).
How is that misinformation? Do not forget it was the BRITISH police who provided the sniffer dogs and the laboratory testing.
imamaze
07-19-2012, 08:53 AM
If you are going to post something as fact then you must have a link to back it up. If your giving an opinion then say so. Without back up it is not fact.
You can disagree with what someone says, do it in a respectful way. Everyone's opinion is important here. Its against TOS to attack another member for their opinion.
Thank you
Ima
saggymoon
07-19-2012, 10:11 PM
If you are going to post something as fact then you must have a link to back it up. If your giving an opinion then say so. Without back up it is not fact.
You can disagree with what someone says, do it in a respectful way. Everyone's opinion is important here. Its against TOS to attack another member for their opinion.
Thank you
Ima
A most excellent post something certain posters coukd do with reading twice at least!!!!!
Now where were we brit81, you owe me evidence of your statement that mr grime said keela the csi blood dog has made false alerts in the past, balls in YOUR court dear x
brit1981
07-20-2012, 07:45 AM
I have posted that link several times saggy, just every tiem I post it you claim you want me to post it again.
But do you want to post a link that proves madeleine is dead as you have set up a rip thread for her claiming she is dead. As the police have stated they do not know she is dead, I am surprised you have not taken your evidence to them before decalring it on the internet. But maybe you have, and for some reason the police were fine with you releasing this information.
SapphireSteel
08-08-2012, 12:27 AM
Nobody knows exactly what happened to Madeleine. All we can do is make educated guesses based on statistics, knowlege, education and instinct.
I believe she is dead, and has been since the evening she disappeared.
brit1981
08-08-2012, 06:13 AM
Well, we could make educated guesses on the evidence which only the police have in its entirety. The police in their review have said they believe it to be a stranger abduction, and that there is a possibility madeleine is still alive.
SapphireSteel
08-08-2012, 06:58 PM
Well, we could make educated guesses on the evidence which only the police have in its entirety. The police in their review have said they believe it to be a stranger abduction, and that there is a possibility madeleine is still alive.
Short of finding her body, no one actually knows, which makes it interesting when someone ignores all the circumstantial evidence (of which there are truckloads) and INSISTS they know that the opposite occured.
Short of finding her body, no one actually knows, which makes it interesting when someone ignores all the circumstantial evidence (of which there are truckloads) and INSISTS they know that the opposite occured.
Thats the thing police forces and the judicary dont deal in circumstancial evidence, rumour and the like - well at least the ones in this country - they deal in hard evidence , forensics , witneseses ,
That is why after the Mccanns were rightly investigated they were never even charged of any crime and are free citizens.
Until hard evidence does appear to the contrary they remain free citizens in the eyes of the law . and in a modern democratic nation that is exactly how things should be - I am sure if you ever found your self in the wrong side of the law you would want to be treated fairly and within the due process of the law.
brit1981
08-09-2012, 06:39 AM
There was no circumstantial evidence against the mccanns anyway.
Donjeta
08-09-2012, 08:45 AM
Thats the thing police forces and the judicary dont deal in circumstancial evidence, rumour and the like - well at least the ones in this country - they deal in hard evidence , forensics , witneseses ,
That is why after the Mccanns were rightly investigated they were never even charged of any crime and are free citizens.
Until hard evidence does appear to the contrary they remain free citizens in the eyes of the law . and in a modern democratic nation that is exactly how things should be - I am sure if you ever found your self in the wrong side of the law you would want to be treated fairly and within the due process of the law.
BBM: Not really true. Courts and the police deal with circumstantial evidence all the time.
Most forensic evidence and many witness statements are considered circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It does not mean the opposite of "hard evidence", it's the opposite of direct evidence. Direct evidence would be a witness saying they saw a certain someone commit a crime. Forensic evidence such as fingerprints at the crime scene, or witness statements e.g. placing someone near the crime scene are circumstantial because you need to put facts together to make inferences about who committed the crime.
BBM: Not really true. Courts and the police deal with circumstantial evidence all the time.
Most forensic evidence and many witness statements are considered circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence)
It does not mean the opposite of "hard evidence", it's the opposite of direct evidence. Direct evidence would be a witness saying they saw a certain someone commit a crime. Forensic evidence such as fingerprints at the crime scene, or witness statements e.g. placing someone near the crime scene are circumstantial because you need to put facts together to make inferences about who committed the crime.
ok yes point made - circumstancial evidence is used by police to build a case - but in general especialy in a murder case it has to be pretty undsputable
The point I was trying to make was that police and courts deal in facts and coroberation to present a case as opposed to rumour mill . The dogs might be called circumstancial - but without hard forensics they mean very little
Anyway I am not a lawyer and criminal law can be complicated so I have heard - but will agree with you on circumstancial
SapphireSteel
08-17-2012, 03:37 PM
ok yes point made - circumstancial evidence is used by police to build a case - but in general especialy in a murder case it has to be pretty undsputable
The point I was trying to make was that police and courts deal in facts and coroberation to present a case as opposed to rumour mill . The dogs might be called circumstancial - but without hard forensics they mean very little
Anyway I am not a lawyer and criminal law can be complicated so I have heard - but will agree with you on circumstancial
We all know of miscarriages of justice where innocent people have been convicted.
Unfortunately it often seems your legal advice is dependant on how much money you have. This is an inherent failure of the justice system. Innocent people can and do get convicted of murder. Just look how many in the US who have been sentenced to death or life in prison, and are now exonerated. It is in the hundreds and most of them recent, all of them poor. Absolutely astounding.
A smart lawyer, some blurry forensics, and you walk away with blood on your hands.
Sad but true.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
fabgod
08-17-2012, 06:34 PM
We all know of miscarriages of justice where innocent people have been convicted.
Unfortunately it often seems your legal advice is dependant on how much money you have. This is an inherent failure of the justice system. Innocent people can and do get convicted of murder. Just look how many in the US who have been sentenced to death or life in prison, and are now exonerated. It is in the hundreds and most of them recent, all of them poor. Absolutely astounding.
A smart lawyer, some blurry forensics, and you walk away with blood on your hands.
Sad but true.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
I have to agree Sapphire, I am amazed at how some cases have been brought to trial in the not so distant past that seemed to be almost guaranteed convictions, yet they walk away.
It does seem that money can almost make you above the law.
SapphireSteel
08-17-2012, 06:43 PM
I have to agree Sapphire, I am amazed at how some cases have been brought to trial in the not so distant past that seemed to be almost guaranteed convictions, yet they walk away.
It does seem that money can almost make you above the law.
Or, worse, not being brought to trial at all.
We see that too often here too.
DNA and forensics are a double edged sword. If there don't appear to be definitive results, like this case, it can make LE less keen to prosecute - juries now expect forensics and hesitate to find guilt without it. The CSI effect.
Factor in some fancy lawyers, and a vanished body, and it's game over.
:banghead:
ETA - I've actually seen it suggested that the entire holiday was planned...and went to plan.
fabgod
08-17-2012, 06:48 PM
Or, worse, not being brought to trial at all.
We see that too often here too.
DNA and forensics are a double edged sword. If there don't appear to be definitive results, like this case, it can make LE less keen to prosecute - juries now expect forensics and hesitate to find guilt without it. The CSI effect.
Factor in some fancy lawyers, and a vanished body, and it's game over.
:banghead:
ETA - I've actually seen it suggested that the entire holiday was planned...and went to plan.
I know its easy to make a conspiracy fit, but in this case, its almost as if we have been fed the pieces, sort of forcing the belief that there is something fundamentally flawed right from the off.
If it was a film, you would walk out halfway through becasue it was so unbelievable!
Cappuccino
08-17-2012, 07:00 PM
Truth can be stranger than fiction.
It works the other way around too though - innocent people can be convicted, especially when they don't have the money to hire a lawyer and are dependent on public defenders. They get less attention, because obviously they don't have the money or power to get the same attention. But if you read Sapphire's link, you'll see that for every OJ Simpson there's and Earl Washingon Jr. and for every Casey Anthony there's a Linda Chamberlain.
fabgod
08-17-2012, 07:33 PM
Truth can be stranger than fiction.
It works the other way around too though - innocent people can be convicted, especially when they don't have the money to hire a lawyer and are dependent on public defenders. They get less attention, because obviously they don't have the money or power to get the same attention. But if you read Sapphire's link, you'll see that for every OJ Simpson there's and Earl Washingon Jr. and for every Casey Anthony there's a Linda Chamberlain.
Amazed is about all I can say on that link!
I know the US is a huge country and I suppose without seeming or meaning to be flippant, 17 deaths is not a large percentage for a Nation with so many people, that doesnt help the poor people that lost their lives though.
One error is too many, especially if you are that one error, but its a terrible situation to be in, found guilty of a crime that you didnt commit and being jailed for it, It just doesn't bear thinking about!
This then leads to the question, how do you liminate errors? I suppose there is no foolproof way, DNA testing has only relatively recently been developed and is still I guess, in its infancy as far as how much more developed it will become,
but part of the problem surely is in the pressures that are being pplaced on LE and the Police over here in the UK for example, where everything has tobe so politically correct and human rights have almost gone to the extreme.
I know the intention is to eliminate erros in condeming innocents but there doesnt really seem to be a complete solution, to me anyway.
Tahnks very enlightening.
Cappuccino
08-17-2012, 07:44 PM
I don't think DNA is going to save things, fabgood. Its great when its there, but DNA is only present in approx. 10% of crimes, and only 4.5% of murders.
It would be more important IMO to concentrate on improving police practice across the board, and equalising justice for those at the lower end of the economic scale by funding and training public defenders better. Being rich shouldn't have ever given the likes of OJ Simpson a free pass, but being a homeless guy with a below 70 IQ shouldn't have ever convicted Earl Washington and landed him on Death Row either.
Anyway, I don't want to get off topic. Wrt Madeleine's case specifically, I think its obvious that the parents have to be looked at first in the case of any missing child. That shouldn't equate into developing tunnel vision about the parents, even long after LE has dropped them as suspects.
fabgod
08-17-2012, 08:23 PM
You are right, sad to say but there will most likely always be errors in any system but improving the standard would undoubtedly help, It should be a level playing field for everybody, but, as we know too well, money talks and money is power in this world.
Back to Madeleine, the more I look into what I thought I already knew, the more twisted it becomes, there doesnt seem to be any clear indication of blame or link that can be classed as solid anywhere I look.
Obviously, the PJ and the UK police will have far more to work with and as an outsider with only bits to work with, I acknowledge that there is very little chance of being able to form any real opinion on the case.
With regard to the parents, my instinct leds me to think that there is something that is hidden, many things regarding their peculiar (to me) actions would fit more logically if there was knowledge for example of a kidnap.
I know there is nothing at all to lead to that conclusion, but the way that certain people have acted, the statements that they (the parents)and the UK police have made just seem to me, to lead to an almost unjustified portrayal of their innocence.
Certainly the evidence I have seen just from the timelines is that thier timings are very very poor, the sighting from Jane Tanner is almost forced into fitting, even though just a casual look at those timings would seem to leave a virtual miracle for an abductor to have walked away with the child at the times specified.
