809 users online (142 members and 667 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 93
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786

    Sleuthing Madeleine's disappearance.

    I believe that the evidence indicates parental guilt and a cover up.

    Please note this is my belief and opinion and as such does not require a link.

    For those who believe the McCanns to be 100% innocent -

    How do you explain the cadaver scent?
    How do you explain Kate refusing to answer questions?
    How do you explain her parents never once calling her name?
    How do you explain Kate leaving the twins alone to rush to the restaurant, when she had a mobile?

    I could go on and on...

    Team McCann seem very good at offence, and not very good at defence.

    If anyone so much as hints toward an alternate theory to their "abductor", they typically present nothing as proof he exists, but do present a lot of bluster, law suits and counter accusations and generalised mud-throwing.

    Sleuthing and crime solving is evidence based, not emotion based. We have a massive pile of circumstantial and forensic evidence against the parents, and zero for an intruder.

    So what exactly is the IDI theory based on? Why are their supporters so convinced of their innocence to the point of seeming almost fanatical, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

    Theories?

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    I believe that the evidence indicates parental guilt and a cover up.

    Please note this is my belief and opinion and as such does not require a link.

    For those who believe the McCanns to be 100% innocent -

    How do you explain the cadaver scent?
    How do you explain Kate refusing to answer questions?
    How do you explain her parents never once calling her name?
    How do you explain Kate leaving the twins alone to rush to the restaurant, when she had a mobile?

    I could go on and on...

    Team McCann seem very good at offence, and not very good at defence.

    If anyone so much as hints toward an alternate theory to their "abductor", they typically present nothing as proof he exists, but do present a lot of bluster, law suits and counter accusations and generalised mud-throwing.

    Sleuthing and crime solving is evidence based, not emotion based. We have a massive pile of circumstantial and forensic evidence against the parents, and zero for an intruder.

    So what exactly is the IDI theory based on? Why are their supporters so convinced of their innocence to the point of seeming almost fanatical, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

    Theories?

    Well first the PJ final report stated that they belived the parents to be innocent as there was no evidence against them, and there was no explanation as to how they got rid of the body.

    Scotland yard have stated they believe the child was taken by a stranger, but have obviously not listed the individuel reasons.

    1) First there is no proof that cadaver scent was found. If we assume the dogs are always accurate we have to remember that according to Grime the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids and dried blood from living people. Therefore there is no way of proving that the dog did not alert to dried blood for instance. If we assume that the dog did alert to cadaver scent, it does not actually implicate the McCanns anyway as I will explain later.

    2) Kate had already answered these questions if one looks at the actually questions. Plus these questions were not designed to find madeleine, and her interest was in finding madeleine.

    3) her parents did call her name according to witness statements.

    4) I have not seen anywhere syaing both she and gerry had mobiles. But in a panic running to alert her hisband that there child was gone doe snto seem unusual.

    Now the mccanns do not bluster. In the UK and Portugal it is not allowed to lie about someone. Now if someone prints lies be it on the internet or in the main stream media then they are liable for at best libel, and at worst contempt of court cases. In the McCanns case severla main stream media outlets admitted printing lies. Other people have also printe dlies and as such are now facing lawsuits. Several of the McCanns friends also won damages for lies being printed, Murat also won amages for lies being printed. If people are telling the truth then they have nothing to worry about a slibel is one of the easiest things to defend. It si also important to remember that libel cases are nto just related ot the McCanns. A man connected to the Joanna Yeates case won six figure damages for libel, and the media were prosecute dfor contempt of court for writing lies about him, currently in the UK a tory peer is taking action against individuels on the internet and the websites fro writing lies about him.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...s-legal-action

    So the mccanns actions are not in the least unusual - if people do not want to go to court make sure they have evidence to back up their claims (also in the EU people cannot protect themselves from claiming something is just a theory/opinion/alleged if it is defamatory, and not based on facts, honest or fair comment will nto cover them), which if they are telling the truth as they claim shoudl not be so difficult.



    As for what evidence is the intruder theory based on, well for the public it is base don the fact that two LEs have stated it was not the parents. The LE only have to give evidence of who committed a crime, not of who did nto commit a crime, due to the rule innocent before guilty i.e they have to demonstrate someone's guilt and not their innocence.