For a UK police force to have a link to what were suspects in the case, seems to be odd, its a little like saying Casey Anthony has a link to her "swimming pools for kids" fundraising site on the Florida PD website, it just doesnt seem, to the average man in the street who takes more than a passing interest in the case, to add up.
I know the arguido status was dropped but I have looked at the reports from the PJ and the inference to me at least, does seem to state that that Arguido ststus was dropped because of lack of evidence and not no evidence.
rightly or wrongly I feel that the PJ do still believe that the McCanns were involved, I cannot beleieve that they could have covered up a death so quickly and coldly anf then involved others that have apparently covered up and stayed silent, but something feels amiss, i just don't know what
Cappuccino
08-17-2012, 11:54 PM
What feels amiss, fabgod, is that you don't know the answer. And an argument from lack of knowledge will always be flawed, no matter how convincing it sounds without full knowledge.
None of us know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but what we do know is this - parents or other adults involved in a child's life have to be the first suspects in any case of a missing/murdered child under the age of 12. Experience tells us that.
When those parents and other adults have been looked at as suspects by the police and eliminated as suspects by the police, (who have fuller information than we do), its best to move on and stop wasting our time over analysing their every move and their every word. Research has shown that the accounts given in the immediate aftermath of a missing child is notoriously inconsistent from those closest to the child. In fact, eyewitness evidence generally is very unreliable.
If there is no evidence, that we know of, that Madeleine's parents did anything to her then the most sensible thing to do is take the default position that they didn't do anything. At least that way, people will still regard her as missing and still keep looking for her.
fabgod
08-18-2012, 05:17 AM
What feels amiss, fabgod, is that you don't know the answer. And an argument from lack of knowledge will always be flawed, no matter how convincing it sounds without full knowledge.
None of us know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but what we do know is this - parents or other adults involved in a child's life have to be the first suspects in any case of a missing/murdered child under the age of 12. Experience tells us that.
When those parents and other adults have been looked at as suspects by the police and eliminated as suspects by the police, (who have fuller information than we do), its best to move on and stop wasting our time over analysing their every move and their every word. Research has shown that the accounts given in the immediate aftermath of a missing child is notoriously inconsistent from those closest to the child. In fact, eyewitness evidence generally is very unreliable.
If there is no evidence, that we know of, that Madeleine's parents did anything to her then the most sensible thing to do is take the default position that they didn't do anything. At least that way, people will still regard her as missing and still keep looking for her.
I mentioned it earlier, from what i understand the Portuguese didnt clear the arguidos Murat included, they shelved the case and released the three arguidos due to lack of evidence.
I know that is open to interpretation both ways but, having read the reports to the Portuguese chiefs, it is clear that the thinking in Portugal at least was at the time of shelving the case, still of involvement but without sufficient (if any) proof to continue with regards to getting a conviction.
brit1981
08-18-2012, 05:42 AM
fabgod,
the mccanns are not suspects in the case anymore so why would the police not have a link to site for searching for madeleine. The three aguidos all had their aguido status dropped, and the final report says there was no evidence against them or to suggets their involvement.
I think a big part in miscarriage sof justice woudl be more control over what people write pre-trial. casey anthony was convicted by the media, not by the evidence against her or by the jury. But because the actual verdict did not match what people who only knew about the case via the media had decided it should be it is upheld as a miscarriage of justice. The same with the mccanns and the chamberlains, the media (and in the mccanns case certain inrternet groups) decided they were guilty.
I also think experts used should be scrutinized more. In the UK roy meadows gave evidence as a witness, but on a subject he knew nothing about (he was a paediatrician and gave evidence on statistics depsite having no knowledge of these and a misunderstanding of the paper he was quoting). The judge should have stopped this, and the defence should have torn him to tiny pieces. There was another case where a jury was told a boy died of salt overdose and he either took all the salt himself or his parents force fed him. The parents were convicted, but on appeal it turne dout he had a condition which meant his salt levels were naturally unbalanced, but this was not presented to the jury. The expert who gave testimony in the appeal actually read about the case and contacted the defence himself.
there is a need for barristers and advocates to be more scientifically aware so they can challenge expert witnesses more.
SapphireSteel
08-18-2012, 04:46 PM
Thats the thing police forces and the judicary dont deal in circumstancial evidence, rumour and the like - well at least the ones in this country - they deal in hard evidence , forensics , witneseses ,
That is why after the Mccanns were rightly investigated they were never even charged of any crime and are free citizens.
Until hard evidence does appear to the contrary they remain free citizens in the eyes of the law . and in a modern democratic nation that is exactly how things should be - I am sure if you ever found your self in the wrong side of the law you would want to be treated fairly and within the due process of the law.
This is a misconception made by honest people.
Those of us who have been party to investigations know that circumstantial evidence is where is starts. You look at the CIRCUMSTANCE first (if you have no witnesses), and work your way out. Hard evidence is what you are looking for, but circumstance tells you where to look.
Forensics is a new science. Fifty years ago convictions were common based on circumstantial evidence ALONE. Now juries are perceived to be that much more demanding and knowledgeable (the CSI effect) and it is the prosecutors, not the police, who choose whether to press charges. They will not do so unless there is compelling forensics, for fear of being accused of wasting public money. That's the rub.
The Police will know who did it, how they did it, why they did it, (aka. circumstantial evidence) but unless they have it backed up to the hilt with science as well nowdays, they can't charge anyone.
Forensics is a double edged sword...but I can assure you that circumstantial evidence builds the skeleton of an investigation and is not to be dismissed.
We have acres of it, in the McCann case...all pointing one direction. Fifty years ago, they would have been hung.
:banghead:
BritsKate
08-18-2012, 04:55 PM
Page 40 of this link has a great description of circumstantial vs. direct evidence - including highlighting the fact that Ian Huntley and Steve Wright were both convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199609383/9780199609383_ch02.pdf
fabgod
08-18-2012, 05:02 PM
Its odd really how things come around,
I have just been looking into the background criminal history of a couple of Paedophiles that have been "brought into the ring" like so many others in the Madeleine case.
They were tried and convicted of murder in 2010 in Scotland, there was no body, no hard evidence, just the surviving sons testimony and hearsay that they had claimed to have committed the murder.
Now dont get me wrong, their past history of crime shows they are clearly evil men and fully deserve to be locked away, I just thought it was fitting to make the correlation between the post and this case.
SapphireSteel
08-18-2012, 05:10 PM
Its odd really how things come around,
I have just been looking into the background criminal history of a couple of Paedophiles that have been "brought into the ring" like so many others in the Madeleine case.
They were tried and convicted of murder in 2010 in Scotland, there was no body, no hard evidence, just the surviving sons testimony and hearsay that they had claimed to have committed the murder.
Now dont get me wrong, their past history of crime shows they are clearly evil men and fully deserve to be locked away, I just thought it was fitting to make the correlation between the post and this case.
A few IQ points and $20 mill makes all the difference.
:saythat:
brit1981
08-19-2012, 06:07 AM
Forensic evidence is not just DNA evidence, but things like accounts, analysis of handwriting, CCTV are all forensic evidence. So this sort of evidence has been around for over a century (obviously not things like CCTV, but forensic accounting, forensic look at bodies, murder weapons, handwriting etc).
iIn the EU pure circimstantial evidence is not enough, there must be other evidence, but this does not have to be scientific evidence. For instance levi bellfield was convicted of Milly Dowler's murder, but there was no scientific evidence. But the fact he lived in the house where she had disappeared from in front of, had a car matching the description scene, had witness testimony as to his behaviour and disposal of bed linen, and knowledge of where her body was found etc was deemed enough, so there was a mixture of circumstatial evidence and witness testimony. Sadly there is the CSI effect where people hear forensics and assume people mean scientific evidence like DNA.
In the McCann case there is not one shred of evidence against them, nothing forensic like DNA/toxicology/accounts/call records/ cctv/location via mobile, no witnesses statements, nothing evenly purely circumstantial. There is a reason why those with access to all the information have declared that they are not involved.
BritsKate
08-19-2012, 07:12 AM
Forensics has been around a lot longer than a century. The first recorded autopsy was in the very early 14th century with accounts of medicolegal exploration into the detection of causes of death going back even further. (See the Washing Away of Wrongs, written 1247 or 1248)
I don't believe it fair to claim there is not 'one shred of evidence' against the McCann's when in reality we don't know that there is evidence against anyone. In reality, five years after this crime, we don't know that they have any suspects. No one has been convicted. It remains an unsolved mystery and as such the parents will remain publicly suspect.
I personally will give much more credence to those with access to all the information when they are able to tell me who was involved.
SapphireSteel
08-19-2012, 04:16 PM
Forensic evidence is not just DNA evidence, but things like accounts, analysis of handwriting, CCTV are all forensic evidence. So this sort of evidence has been around for over a century (obviously not things like CCTV, but forensic accounting, forensic look at bodies, murder weapons, handwriting etc).
iIn the EU pure circimstantial evidence is not enough, there must be other evidence, but this does not have to be scientific evidence. For instance levi bellfield was convicted of Milly Dowler's murder, but there was no scientific evidence. But the fact he lived in the house where she had disappeared from in front of, had a car matching the description scene, had witness testimony as to his behaviour and disposal of bed linen, and knowledge of where her body was found etc was deemed enough, so there was a mixture of circumstatial evidence and witness testimony. Sadly there is the CSI effect where people hear forensics and assume people mean scientific evidence like DNA.
In the McCann case there is not one shred of evidence against them, nothing forensic like DNA/toxicology/accounts/call records/ cctv/location via mobile, no witnesses statements, nothing evenly purely circumstantial. There is a reason why those with access to all the information have declared that they are not involved.
I must have missed this declaration.
Can you please provide a link?
TIA
brit1981
08-19-2012, 05:26 PM
I have provided a link several times. Look at the final PJ report, and andy redwoods statement which he has given both to newspapers and spoken about on various television programmes. The PJ report states there is no evidence the parents wer einvolved, redwood has stated madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
Do you have the links to your claism about the FSS yet?
SapphireSteel
08-19-2012, 05:44 PM
I have provided a link several times. Look at the final PJ report, and andy redwoods statement which he has given both to newspapers and spoken about on various television programmes. The PJ report states there is no evidence the parents wer einvolved, redwood has stated madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
Do you have the links to your claism about the FSS yet?
I have not seen it.
Could you please repost
TIA
brit1981
08-19-2012, 06:00 PM
Ok hang on
brit1981
08-19-2012, 06:27 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ this is where the final report can be found
Also if you try looking on the bbc site, the panarama programme - the last hope, a tv programme called daybreak you will see several interviews with redwood where he states this. He also says they have new information, as well as having found nearly two hundred missed leads. I wonder if these missed leads would be enough to open up the case, or because they are not new they would not be enough to reopen the case.
SapphireSteel
08-19-2012, 07:20 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ this is where the final report can be found
Also if you try looking on the bbc site, the panarama programme - the last hope, a tv programme called daybreak you will see several interviews with redwood where he states this. He also says they have new information, as well as having found nearly two hundred missed leads. I wonder if these missed leads would be enough to open up the case, or because they are not new they would not be enough to reopen the case.
Sorry can you please copy and paste the relevant phrase/quote? I could read these articles/sites all day and still not know exactly what you are basing your statements on.
Tia
brit1981
08-22-2012, 08:03 AM
From the guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ap...cann-yard-case
)
Redwood and his 37-strong team have identified 195 missed investigative opportunities in the 40,000 pieces of evidence they have examined from the Portuguese inquiry, the family's home force in Leicestershire, and the information gleaned by a team of private detectives hired by the McCann family since Madeleine went missing, aged three, from the resort of Praia de Luz on 3 May 2007.
"We are in a unique position seeking to draw together the three key strands of information about her disappearance," said Redwood.
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory – promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral – that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger".
BritsKate
08-22-2012, 09:15 AM
Broken link, Brit.
And 'conspiracy theory' for believing the parents may be involved? Really? (I hardly think, with statistics being what they are, that it could placed in the same category as Roswell. :))
brit1981
08-22-2012, 09:31 AM
sorry about the link. Just try googling andy redwood.
I think it is fair to look at the parents initially, but now it has got conspiracy theory like. There is a group that have claimed everyone is in on it (governments, the fss, police, as well as the tapas nine), that double was used and madeleine actually died several days before the 3rd, that it is to do with the masons, that murat is in on it with the mccanns. It just gets a bit too much to not call it a conspiracy theory. The problem is if anything goes against the parent's involvement people have claimed it is because it is part of the cover-up, i.e scotland yard are part of the cover-up etc. No evidence has ever been uncovered that implicate the mccanns, or murat, the police say they believe it is a stranger, and when people start wailing about cover-ups etc it is a conspiracy theory.
BritsKate
08-22-2012, 03:07 PM
sorry about the link. Just try googling andy redwood.
I think it is fair to look at the parents initially, but now it has got conspiracy theory like. There is a group that have claimed everyone is in on it (governments, the fss, police, as well as the tapas nine), that double was used and madeleine actually died several days before the 3rd, that it is to do with the masons, that murat is in on it with the mccanns. It just gets a bit too much to not call it a conspiracy theory. The problem is if anything goes against the parent's involvement people have claimed it is because it is part of the cover-up, i.e scotland yard are part of the cover-up etc. No evidence has ever been uncovered that implicate the mccanns, or murat, the police say they believe it is a stranger, and when people start wailing about cover-ups etc it is a conspiracy theory.
But see this is the problem with sweeping assumptions. You basically placed everyone who believes the parents may be involved, or may know more than they have admitted, into a category viewed by many as irrational and perhaps even ignorant.
I've stated before I don't believe this is a grand conspiracy, I don't believe nearly a dozen people covered up a crime either, but you can bet I do believe the McCann's may be involved in their daughter's disappearance.
I simply think a lot of people truly trust the McCann's account of events that day. I believe there was some obfuscation that hindered the Portugal police. I also know media has played a huge role in how everyone has been perceived and may have caused events to play out in a different manner than they may have had international spotlight not shined on this case.
The statements made by Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard mean as much to me as statements made by the McCann's for one very simple reason. We have no conviction for either the disappearance or death of Madeleine McCann.
As far as evidence is concerned there is nothing that I can determine that unequivocally points away from the McCann's anymore than there is evidence that unequivocally damns them.
Leaves us in a bit of a non-conspiratorial stalemate methinks. ;)
SapphireSteel
08-22-2012, 04:47 PM
In the absence of proof one way or the other, NO ONE can be sure they are "right" in their theory and everyone else is "wrong".
Fifty years ago the evidence compiled would have been enough to arrest and charge both parents...today, with juries suffering the CSI effect, circumstantial evidence is no longer enough.
The circumstantial evidence indicates a parental cover-up.
Gem2626
08-22-2012, 05:08 PM
In the absence of proof one way or the other, NO ONE can be sure they are "right" in their theory and everyone else is "wrong".
Fifty years ago the evidence compiled would have been enough to arrest and charge both parents...today, with juries suffering the CSI effect, circumstantial evidence is no longer enough.
The circumstantial evidence indicates a parental cover-up.
Could you bullet point exactly what you think is circumstantial evidence please? I'm trying to stay objective and look at all evidence that supports and rebuts all theories so it would really help.
tia
fabgod
08-22-2012, 05:18 PM
Gem2626
Can I suggest this report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
brit1981
08-22-2012, 06:16 PM
In the absence of proof one way or the other, NO ONE can be sure they are "right" in their theory and everyone else is "wrong".
Fifty years ago the evidence compiled would have been enough to arrest and charge both parents...today, with juries suffering the CSI effect, circumstantial evidence is no longer enough.
The circumstantial evidence indicates a parental cover-up.
But there is no circumstantial evidence, and fifty years ago in the UK circumstantial evidence was not enough either. No-one has been able to come up with any hard evidence circumstantial or otherwise that implicates the parents. If they have why have they not handed it over to scotland yard or the pj.
Please could you like gem says bullet point the evidence you believe you have circumstatial or otherwise, because I cannot see any myself and as Scotland yard also appear to have missed this as thye believe it was a stranger which means they do not believe it was the parents I am interested ot see it.
I do think it is unfair that the police eliminate someone, and then people claim it does not matter if one is eliminated if no-one else has been convicted. I woudl not be happy if scotland yard stated I did not do something, and people said that was not enough to eliminate me in their eyes, they had to see someone else proved beyond all reasonable doubt before they woudl belive I had not done it.
fabgod
08-23-2012, 04:40 AM
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong inference
Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after getting it back.
Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.
copied by me from
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm
Again, for anyone who has not read this
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Circumstantial evidence?
Gem2626
08-23-2012, 06:35 AM
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong inference
Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after getting it back.
Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.
copied by me from
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm
Again, for anyone who has not read this
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Circumstantial evidence?
The problem with this report is that nothing is really explained, just mentioned. Plus I would never take one persons explanation as fact I would be trying to rebut it and then try to rebut the rebuttal.
I've found what seem to be a couple of errors already (the calpol thing being one) and he throws some things in like how he believes cuddle cat was washed straight away why does he think that? From what I see the media incorrectly reported that.
I'm working on rebutting things he's said at the moment and then i'll work on rebutting that.
So in rebutting... this is probably the best site I have come across because it has a lot of the 'myths' posted on there especially ones which have come from the media. It also explains the he said she said stuff and backs things up with sources. Definitely worth a read.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20Page
fabgod
08-23-2012, 08:07 AM
Gem2626 posted
"The problem with this report is that nothing is really explained, just mentioned. Plus I would never take one persons explanation as fact I would be trying to rebut it and then try to rebut the rebuttal.
I've found what seem to be a couple of errors already (the calpol thing being one) and he throws some things in like how he believes cuddle cat was washed straight away why does he think that? From what I see the media incorrectly reported that.
I'm working on rebutting things he's said at the moment and then i'll work on rebutting that."
Almeida stated
"Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.
Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family [NOTE: that is Ricardo Paiva], asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.
She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.
snipped from the website you recommend above
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077700/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2013#MediaMisreporting
Media Misreporting
To demonstrate how things get distorted in reporting, the above interview with Brian Healy was reported in The Sun on 7th September 2007 as:-
Quote:
"Kate may have used Calpol (to help her sleep), but it's just outrageous to think of anything else."
So Almeida is correct, the media misreported it, not him, he never stated that Brian Healy said they used calpol.
You have to remember, this report wasnt designed for media, it wasnt written to score points in public, it was the thinking of a chief inspector of the force investigating Madeleines disappearance at that time, it is used as an example of what circumstantial evidence they considered they had at that time.
Obviously it was never enough to bring charges because as history shows us, charges were never brought
Gem2626
08-23-2012, 10:55 AM
Gem2626 posted
"The problem with this report is that nothing is really explained, just mentioned. Plus I would never take one persons explanation as fact I would be trying to rebut it and then try to rebut the rebuttal.
I've found what seem to be a couple of errors already (the calpol thing being one) and he throws some things in like how he believes cuddle cat was washed straight away why does he think that? From what I see the media incorrectly reported that.
I'm working on rebutting things he's said at the moment and then i'll work on rebutting that."
Almeida stated
"Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.
Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family [NOTE: that is Ricardo Paiva], asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.
She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.
snipped from the website you recommend above
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077700/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2013#MediaMisreporting
Media Misreporting
To demonstrate how things get distorted in reporting, the above interview with Brian Healy was reported in The Sun on 7th September 2007 as:-
Quote:
"Kate may have used Calpol (to help her sleep), but it's just outrageous to think of anything else."
So Almeida is correct, the media misreported it, not him, he never stated that Brian Healy said they used calpol.
You have to remember, this report wasnt designed for media, it wasnt written to score points in public, it was the thinking of a chief inspector of the force investigating Madeleines disappearance at that time, it is used as an example of what circumstantial evidence they considered they had at that time.
Obviously it was never enough to bring charges because as history shows us, charges were never brought
But why would Almeda mention a press hypothesis in his report in the first place?
I'm not reading it as you are. The way I see it..
- He's saying the media has a hypothesis
- Then he's backing this hypothesis up by repeating what the press said the grandfather said.
BBM- The two haven't been linked in anyway. They look as if they are two separate statements. If you were connecting the two you would say something like "The media has this hypothesis an example of this is the grandfather telling the press etc"
It makes no sense to put a false media hypothesis example into a report, unless you believe(d) this exact hypothesis about the calpol and hadn't investigated to find out whether it was actually true or not.
fabgod
08-23-2012, 03:11 PM
Gem2626
Ok, Almeida is saying that the McCanns were keen to use the press reports to evolve their story or to develop the story to their needs.
In essence, he is saying that there was a report attributed to Brian Healy that reported Mr Healy as saying that Kate gave the children calpol.
We now know that Brian Healy didnt say that at all but that is not the point.
Almeida is saying that Kate McCann then goes to her Portuguese Liaison officer and asks why there were no tests on the twins to see if they had been drugged, he goes on to suggest that she as a doctor would have known that such tests would have been pointless after the amount of time that had passed before her asking.
He then states that she (Kate McCann) wanted the Investigators to decide or suspect that Madeleine and the twins had been sedated in order to further the abduction scenario which as we know. the PJ did not believe.
He isnt stating that Brian Healy said she had administered calpol, he is making a bigger point, that is plainly obvious.
SapphireSteel
08-23-2012, 05:21 PM
Could you bullet point exactly what you think is circumstantial evidence please? I'm trying to stay objective and look at all evidence that supports and rebuts all theories so it would really help.
tia
Happy to.
The circumstantial evidence indicates that Madeleine died in apartment 5a that night and the parents covered it up. Circumstantial evidence includes -
The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
The refusal to engage in a reconstruction
The declaration they would not leave Portugal without Madeleine, only to do just that a few days later
The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance
The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort)
The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a
Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA
Kate insisting Madeleine had been abducted from the very second she was discovered "missing"
Gerry insisting Madeleine had been abducted on the phone to England that evening
Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
Leaving their children in care for as many hours as possible
Not accessing care for their children at all in the evenings
The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"
Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child
Jane Tanners changing story
The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
The fact that neither twin awoke through the ruckus, and Kate was seen holding her hand in front of their faces to check they were in fact still breathing
The washing of "cuddle cat"
The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
The subtle criticism of LE which began on the evening of the 3rd
The refusal to be interviewed
The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone
Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency
The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
Kates cries that "we've let her down" yet later refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the disappearance afterwards
The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
The failure of either Gerry or Jeremy Wilkins to see either Jane Tanner or the "abductor" who allegedly walked straight past them in a small quiet street
Kate leaving her twins alone in an unlocked room with an "abductor" nearby while she ran to the restaurant to alert of Madeleines disappearance
The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
The accumulation of enough evidence for the PJ to name the McCanns as arguidos
The fact that it was the BRITISH police who first developed the evidence implicating the McCanns
Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"
Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
Alone, each bullet point can be scrutinised and picked apart. Viewed together, they paint a compelling picture of what occurred that night.
Fifty years ago any combination of the above would be considered "proof" - enough to prosecute if not convict...people have been hung on much, much less.
I am not going to post links to any of the above as it is MY OPINION ONLY further all freely available through msm, various books written, and this site.
:cow:
brit1981
09-08-2012, 01:13 PM
lets have a look at this "evidence"
Happy to.
The circumstantial evidence indicates that Madeleine died in apartment 5a that night and the parents covered it up. Circumstantial evidence includes -
The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
What inconsistencies, I have not seen any in the files
The refusal to engage in a reconstruction
the mccanns never refused to take part in a reconstruction
The declaration they would not leave Portugal without Madeleine, only to do just that a few days later
How is that circumstantial evidence against them. They could not stay there unemployed forever. The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance
no cadaver dog was used, the dog according to its handler alerts to bodily fluids including blood from a live person. both dogs alerted to the card fob which contained material belonging to gerry belived to be blood. The evrd did not alert elsewhere in the car. The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort)
Agan there is no way of knowing what the dog alerted to as its handler states it alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living donor. We also know a previous occupant had bled in the flat. The entire resort was not searched with the dog. The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a
no cadaver dog was used, the dog according to its handler alerts to bodily fluids including blood from a live person. both dogs alerted to the card fob which contained material belonging to gerry believed to be blood. The evrd did not alert elsewhere in the car.
Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA
That is misleading. The material found had some elements that woudl be found in madeleine's DNA, as well as her parents, grandparents, and other relatives. There is no way of knowing who the dna belongs to but given that the largerst sample was from up to five people, and fifteen of the 37 compoents were also found in madeleine's dna as well as kate and gerrys and other relatives, and madeleine was never witnessed in the car whilst her family was it is unlikely to be hers. Kate insisting Madeleine had been abducted from the very second she was discovered "missing"
Why is that suspicious. If you know the child could not have left by themselves (the gates were still on the latch), what else was she to think? When a parent panics that is one of the first thing that jumps into their head because it is the nightmare of every parent. Gerry insisting Madeleine had been abducted on the phone to England that evening
Again see above, what else woudl he think? Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
They did not have a personal audience with the Pope, they were going to Italy anyway and like most people of faith in a time of crisis went to st pauls, and they were fortunate in that the Pope came over to them and gave prayers for madeleine. I really see nothing suspicious about the Pope doing this. Leaving their children in care for as many hours as possible
No they did not. The children went to childrens clubs as do thousands of children in europe. I really do not think that is evidence of a crime.
Not accessing care for their children at all in the evenings
They thought being just over fifty metres away checking every half hour was safe, as this is what nanny listening services do. The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"
there has never been any evidence they did this anywhere, and calpol is not a sedative anyway, nor does the police files state no medication was found, nor if that were the case is it suspicious. Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child
Kate did call for madeleine according to witness they saw her in the car park screaming her name. There is no other unnatural language. Jane Tanners changing story
She has not changed her story The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
No they did not. Several months after the sighting one of the smiths said tha although they never saw the mans face, did not have their glasses, and it was dark they believed it could be gerry from the mannerism but that they could not be certain. No other family member supported this and the police discounted it as other witnesses put gerry elsewhere. The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
The mccanns did not do this, and no-one has confirmed that it was done before being asked. But even if they did why is is suspicious, and not sensible. I woudl think it was a very sensible thing to do The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
Thats your opinion, not circumstantial evidence, I for one see nothing unusual about their appearence. The fact that neither twin awoke through the ruckus, and Kate was seen holding her hand in front of their faces to check they were in fact still breathing
How is that suspicious, when children often do not wake thorugh noise, and of course kate was going to be paranoid.
The washing of "cuddle cat"
Why is that suspicious. It was done a good time away from any searches, and people do wash cuddly toys in the UK.
The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
That never happened.
The subtle criticism of LE which began on the evening of the 3rd
So police should be able to use the fact they have been criticized as evidence against the person doing the criticizing? The initial police search was appalling by Uk standards, so i do not blame the McCanns for being angry if they were.
The refusal to be interviewed
They did not
The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone
There is no evidence the children were crying for extended periods of time.
Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
there is no first hand source where kate makes this claim. Other fingerprints were found on the frame. kates were the only ones that could be indentified.
The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
No the embassy gave them a spokesperson as the portuguese police did not speak for them as would be usual in the UK.
The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency
No it was not unnaturally fast, and there is transparency. They were given a huge amunt fo money by people like JK rowling and had to do soemthign with it. Their choice was to either leave it in their own bank accounts where they would be no transparency or set up a not for profit company where there would be transparency. It woudl be illegal to set up a charity.
The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
Again this woudl be illegal under UK law, it was not their choice the charity act 2006 forbids a charity to be set up to benefit a specific person or named people.
The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
The legal fees it paid were the legal fees for setting up the fund. There is no proof that the mccanns own lawyers were paid with it, and in fact their lawyers say they were not and used conditional fee arrangements (similar to no win no fee). The only personal expenses were two months of mortgage payments that enabled the mccanns to stay in portugal.
The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
Nothing in the PJ files about this
The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
nothing in the PJ files about this, all it states is that a reference sample was taken from a pillow and as the sample was from a femal child of the mccanns that was not amelia it is belived to be madeleine's.
Kates cries that "we've let her down" yet later refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the disappearance afterwards
how is that circumstantial evidence of a crime.
The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
Nowhere does it state it was anythign like thirty minutes. one of them said it was very brief, thrty seconds or so, the other one said it was very brief just a couple of minutes. Not exactly a thumping great inconsistency.
The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
Nowhere in the PJ files does it state this
The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
one can see it from the restuarant.
The failure of either Gerry or Jeremy Wilkins to see either Jane Tanner or the "abductor" who allegedly walked straight past them in a small quiet street
So what if they did nto see Jane, it was dark, and she never stopped to say anything to them. Wilkins confirms he was there talking to gerry at that time, and other witness say jane left the table to go donw onto the street at that time. I do not notice every time soemone walks behind me when I am in conversation. And no-one has claimed the abductor walked right past them. Jane say a man carrying a child at the top of the street walking past the intersection. he did not walk down the stree gerry and jeremy were stood one. The only way they would have seen him was if they happened to look up in that direction for the few moments he was there.
Kate leaving her twins alone in an unlocked room with an "abductor" nearby while she ran to the restaurant to alert of Madeleines disappearance
Again how is that evidence aganst her. She paniked
The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
There is no evidence of this at all in the PJ files.
Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
there is no evidence of this at all.
The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
There is no evidence they ever refused to take a LDT for the police, but they are very very rare in the Uk and Portugal and in fact the police have only just started using them in the U for convicted sex offenders.
The accumulation of enough evidence for the PJ to name the McCanns as arguidos
At the time Portuguese law required very little evidence. According to the files the evidence was the incomplete dna, and the dogs alerting. But this was because the PJ misunderstood the findings. The dog alerts do not have to indicate a body as their handler states they alert to bodily fluids, and the dna could have been from any of the mccanns. The fact is the PJ also stated there was no evidence against the mccanns when they shelved the case.
The fact that it was the BRITISH police who first developed the evidence implicating the McCanns
Thats misleading. The evidence against the mccanns at the time this statement was made was the incomplete dna, and the dogs which were provided with assistance from the british police. But this evidence was not in actual fact evidence against the mccanns.
Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
what evidence do you have for this
The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
this is not CSI, what evidence would an intruder leave behind that could be identified as belonging to an intruder and not one of the hundeds of previous occupants. It also seems a contridiction to claim the mccanns should be prosecuted on circumstantial evidence, but forensic evidence is needed to doscount an intruder
The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
There is no evidence of this at all.
Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
There is no evidence or suggestion of this at all
The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"
How is that evidence against the mccanns. In europe embassies are involved right from the start if something happens involving a foreigner, and if the embassy felt the PJ were not taking the case seriously enought they had a right to complain
Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
Where is the evidence of this?
Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
There is no evidence of this, and the calls would not be deleted from the te
lecommunication company anyway?
Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
This is incorrect. The dog used was not a cadaver dog, and according to its handler alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living donor so there is no way to prove he alerted to a cadaver and not bodiy fluid including the blood that was there from a previous occupant.
I am not going to post links to any of the above as it is MY OPINION ONLY further all freely available through msm, various books written, and this site.
:cow:
fabgod
09-10-2012, 05:02 AM
Happy to.
The circumstantial evidence indicates that Madeleine died in apartment 5a that night and the parents covered it up. Circumstantial evidence includes -
The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
The refusal to engage in a reconstruction
The declaration they would not leave Portugal without Madeleine, only to do just that a few days later
The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance
The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort)
The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a
Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA
Kate insisting Madeleine had been abducted from the very second she was discovered "missing"
Gerry insisting Madeleine had been abducted on the phone to England that evening
Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
Leaving their children in care for as many hours as possible
Not accessing care for their children at all in the evenings
The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"
Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child
Jane Tanners changing story
The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
The fact that neither twin awoke through the ruckus, and Kate was seen holding her hand in front of their faces to check they were in fact still breathing
The washing of "cuddle cat"
The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
The subtle criticism of LE which began on the evening of the 3rd
The refusal to be interviewed
The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone
Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency
The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
Kates cries that "we've let her down" yet later refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the disappearance afterwards
The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
The failure of either Gerry or Jeremy Wilkins to see either Jane Tanner or the "abductor" who allegedly walked straight past them in a small quiet street
Kate leaving her twins alone in an unlocked room with an "abductor" nearby while she ran to the restaurant to alert of Madeleines disappearance
The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
The accumulation of enough evidence for the PJ to name the McCanns as arguidos
The fact that it was the BRITISH police who first developed the evidence implicating the McCanns
Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"
Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
Alone, each bullet point can be scrutinised and picked apart. Viewed together, they paint a compelling picture of what occurred that night.
Fifty years ago any combination of the above would be considered "proof" - enough to prosecute if not convict...people have been hung on much, much less.
I am not going to post links to any of the above as it is MY OPINION ONLY further all freely available through msm, various books written, and this site.
:cow:
Its interesting to note that there has just been a big case in the USA where Drew Peterson has been convicted of murdering his third wife.
Peterson has been convicted using new legislation that has been dubbed "Drews law" which allows Hearsay and circumstantial evidence to be used in the case.
It makes the above comments more interesting when you think that laws can potentially be changed to "suit" a case in certain countries
brit1981
09-10-2012, 06:05 AM
But I presume the circumstantial evidence in the drew case had to be true and not lies spouted on the internet. Some of the above is not only not evidence against the mccanns it is untrue. The rest is just not evidence against them circumstantial or otherwise. So unless the EU allows Portugal to use fabricated evidence against people the material above is pointless and is just rubbish being spouted on the internet.
besides in the EU circumstantial evidence is allowed to be used, and murder convictions have been obtained with just circumstantial evidence. But the important thing is that false evidence is not allowed to be used, the prosecution must not use lies. claims like the mccanns used calpol to sedate the children, there was a issing blue bag, the mccanns rfused to take part in a reconstruction, the mccanns did not alert the police straght away, the mccanns contacted the media first, the dogs only alert to cadavers, only kates fngerprints were found on the window, the smiths positively sighting gerry, etc are false stories and would never be used againt the mccanns. So far stories like this have only got people like anthony bennett in trouble.
SapphireSteel
09-10-2012, 08:49 PM
But I presume the circumstantial evidence in the drew case had to be true and not lies spouted on the internet. Some of the above is not only not evidence against the mccanns it is untrue. The rest is just not evidence against them circumstantial or otherwise. So unless the EU allows Portugal to use fabricated evidence against people the material above is pointless and is just rubbish being spouted on the internet.
besides in the EU circumstantial evidence is allowed to be used, and murder convictions have been obtained with just circumstantial evidence. But the important thing is that false evidence is not allowed to be used, the prosecution must not use lies. claims like the mccanns used calpol to sedate the children, there was a issing blue bag, the mccanns rfused to take part in a reconstruction, the mccanns did not alert the police straght away, the mccanns contacted the media first, the dogs only alert to cadavers, only kates fngerprints were found on the window, the smiths positively sighting gerry, etc are false stories and would never be used againt the mccanns. So far stories like this have only got people like anthony bennett in trouble.
Please show me, exactly, where I have "lied"?
brit1981
09-11-2012, 06:03 AM
I am not saying you have lied, but certainly someone who created these myths has lied as they are without basis. I do not think for a minute you personally have lied, I think you have seen them somewhere and belived the person dishing out the information.
I have taken your bullet points from above and pointed out when they are untrue or misrepresentative. A more detailed description is above though.
The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
Untrue, they are no suspicious inconsistencies
The refusal to engage in a reconstruction
Untrue, the McCanns never refused to take part.
The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort) The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a
Misrepresentitive as the alerts do not mean cadaver scent was there as the dogs also alert to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person. Untrue that these dogs searched the entire resort The reocvery dog only alerted to the card fob in the car, as did the csi dog (which only alerts to blood) the material on this was found to belong to Gerry
Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA
Misrepresentitive. In one area in the flat the DNA was shown to possibly belong to either Gerry or madeleine. In the car the DNA identified was found to belong to gerry and Kate. Another sample of DNA was found to belong to three to five people and whilst it did contain elements that madeleine had in her DNA these exact same elements woudl be found in the dna of her parents, grandparents siblings and other relatives. It woudl be impossible to fnd a sample of kate and gerrys DNA that did not have madeleines elements in (in fact if a complete sample of gerry and kates dna was found it would ahve had 100% of madeleine's dna elements in it).
Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
Untrue, there is no record of kate and gerry ever having had a perosnal audience with the Pope, nor any record that they secured the Popes brief visit to them in the crowd walk. He is the Pope, and was told there were two parents of a missing child there, why would he not go over to them and offer his prayers and bless madeleine's picture.
The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"
Untrue. calpol is not a sedative. There is no record of kate or gerry ever using sedatives on their child. kates father has never ever said they used calpol as a sedative.
Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child
Untrue, witness do state Kate was calling for madeleine.
Jane Tanners changing story
Untrue, she has never changed her story
The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
Untrue. The smiths never positively identified Gerry. Each one of them say they never saw the mans face. Several months after the event one of them said he did not see the man's face, it was dark, he did not have his glases, but that by a mannerism it may have been Gerry but he was not positive. None of the others smiths back this up, and several other witnesses inc staff state gerry was at the resort at that time. The PJ discunted it at the time.
The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
Untrue as there is no record of the Mccanns doing this, not a record of what exact time the timeline was made (but in these cases it is most sensible to put a timeline of what happened when as soon as possible and not everyone takes writing paper on holiday with them)
The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
Misrepresentitive as it is not a fact, and I for one have not observed this.
[/COLOR]The washing of "cuddle cat"
Misrepresentitive as this did not occur at a suspicious time i.e just before searches, and people in the UK do wash cuddly toys.
The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
Untrue. There is no record of this happening
The refusal to be interviewed
Untrue they were interviewed.
The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone
Untrue as there is no record of the children crying for extended periods of time.
Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
Untrue, other fingerpirnts were found, but remain unidentified.
The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
Untrue, there is no record of the mccanns hiring a PR team at this time (orever for themselves). The ocean club used a spoeksperson and the FO sent one over. In the UK it is normal for the police to act as spokesmen for the family, but this does not happen in Portugal.
The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency
Untrue, given the millons they received very quickly they wer enot overly fast and the company has more transparency than the other option they had - keeping it in their own accounts.
The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
Untrue. The mccanns did not refuse to set up a charity they are barred by the law from doing so. It woudl be against the 2006 charities act to set up a charity to find madeleine. If the charities commission had given them permission to do so the cahrities commission would have been prosecuted for breaking the law, they are not allowed to make exceptions. they regulate charities, they do not make charity law.
The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
Misrepresentitive. the fund has only paid its own legal expenses i.e those involved ins etting up the fund. they have never paid the mccanns own expenses this was paid by themselves, a donation from richard branson, and conditional fee arrangements. The only personal expenses were two mortgage payments that enabled them to stay in portugal in the summer of 2007. They have never hired their own staff or PR.
The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
Untrue, no record of this.
The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
Untrue there is no record of this.
The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
Untrue, neither kate nor daid have ever said the visit took 30 minutes.
The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
Untrue, there is no record of this.
The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
Untrue, one could see the flat from where they were sat.
The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
Untrue there is no record of this ad staff at the ocean club state they were bing asked to call the police very shortly after ten when the alarm was first raised.
Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
Untrue no record of this happening (see above)
The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
Untrue as there is no record of this and LDT are not normal in the UK and Portugal aside from chav TV (although five years after madeleine disappeared the UK is testing thier use in convicted sex offenders)
Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
Untrue, no record of this.
The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
Misrepresentitive as it just means the material found has been unable to be identified as belonging to any particular person who was not there. Undientified material and finerprints were found, but give it was a holiday rental it has been impossible to say where they came from.
The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
Untrue, no record of this.
Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
Untrue, there is no record of this (and if the recovery dogs were so good one would have thought they might have alerted by the trunk which they did not).The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"
Misrepresentitive as in the EU it is normal for consuls to be involved. It is also not the case that the british consul in Portgal woudl call the Portuguese embassy which is obviously not in Portugal. They normally just have a representitive speak directly with the police.
Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
Untrue when the rest of the party came into the flat they saw the open window, previous to this only kate had seen it was open and even then only when there was a breeze
Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
untrue there is no record of this and gerry would not be able to delete call records from the company
Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
Untrue. No cadaver was located, and cadaver dogs were never used. Only a recovery dog which its handler stated alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person, as well as actual cadavers. The dog indications do not prove a body is unaccounted for or that a person died there. It is a complete misinterpretation of the report to state otherwise.
Can i just ask where you get these snippets as they are no primary sources such as the PJ files stating these snippets are true, yet you see to be getting them from somewhere as I do not believe you personally are making them up? Is it from that anthony bennett's sites?
SapphireSteel
09-11-2012, 06:02 PM
I am not saying you have lied, but certainly someone who created these myths has lied as they are without basis. I do not think for a minute you personally have lied, I think you have seen them somewhere and belived the person dishing out the information.
I have taken your bullet points from above and pointed out when they are untrue or misrepresentative. A more detailed description is above though.
The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
Untrue, they are no suspicious inconsistencies
The refusal to engage in a reconstruction
Untrue, the McCanns never refused to take part.
The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort) The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a
Misrepresentitive as the alerts do not mean cadaver scent was there as the dogs also alert to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person. Untrue that these dogs searched the entire resort The reocvery dog only alerted to the card fob in the car, as did the csi dog (which only alerts to blood) the material on this was found to belong to Gerry
Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA
Misrepresentitive. In one area in the flat the DNA was shown to possibly belong to either Gerry or madeleine. In the car the DNA identified was found to belong to gerry and Kate. Another sample of DNA was found to belong to three to five people and whilst it did contain elements that madeleine had in her DNA these exact same elements woudl be found in the dna of her parents, grandparents siblings and other relatives. It woudl be impossible to fnd a sample of kate and gerrys DNA that did not have madeleines elements in (in fact if a complete sample of gerry and kates dna was found it would ahve had 100% of madeleine's dna elements in it).
Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
Untrue, there is no record of kate and gerry ever having had a perosnal audience with the Pope, nor any record that they secured the Popes brief visit to them in the crowd walk. He is the Pope, and was told there were two parents of a missing child there, why would he not go over to them and offer his prayers and bless madeleine's picture.
The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"
Untrue. calpol is not a sedative. There is no record of kate or gerry ever using sedatives on their child. kates father has never ever said they used calpol as a sedative.
Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child
Untrue, witness do state Kate was calling for madeleine.
Jane Tanners changing story
Untrue, she has never changed her story
The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
Untrue. The smiths never positively identified Gerry. Each one of them say they never saw the mans face. Several months after the event one of them said he did not see the man's face, it was dark, he did not have his glases, but that by a mannerism it may have been Gerry but he was not positive. None of the others smiths back this up, and several other witnesses inc staff state gerry was at the resort at that time. The PJ discunted it at the time.
The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
Untrue as there is no record of the Mccanns doing this, not a record of what exact time the timeline was made (but in these cases it is most sensible to put a timeline of what happened when as soon as possible and not everyone takes writing paper on holiday with them)
The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
Misrepresentitive as it is not a fact, and I for one have not observed this.
[/COLOR]The washing of "cuddle cat"
Misrepresentitive as this did not occur at a suspicious time i.e just before searches, and people in the UK do wash cuddly toys.
The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
Untrue. There is no record of this happening
The refusal to be interviewed
Untrue they were interviewed.
The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone
Untrue as there is no record of the children crying for extended periods of time.
Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
Untrue, other fingerpirnts were found, but remain unidentified.
The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
Untrue, there is no record of the mccanns hiring a PR team at this time (orever for themselves). The ocean club used a spoeksperson and the FO sent one over. In the UK it is normal for the police to act as spokesmen for the family, but this does not happen in Portugal.
The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency
Untrue, given the millons they received very quickly they wer enot overly fast and the company has more transparency than the other option they had - keeping it in their own accounts.
The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
Untrue. The mccanns did not refuse to set up a charity they are barred by the law from doing so. It woudl be against the 2006 charities act to set up a charity to find madeleine. If the charities commission had given them permission to do so the cahrities commission would have been prosecuted for breaking the law, they are not allowed to make exceptions. they regulate charities, they do not make charity law.
The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
Misrepresentitive. the fund has only paid its own legal expenses i.e those involved ins etting up the fund. they have never paid the mccanns own expenses this was paid by themselves, a donation from richard branson, and conditional fee arrangements. The only personal expenses were two mortgage payments that enabled them to stay in portugal in the summer of 2007. They have never hired their own staff or PR.
The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
Untrue, no record of this.
The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
Untrue there is no record of this.
The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
Untrue, neither kate nor daid have ever said the visit took 30 minutes.
The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
Untrue, there is no record of this.
The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
Untrue, one could see the flat from where they were sat.
The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
Untrue there is no record of this ad staff at the ocean club state they were bing asked to call the police very shortly after ten when the alarm was first raised.
Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
Untrue no record of this happening (see above)
The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
Untrue as there is no record of this and LDT are not normal in the UK and Portugal aside from chav TV (although five years after madeleine disappeared the UK is testing thier use in convicted sex offenders)
Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
Untrue, no record of this.
The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
Misrepresentitive as it just means the material found has been unable to be identified as belonging to any particular person who was not there. Undientified material and finerprints were found, but give it was a holiday rental it has been impossible to say where they came from.
The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
Untrue, no record of this.
Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
Untrue, there is no record of this (and if the recovery dogs were so good one would have thought they might have alerted by the trunk which they did not).The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"
Misrepresentitive as in the EU it is normal for consuls to be involved. It is also not the case that the british consul in Portgal woudl call the Portuguese embassy which is obviously not in Portugal. They normally just have a representitive speak directly with the police.
Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
Untrue when the rest of the party came into the flat they saw the open window, previous to this only kate had seen it was open and even then only when there was a breeze
Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
untrue there is no record of this and gerry would not be able to delete call records from the company
Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
Untrue. No cadaver was located, and cadaver dogs were never used. Only a recovery dog which its handler stated alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person, as well as actual cadavers. The dog indications do not prove a body is unaccounted for or that a person died there. It is a complete misinterpretation of the report to state otherwise.
Can i just ask where you get these snippets as they are no primary sources such as the PJ files stating these snippets are true, yet you see to be getting them from somewhere as I do not believe you personally are making them up? Is it from that anthony bennett's sites?
You have not provided one workable link for any of your accusations or statements, and reading through this rebuttal only confirms my opinion that you actually know very little about the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
I could post responses all day but it is like rain in the desert...it just evaporates leaving no trace.
Every statement anyone makes is immediately dismissed as "lies" yet as no one knows what happened to Madeleine, this is opinion only.
There is absolutely no point to discussing anything at all with a party who believes everything to be "lies" apart from their own theory.
brit1981
09-12-2012, 05:59 AM
How can a link be provided to show something does not exist? Look through the files, the information you have stated is not there.
Can you provide any evidence that the following is true...
The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
The mccanns refusal to engage in a reconstruction
The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort) The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a - can you provide evidence that the dogs alerted to cadaver and not dried blood or other bodily fluids?
Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA - can you provide evidence that this DNA was not Gerry or Kates as they as well as other family member have the exact same elements
Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found - what personal audience, and what evidence the mccanns arranmnged it?
The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up" - what evidence that the mccanns sedated their children, that calpol is a sedative, and that there were no medications found
Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child - what evidence is there that kate did not call for madeleine
Jane Tanners changing story
The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for - do you have evidence this was the mccanns and the time it was done
The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
The refusal to be interviewed
Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency -can you show evidence that the fund has less transparency than the only other option which was keeping the money in their own account
The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds -can you show evidence that the mccanns had the option to make the fund a charity despite this being against the law
The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
Oner cannot states soemthing like calpol is a sedative, and then claim it is an opinion only. Either calpol is a sedative or it is not, either the mccanns sedated their children or they did not. Circumstantial evidence does nto consist of people saying "in my opinion this happened", either it is a fact or it is not. Calpol is not a sedative that is a fact not an opinion.
So far you have not provided any primary sources that these claims are at all true - I mean doyou really have evidence that the Uk was prepared to break the law and allow the fund to become a charity. that is a very serious accusation you are making.
fabgod
09-12-2012, 06:03 AM
You have not provided one workable link for any of your accusations or statements, and reading through this rebuttal only confirms my opinion that you actually know very little about the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
I could post responses all day but it is like rain in the desert...it just evaporates leaving no trace.
Every statement anyone makes is immediately dismissed as "lies" yet as no one knows what happened to Madeleine, this is opinion only.
There is absolutely no point to discussing anything at all with a party who believes everything to be "lies" apart from their own theory.
Great post SapphireSteel
My thoughts exactly
brit1981
09-12-2012, 06:41 AM
No if something is untrue it is untrue. It is untrue that calpol was used as a sedative ( the fact that calpol is not a sedative is rather a big clue), it is untrue that there is any evidence jane tanner changed her story, it is untrue that the fund could have been made a charity etc. When someone presents things as circumstatial evidence then it is fair enough to point out which pieces of their evidence are not true. Claiming that the mccanns sedated their children is not evidence if it is not true anyone could make up anything and then declare it as circumstatial evidence if that were the case.
If people really belive the mccanns are guilty of somethign to do with their child's disappearence why make up things about them, why not just point to actual evidence?
Salem
09-13-2012, 01:05 PM
Here is a link to the CalPol thread. Calpol - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Some of the questions may have already been answered.
When I catch up, I will be moving this discussion to the proper thread. Those of you discussing CalPol might want to migrate over there now because it is off topic for the Forensic results.
Thanks,
Salem
brit1981
11-06-2012, 09:39 AM
Know this initial post is four years old, but it is relevant to question in my opinion, as this sort of infomation is still getting quoted. The lowe report can be found here http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm and this is why I get my evidence as it were.
My input is in bold...
I should be grateful if anyone could please look over this point from our proposed booklet: "What happened to Madeleine McCann: 30 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted". Is what we say (a) correct and (b) reasonably comprehensible?
It deals with the forensic findings of the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham.
Or if anyone could please piont me to a good source where their findings are discussed, I'd be grateful also:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++
30 Reasons
Reason (x). The forensic evidence of the DNA of blood found in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment, and in the boot of the McCanns' hired car, analysed by the Forensic Science Service here in England
ANSWER:
First of all no material found was ever identified as blood.
There have been claims and counter-claims about the significance of the forensic evidence obtained by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in Birmingham on samples of blood or body fluids found in the McCanns’ apartment and in the boot of the car they hired. The Doctors McCann and their spokesmen have claimed that the FSS results did not confirm that it was Madeleine’s dead body in the apartment and in the car.
So let us look carefully at what the FSS found.
In Apartment 5A, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’ both clearly marked precisely the same location - behind the sofa in the living room (which had been moved by the McCanns from its original location).
There is no evidence that the mccanns moved the sofa. The tiles where Keela scented the blood were carefully removed and sent to FSS. The blood found by Keela was by then degraded, quite possibly s the result of cleaning agents having been used, and the FSS lab was able to check only 5 markers. Each one of those 5 markers exactly matched Madeleine's DNA.
First no material was ever identified as blood, no material such as cleaning products were found in the area so causes of the materials degradation are pure speculation. This is what the FSS report actually said "An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area."
So in actual fact whilst the FSS does confirm these components were shared by madeleine, it is also says that the indications are these components came from more than one person, inc other mccanns. Componenets are not unique to an individuel. All the other samples culd not be attributed to anypone in the mccann family and in some cases could have been from more than one person.
As for the Renault Scenic, registration no. 59-DA-27, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’, both clearly marked the same car and the same location within the car. The blood found there by Keela (beneath the carpeting in the boot) was also degraded. But the FSS lab was able, on its first analysis, to check 15 markers. All of these 15 markers matched Madeleine's DNA.
first. Both eddie and keela only alerted to the card fobb, this contained material identified as being that of gerry mccann. Eddie did not alert elsewhere in the car.
No material found in the car was identified as being blood.
A second result showed the same 15 markers, but among a total of 37. An individual only has 19 ‘markers’. That means that the sample from the car had been contaminated by DNA from another individual. However, with 15 markers all matching Madeleine’s DNA, that would still give analysts 99.9% confidence that the samples were from Madeleine.
First basic genetics is that a person has twenty makers not just nineteen. Madeleine had twenty markers, but two of these were the same since her parents both donated an identical marker to her. In fact what the FSS report says is that they found DNA from three to five people which contained 37 different markers. Of these markers fifteen were shared by madeleine and also her parents, and other relatives including her siblings would have shared many of her markers too. This means that it is impossible to conclud ein anyway shape or form whether the markers came from madeleine or any other of the mccanns, and it was not possible to even ascertain where the fifteen markers shared by madeleine had even been donated by one person. The 99.9% claim is untrue.
The DNA of the degraded blood was found not to match with the DNA of the twins, Sean and Amelie.
Untrue, the report at no point excludes either of the twins as one of the three to five donors, and at no point was a dna sequence found so no individuel coudl be identified. At no point does the fss confirm what the material was.
The law differs from country to country as to how many out of an individual’s 19 DNA ‘markers’ are needed to prove that any DNA sample comes from that individual. Many countries accept 15 markers as sufficient proof. Under Portuguese law, however, the courts require all 19 markers to be confirmed.
I find it surprising that any country takes all 19 markers as proof given that each person has twenty, I wonder where the notion that Portugal requires all 19 came from. But no matter how many markers are taken as proof is irelevant when it cannot be confirmed who those markers belonged to. There is nothing to say those markers did not come from kate and gerry, or the twins, or other family members. There is not one shred of evidence that those markers came from one perosn let alone madeleine. The only way anyone could say the likely hood was those markers belonged to madeleine wa sif they could demonstrate that those particular marker sin the mixed sample came form one individuel, but they could not so for all we know the 15 markers coudl have come form three individuels each donating 5.
This was ‘Low Copy Number’ DNA and so all 19 markers could not be obtained.
What does that have to do with LCN. The analysis found 37 markers, only 15 of which coudl ahve belonged to madeleine, it was not a case of LCN preventing the other 4 different markers being identified. And it is important that those 15 coudl easily have come from any combination of the mccanns.
The FSS were able to confirm that the results of the analysis were ‘indicative’ that the blood found was Madeleine’s.
No it was not. It could not confirm what the material was. And it could not confirm that the material belonged to anyone, let alone madeleine. It could nto even confirm how many people contributed to the 15 markers.
We might, without exaggeration, that these DNA results were ‘highly indicative’ that it was Madeleine’s blood that was found. But the FSS felt unable to say that these DNA results, on their own, were ‘conclusive’.
The key point to be made is this. The FSS results, on their own, do not provide absolute proof that the blood in the apartment and in the hired car was Madeleine’s. But the strongly indicative results, with all 5 markers being Madeleine’s in one sample and all 15 in another, must be taken together with all the other evidence in this case. And we can say without fear of successful contradiction that it is another piece of evidence in the case that points very strongly in the direction of Madeleine being dead in her holiday apartment on 3rd May 2007, the day she ‘disappeared’.
No you cannot. First of all no material was ever identified as blood. Second not one piece of dna was ever identified as being that of madeleines, or likely that of madeleine. All we can see is that in a hire car used by kate, gerry, the twins, grandparents, and other relatives, as well as carrying belongins of madeleines which had her material on, a dna sample of three to five people was found and in that sample fifteen compoents were found which would be found int he dna of kate, gerry, the grandparents, other relatives as well as madeleine. Not exactly surprising that the mccansn dna was found in their car. As for the material in the flat, this could belong to numerous people, not just madeleine. There is also the fact that none of this material points to having come from a corpse either, especially given the only place eddie alerted to in the car was the card fobb which was confirmed as containing the bodily fluid of gerry who is alive.
ENDS
SapphireSteel
11-06-2012, 02:17 PM
I agree it points very strongly towards a deceased Maddie. I don't know much about all these tests, but I am very curious why the FSS changed their minds about the DNA samples. They led PLE to believe they had strong samples, PLE makes the McCanns suspects and the the FSs backs off their original position. What happened?
Salem
Political interference...exactly the same as Mary Lacey in Jonbenet's case when she used rubbish DNA to "exonerate" the Ramseys. It's called "spin".
The powers that be in Portugal, the UK and the USA all wished this mess to just go away...and gosh, it did.
:furious:
Two credible, attractive, educated members of the medical establishment with contacts in high places.
Certain people in power to whom they had direct access (looking at you Gordon) were also sucked in by the same blind, knee-jerk belief as we see on this forum.
They can't possibly be involved. My idea of the universe just won't allow me to contemplate the possibility, if I do everything I know and trust and rely on as an "authority figure" in my life will be threatened.
What's really scary is the realisation that the UK is being run by people who have the same blind faith in the class system and "people like us" as their predecessors did 100 years ago.
Back then, the "criminal classes" commited the crimes, not respectable and respected members of their own upper-middle class.
I can guarantee this evidence would be enough to secure conviction if the McCann had been overweight, spotty, cigarette smoking welfare bludgers from Scunthorpe.
History will judge this mess, and the players.
:banghead:
:cow:
brit1981
11-06-2012, 04:36 PM
my replies in bold Political interference...exactly the same as Mary Lacey in Jonbenet's case when she used rubbish DNA to "exonerate" the Ramseys. It's called "spin".
How is there any evidence of political interference or spin in the mccann case. It is basic genetics. I mean when someone claims that people only have nineteen markers they lose credibility because it comes across as if they have read the lowe report seen them tlak about madeleine's nineteen different markers and assumed she only had nineteen amrkers and this is the same for everyone. The fact is not one shred of DNA evidence exists, and anyone who has a modern high school education would be able to point out that a person's parents will have every single one of their markers.The powers that be in Portugal, the UK and the USA all wished this mess to just go away...and gosh, it did.
Do you have any evidence that "the powers that be" in three countries had any involvement in a cover-up or making this go away. It doe sseem at odds with the givernment of the UK ordering a review of the case, which is very unusual when they coudl have just let it be if they had wished.
:furious:
Two credible, attractive, educated members of the medical establishment with contacts in high places.
What contacts in high places. She was a part time locum GP, he is a cardiologist at a northern hospital. There is no evidence they had contacts in high places. Are you able to provide any links to your evidence or contacts in high places?
Certain people in power to whom they had direct access (looking at you Gordon) were also sucked in by the same blind, knee-jerk belief as we see on this forum.
They did not have access to gordon brown, he telephoned them ages later offering support. They did not have any previous contact with him. And if the belief they are not guilty is so blind and kneww jerk, how is it that those who belive them can provide evidence for their claims, whilst those who claim they are guilty can only at best provide links to rumours and not primary sources, or misinterpret the scientific facts (like the first post from the former secretary of the madeleine foundation)? If the belief they are guilty is based on hard facts then people should be able to back this up with evidence of these hard facts.
They can't possibly be involved. My idea of the universe just won't allow me to contemplate the possibility, if I do everything I know and trust and rely on as an "authority figure" in my life will be threatened.
Er, one of the UKs most infamous and prolific seriel killers was a GP, so people in the Uk have no problem accepting doctors being killers. But as the evidence does not support the theory that they are involved, then that is perhaps why people think they are not involved and therefore believe the PJ and scotland yard.
What's really scary is the realisation that the UK is being run by people who have the same blind faith in the class system and "people like us" as their predecessors did 100 years ago.
Back then, the "criminal classes" commited the crimes, not respectable and respected members of their own upper-middle class.
Er, the mccanns are lower middle class, not exactly high society and certainly not upper middle class. The UK class system does not work by simply getting a good career or money and then hopping up the class ladder.
No-one has been able to come up with any evidence against the mccanns, nor even a theory as to how they physically removed the body from the flat. That is why people do not think they did it
I can guarantee this evidence would be enough to secure conviction if the McCann had been overweight, spotty, cigarette smoking welfare bludgers from Scunthorpe.
No it would not even have been enough to secure charging them, because not one shred of evidence exists against them
History will judge this mess, and the players.
:banghead:
:cow:
Clutchbag
11-10-2012, 05:19 PM
Not a shred of evidence of abduction either, not a single jot, not one iota, but plenty circumstantial against the parents, where do the scales weigh
SapphireSteel
11-10-2012, 09:14 PM
All the McCann has to defend themselves is bluster and money.
It is a sad day indeed for "justice", when this is enough.
The outcome of criminal charges against the rich are famously different to those against the poor in the USA. Britain seems to be following their lead.
:cow:
brit1981
11-11-2012, 06:08 AM
really - you think the fact that the attorney general said there was no evidence they had committed a crime is not in their favour, the fact soctland yard have said it was a stranger abduction is not in their favour? And since when are the mccanns rich, he is a cardiologist, she was a part time locum GP. One would really have to be at the bottom of the ladder to regard them as rich and high society, they had perfectly normal professional jobs in the north of england.
Clutchbag
11-11-2012, 02:27 PM
really - you think the fact that the attorney general said there was no evidence they had committed a crime is not in their favour, the fact soctland yard have said it was a stranger abduction is not in their favour? And since when are the mccanns rich, he is a cardiologist, she was a part time locum GP. One would really have to be at the bottom of the ladder to regard them as rich and high society, they had perfectly normal professional jobs in the north of england.
Scotland Yard have not said in any official capacity that it was a stranger abduction. AR has said he personally believes she is alive. That is just a personal general opinion, given as soon as the review was announced. There is no way he will have read all the files before saying that.
brit1981
11-11-2012, 09:37 PM
Actually Andy Redwood said a year after the review began that they had found leads that led them to believe there was a real possibility she was still alive. he also said a year after the review began that they now believed madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. They had several police officers going through the files for a year so i think we can assume they will have read it all by then.
SapphireSteel
11-16-2012, 09:30 PM
I find it extraordinary that AR spoke at all.
You don't say blab half way through a review, what your opinion is going to be.
It makes you look as though you are biased, and are only going through the paces as you've already decided what you'll find.
:banghead:
Clutchbag
11-17-2012, 07:05 AM
If they really had 195 plausible leads the met wouldnt have asked the govt a few months ago whether to wrap it all up or not LOL and LOL
I really dont think anything AR said could be taken seriously sitting on the gmtv sofa as opposed to a proper news channel LOL again
it is also disingenuous for anyone to say those leads led him to believe a stranger abduction took place, the stranger comment was weeks BEFORE the story about the 195 leads hit the papers, talk about pick and mix and recreating history hahaha
As for the leads, well
http://www.anorak.co.uk/320352/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-distorting-the-facts-with-detective-chief-inspector-andy-redwood.html/
fabgod
11-17-2012, 07:24 AM
Actually Andy Redwood said a year after the review began that they had found leads that led them to believe there was a real possibility she was still alive. he also said a year after the review began that they now believed madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. They had several police officers going through the files for a year so i think we can assume they will have read it all by then.
According to the reports, Operation Grange Detectives had gone through a quarter of the 40,000 pieces of information, so I think contrary to your suggestion, that iit is safe to say that in fact they had worked through a quarter or 10,000 pieces of information, unless you can post actual evidence of your claim?
Andy Redwood sad "he" believed, a personal statement not an official statement by The Metropolitan Police.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-chief-calls-for-decision-on-funding-of-madeleine-mccann-review-8078769.html
fabgod
11-17-2012, 07:31 AM
If Scotland Yard really thought that Madeleine was alive, he made the statement over 6 months ago, there has been no apparent movement in the case, she certainly doesn't seem to have been located, so where is the urgency in finding her?
To say he believed there was a real chance of her being alive Andy Redwood, one would presume, would have some real grounds for that thought, so, is Madeleine with a family that are caring for her well and she is in no danger of harm?
Is she with family in another part of the world, being cared for?
because if she was in the hands of say a paedophile gang, then surely the Metropolitan Police would not make a statement about her being alive and not know anything about her whereabouts, it wouldnt make any sense in that it would be putting her situation under more pressure.
IMO it was a misguided comment that does little to help the situation at all
SapphireSteel
11-19-2012, 12:45 AM
AR's blathering is farcical.
Are they claiming to be only one quarter way through? Yet still he's able to spout about a criminal act by a stranger, even though he only knows a quarter of the intelligence?
Is he psychic too?
Such a glaring faux pas is inexcusable in one of his position, trying to convince the public they are unbiased and impartial.
Clearly, Andy Redmond is neither!
:maddening:
brit1981
11-21-2012, 10:16 AM
Andy redwood has not demonstrated bias. We have no idea what all the files say, so we cannot accuse him of bias. There is no reason to presume that he has not discovered enough to rule out those know to madeleine. It does not take a lot to rule someone out of an investigation. For instance it might be they looked at the witness statements and realised it was impossible for the mccanns to have hidden a body that evening. We just do not know enough to claim he is wrong. he has access to the full and professionally translated files we do not, so we have no grounds for laiming he is wrong.
And surley if people think it is wrong to look at what andy redwood said a year after the review because the review is not complete, it must also be wrong to listen to amaral who was only on the case for a few months and was in charge when a huge amount of false leaks were made by the police.
if the SY review finds anything more is yet to be seen - the chaces that they are unlikely to find that smoking gun piece of evidence - but to slag off the process before he has actually completed the review and presented his findings is non sensical ??
If he has a budget to reexamine all the available evidence then great - everyone should welcome that regardless of view points - thsi is what everyone claioms they want - to find the truth and the more eyes looking is better than nothing
It might also urge the portugese LE to give 100% cooperation as well - though I think behind the scenes they are . I think they learnt form the days when everything was being linked to the press and we had missleading rumour and falsehoods on a daily basis
SapphireSteel
11-22-2012, 04:17 PM
if the SY review finds anything more is yet to be seen - the chaces that they are unlikely to find that smoking gun piece of evidence - but to slag off the process before he has actually completed the review and presented his findings is non sensical ??
If he has a budget to reexamine all the available evidence then great - everyone should welcome that regardless of view points - thsi is what everyone claioms they want - to find the truth and the more eyes looking is better than nothing
It might also urge the portugese LE to give 100% cooperation as well - though I think behind the scenes they are . I think they learnt form the days when everything was being linked to the press and we had missleading rumour and falsehoods on a daily basis
I don't think the process is being "slagged off".
I do think the process is now being viewed with some suspicion.
The point is as you say, the process is not completed...yet here we have "opinion" being bandied about as though it is truth. We have "findings" presented on breakfast television, when the review is not even close to being completed!
Do you not find this nonsensical?
:dunno:
Remember, it was SY themselves who invited this debate, by sending AR on telly to share his personal opinions in the first place, when they were only one quarter of the way through the evidence.
It is highly irregular for a senior policeman to appear on tv for a sit down chat on any one case that is still open and current.
It is even more irregular for that policeman to blab about the expected results when only one quarter way through a review.
So irregular in fact, that I don't think it has ever occured before. Senior Policemen are usually excellent at avoiding comment in fact.
It really makes you wonder about the standard of policing and basic common sense in SY.
If you have no problem with a senior policeman opining the results of a "review" while only one quarter way through it, on tv, like the conclusion is foregone, then you really should consider going to live in a communist country where this sort of thing is commonplace and accepted by Joe Public.
ETA: Britain isn't communist yet, but police coverups are apparently just fine, so no need to move (see: Hillsborough).
Clutchbag
11-22-2012, 07:58 PM
redwood had no business going on a tv morning chat show when he did to give his opinion, no one is interested in his personal opinion unless its the opinion of the whole review team
Lorraine kelly and co are NOT the medium to announce these things, i would have liked him to go on newsnight instead :D to discuss the 3m pound remit and be questioned by paxman and the heavies not a fashion and cooking journalist
Which makes me think he was paid to say what he said by someone who wants to keep the squeaky clean image of the mccanns alive for reasons known to them
SapphireSteel
11-22-2012, 08:12 PM
redwood had no business going on a tv morning chat show when he did to give his opinion, no one is interested in his personal opinion unless its the opinion of the whole review team
Lorraine kelly and co are NOT the medium to announce these things, i would have liked him to go on newsnight instead :D to discuss the 3m pound remit and be questioned by paxman and the heavies not a fashion and cooking journalist
Which makes me think he was paid to say what he said by someone who wants to keep the squeaky clean image of the mccanns alive for reasons known to them
Absolutely...it is really a pantomime.
I keep saying that one day history will judge this mess, and it will.
Think of it...a top secret police review of another police force's investigation, and the Head of that review pops into breakfast television to inform the housewives what he thinks. What he thinks is TOTALLY irrelevant.
Never before have I heard of such insanity.
The problem is, it worked. Just look on this board - people support the McCanns blindly, no questions asked.
Expensive PR can even control Scotland Yard it seems.
This whole mess makes me sick. Are there NO investigative journalists left in England with the balls to stand up to the Establishment?
:banghead:
Clutchbag
11-22-2012, 08:27 PM
Absolutely...it is really a pantomime.
I keep saying that one day history will judge this mess, and it will.
Think of it...a top secret police review of another police force's investigation, and the Head of that review pops into breakfast television to inform the housewives what he thinks. What he thinks is TOTALLY irrelevant.
Never before have I heard of such insanity.
The problem is, it worked. Just look on this board - people support the McCanns blindly, no questions asked.
Expensive PR can even control Scotland Yard it seems.
This whole mess makes me sick. Are there NO investigative journalists left in England with the balls to stand up to the Establishment?
:banghead:
I was goinf to answer gord onanother thread but same difference here, ecenif there was not a cover up and my opinion is there probably wasnt per se, its a very true fact that thebritishmedia have wholeheartedly from very early on slammed the portuguese so ingraciously andnastily and sided with the mccanns, you know, stick up for your own, until the dogs went in, thenthere was a backlash, then clarence mitchell their spokesman, dark arts spinmeister liar extraordinaire, stepped in shortly after and paid forby the fund dont forget,and used pr agencies and all sorts to get the press to do a uturn andbe sympathetic to them, themanwho worked for the govt media monitoring unit before and for the tory party before the the last election followed by coulson who is now onbail withrebekah brookes another champion of themccanns also charged with perverting e course of justice via her papers, hacking phones, paying policeand mod officials for info, and all sorts, what a murky old world
do i think there is a cover up, very likely but im not sure for what reason, could be simple pride could be reputations of nhs and others, shrug, dont know, just wish it gets blasted to kingdom come if true
Best log off now because my ipad wontletme do spaces :D
Eta just want to hear from any policemans mouth that cadaver dogs react to BO, urine, sperm, toenails, period blood, acne sores, rotting teeth, etc and that they avoided barking at all places where the mccanns didnt stay at where one or any of these should have been there too :D cos they wanted in kate mccanns own words in her book, just to please their master,coulsnt make it up could you
SapphireSteel
11-22-2012, 10:33 PM
Theories abound as to just why the McCann was given such favourable treatment.
It's fairly clear now that the British media works hand in hand with the British government, and in the middle of it all is one Rupert Murdoch, pulling the strings and telling us only what he thinks we need to know.
If this isn't corruption at the highest level, I'd like to know what is.
I've read a blog stating that Gerry threatened to let some secrets loose, specifically about the death of Princess Diana of all things.
I think the truth is probably far more ordinary.
I think that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair simply could not believe that one of their ilk (the Establishment) could possibly be guilty, so they helped him out of kindness and solidarity.
It quickly became apparent that Gerry was guilty, according to the British Police, which is when things began to shut down.
I believe it is just a classic case of butt-covering. Ooops, we backed the wrong horse...better not let anyone find out.
It happens all the time. I don't know why people find it so unbelievable.
Unfortunately, no one was prepared for Goncalo Amaral, and the lengths he was prepared to go to , to get the "truth of the lie" heard.
:cow:
brit1981
11-23-2012, 05:48 AM
I have seen no favourable treatment of the mccanns. It is normal for UK nationals abroad to get help from their own state, and Mps do get involved in these sort of cases. When men suspected of murdering and otrturing a boy in Glasgow fled abroad british MPs traveled there to obtain their return.
I also do not get how a locun GP and a cardiologist from the north, both childrne of immigrants and member sof a religious minority are considered one of Blair and Browns ilk. Is it a lower class thing, that they assume anyone with an education is some sort of high society, or is it a non-eu thing? because I would not consider the mccanns to be upper middle class, nor woudl anyone in the UK think doctors woudl never committ a crime. In fact whilst blair was PM a doctor was convicted of seriel killing.
because the mccann case happened abroad it is not fully subjustice so reporting restrictiosn are nt as touch. But it is not unknown for the police to go on TV and say that they are looking at a certain scenario. That is what happens at press conferences during missing persons cases etc. he went on TV and announced that they after looking t the evidenc ebelived it was not anyone known to madeleine who was behind her disappearence. There is no reason why they had not looked at enough evidence to discount those known to the mccanns.
As for amaral, well no most normal people would not be prepared for the police man in charge of a missing child case to be an aguido who was later criminally convicted for falsifying evidence. Thankfully he is a foolish little chap (anyone else seen that southern comfort advert and seen a similarity?), who no-one apart from a few people on the internet takes seriously.
Theories abound as to just why the McCann was given such favourable treatment.
It's fairly clear now that the British media works hand in hand with the British government, and in the middle of it all is one Rupert Murdoch, pulling the strings and telling us only what he thinks we need to know.
If this isn't corruption at the highest level, I'd like to know what is.
I've read a blog stating that Gerry threatened to let some secrets loose, specifically about the death of Princess Diana of all things.
I think the truth is probably far more ordinary.
I think that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair simply could not believe that one of their ilk (the Establishment) could possibly be guilty, so they helped him out of kindness and solidarity.
It quickly became apparent that Gerry was guilty, according to the British Police, which is when things began to shut down.
I believe it is just a classic case of butt-covering. Ooops, we backed the wrong horse...better not let anyone find out.
It happens all the time. I don't know why people find it so unbelievable.
Unfortunately, no one was prepared for Goncalo Amaral, and the lengths he was prepared to go to , to get the "truth of the lie" heard.
:cow:
I dont know where you get impression of the UK ? To say that Brown and Blair would break the law to support a couple of Doctors they have never met ? Gerry is a working class guy from Glasgow who worked hard to become a Doctor - he is not part of some upper establishment club or ilk. Our politicians are not above the law in this country that includes the PM and Chancellor - they cant just instruct the police to cover up a crime especialy one as horrible and high profile as this was purported to be
If you look hard enough on the net you can find all sort of theories about Diana etc etc - but it doesnt mean they are right
SapphireSteel
11-23-2012, 01:47 PM
What law exactly would they be breaking?
Portugese, or British?
:waitasec:
If Gerry is such an unimportant "working class guy", then why all the direct interference from Gordon Brown and Tony Blair 4 May and onwards?
I did not see Sharon Matthews making a personal call to Gordon to get her out of the carp?
Gerry McCann is actually one of the foremost cardiac diagnostician in Europe, let alone Britain. He has saved many, many lives and is highly respected. He works mainly in research and is now leading a team of diagnosticians on the forefront of heart medicine.
http://www.eme.ac.uk/news_and_events/111110%20news%20item.asp
SapphireSteel
11-23-2012, 02:17 PM
I dont know where you get impression of the UK ? To say that Brown and Blair would break the law to support a couple of Doctors they have never met ? Gerry is a working class guy from Glasgow who worked hard to become a Doctor - he is not part of some upper establishment club or ilk. Our politicians are not above the law in this country that includes the PM and Chancellor - they cant just instruct the police to cover up a crime especialy one as horrible and high profile as this was purported to be
If you look hard enough on the net you can find all sort of theories about Diana etc etc - but it doesnt mean they are right
:lol:
In what universe?
Have you not heard of the MP's expenses scandal? Hillsborough? Tony Blair's dishonesty to the British public surrounding the invasion of Iraq?
Take a look at this headline - from 14 September 2012 no less. The cronyism and secret boys club is alive and well.
Masters of cover-up: How the Establishment closes ranks to protect its own and deny the people the truth
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203524/Hillsborough-disaster-cover-How-Establishment-closes-ranks-protect-own.html#ixzz2D4dWN8y7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Note that no one has taken the Daily Mail to court for "libel" :waitasec:
Interesting read and illustrates exactly how the cosy relationship works within the Establishment.
I understand that the "working class man" is in total denial, they have to be. It would be too frightening for most of the blue collar thought processes to even contemplate a world where their social "superiors" can and do lie.
Like finding out your priest is a pedophile...people just do not want to believe it. It threatens everything they respect in life.
I strongly suggest anyone who still believes in the integrity of their politicians and judiciary to read this article. It makes very unpleasant reading but illustrates exactly the sort of conditions which has allowed the McCann to escape unpunished.
You might need to have a bex and a good lie down after reading it. If you still believe those in charge have your best interests at heart you are in for a terrible shock.
:cow:
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0