    Ther eis also the fact that despite five years going by not one person ahs come up with a theory as to how the mccanns did it, and evidence against them that is base don facts. So far we have seen people making up claims about the forensic reports, accusing anyone official such as the FSS, SY etc of being part of a giant conspiracy if they do not support the idea the mccanns did it, and then pure speculation. If peopel have to rely on inaccuracies and giant conspiracies involving everyone from the US government, to the mcanns friends, friend's wife's mother then they are clutching at straws.

    But lets look at this, for an intruder to have done it they needed to watch Gerry walk out, then open the unlocked sliding doors, walk in (perhaps opening the window as an escape route/way to hand the child out etc or perhaps it was opened earlier by the cleaner and because the curtains were shut and there was no breeze at this time the window was already open), pick up the child and then walk out again. It woudl ahve taken five minutes maximum and would not have led to the intruder leaving dna behind or even fingerprints if they wore gloves, and lets face it it was a holidya flat how can one identify an unidenitified fingerprint as belonging to a previous tennent, workman, intruder etc.
    If the intruder took madeleine just after gerrys approx 9pm check then the timings fit with the Tanner sighting as she saw the man after gerry had walked from the flat steps, and a bit down the road and stopped for a few mins to talk to jeremy, meaning the abductor had by then had the few minutes needed. This also fits in with the smith sighting who saw a man matching tanners description but who they could not identify (and no they did not identify the man as gerry). Why is there a gap coudl be explained by any one of a number of theories, perhaps the abductor was supposed ot meet soemone near the flat but for some reason plans went askew and they had to walk somewhere else to meet them, perhaps they had a vehicle there etc).

    If the parents did it then it becomes incredibly complicated. First of all we know madeleine was seen alive at five thirty, gerry was seen at the tennis courts at six to seven thirty, the mccanns were seen at the tapas bar at eight thorty, the mccanns were each only alone after eight thorty for five minutes each, and it got dark at eight thirty. Now for her parents to be guilty they had to dispose of the body by ten when the searches began so we can rule out them disposing of it after eight thrty as they only had five minutes each. So that means that they had a maximum of an hour (since gerry was at tennis for the six to seven thirty period) to decide to dumpt the body of their first born, go on foot without digging implements and find a suitable place to hide the body in a place they did not know and where the only had access to public areas in broad daylight without a single person seeing them and where not one person int he five years since, not even the sniffer dogs which those who think they are guilty cling to, and those who know the area well. They then had to change and appear at dinner in a normal manner. We know that the handler of the EVRD claims the dog alerts to dried blood and since he alerted in the room where someone says they bled for nearly an hour, and on a card fobb that contained geryr mccanns bodily fluid it seems that Grime is correct. Even if we assume Grime is wrong and the dog fails to alert to dried blood it doe snot implicate the mccanns nor simplify the case. It simply means that madeleine died either behind the sofa or in the wardrobe which means that it is unlikely she had been sedated, and therefore poses the question of why the mccanns would hide an accidental death (assuming she fell) when they were there. It also begs the question of how come the mccanns managed ot have to body only touch these tow spots, and did nto transfer the scent to anythign else in the flat, yet several weeks later transfered the scent to the card fobb yet not the boot, not the steering wheel, not the gearstick etc as if the person who touched the card fobb did not tiuch anythign else. This cannot be explained, unless we go back to assume Grime is correct about his dogs abilities and that it can indeed alert to dried blood or bodily fluids.

    So far for all the cries of the mccanns must be guilty, not one person so convinced of their guilt has come up with any explanation as to how the mccanns disposed of the body in broad daylight in a hour on foot in public places without a single witness or the body being found.
    Last edited by Salem; 11-10-2012 at 10:22 PM. Reason: fix quote

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    Well first the PJ final report stated that they belived the parents to be innocent.
    Citation is required for those words, that the police believed the parents innoceng,thanks in advance

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    From the report (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm)

    "The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

    To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

    Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal."

    ) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

    b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    that is only a hypothesis based on little or nothing

    The police did not establish when madeleine was *taken* so how could they say they were not there
    And police have not established when mccanns or others were actually there or not as that is impossible

    Jibbles nonsensical statement here

    So there is no statement that they are innocent

    The mccanns were released of suspect status only because at the time there was no concrete evidence against them, same for murat though he was cleared properly, doesnt in any way shape or form mean the police declared them innocent, no onehas apart from their spin doctor and bis tabloid minions

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    In actual fact as it is a statement they were nto involved and are not guilty of any crime it is a statement of innocence. In the EU people are automatically innocent, no-one, the mccanns, you or me has to prove their innocence nor will any LE look to prove their innocence. The police are on;y intereste din finding the guilty person, once they ahve decided someone si not guilty they move on. That is why the verdicts in trials are guilty or not guilty, rather than guilty or innocence. Why do you think there has been a huge uproar over people on twitter naming people they think could be paedophiles in relation to the wrexham care hoem scandel - they have played judge and jury and are demanding innocent people suddenly have to prove their innocence and it is wrong.

    Murat was cleared in the exact same way as the mccanns, the wording is even word for word the same.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    In actual fact as it is a statement they were nto involved and are not guilty of any crime it is a statement of innocence. In the EU people are automatically innocent, no-one, the mccanns, you or me has to prove their innocence nor will any LE look to prove their innocence. The police are on;y intereste din finding the guilty person, once they ahve decided someone si not guilty they move on. That is why the verdicts in trials are guilty or not guilty, rather than guilty or innocence. Why do you think there has been a huge uproar over people on twitter naming people they think could be paedophiles in relation to the wrexham care hoem scandel - they have played judge and jury and are demanding innocent people suddenly have to prove their innocence and it is wrong.

    Murat was cleared in the exact same way as the mccanns, the wording is even word for word the same.
    There is no statement at all anywhere that they are innocent if there was someone would have written as much, in fact the British police stated that there was no evidence from the files that they were not involved, so there you go

    As for R Murat, the magistrate stated ALL so called evidence against him EVAPORATED, he did not state the same for the other two suspects, just that no evidence was found

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    The McCann was not and has never been "cleared"!!!!!!!!!!!

    The process was archived due to two reasons

    1. political pressure from the US
    2. lack of cooperation from the McCann.

    That is all.

    They were never, ever declared innocent. They just shut down, refused to cooperate, left the country, and as such the Portugese threw up their hands and closed it down.

    Why should they keep looking for a little girl who nobody else wishes to find?

    If the McCann had wished Madeleine found, they would be in daily contact with LE, pestering them...not lawyering up and leaving the country and embarking on a series of libel suits against anyone who spoke against them.

    Disgraceful.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    LE in the EU do not declare someone innocent because they do not need to as it is automatic that anyone who has not been found guilty is innocent. The Pj stated there was no evidence against the parents and in the EU evidence is needed before someone can even be charged let alone foudn guilty, it is illegal in the EU to take someone to court when there is not a shred of evidence aganst them. It would indeed be a sad day if we started to complain because people were deemed innocent just ebcause there was no evidence against soemone. If there is no evidence then how can they be found guilty in any civilized court? So by saying there was no evidence against the mccanns there were declared innocent, as was murat, since this happened in a EU country where we need evidence.

    The mccanns are the ones who have campaigned for the case to be reopened, they campaigned and set up petitions and sent open letters to the PM to get a review. Not anyone else. In fact one group have even set up a petition to try to get the review shut down!

    And they have not embarke don libel suits against those who spoke against them, just those who have written lies about them. The media admitted writing lies about them. Murat and their friends and all ten received compensation (yes murat sued as well). Others are beign sued for on the basis they have written lies, but if they have written the truth then the defendent shave nothing to worry about do they - we will se eif they will be able to prove their claims in court or if they will fail in doing this, or try to avoid the chance to prove their claims. Wy shoudl people be able to publish out right lies about people, I can think of no country where freedom of speech is such that it is acceptable to publish out right lies about individuels.

    Can you please provide evidence that this case was close ddue to uncoperation from the mccanns and from political pressure from the US?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    I have just finished watching a Dr Phil show about Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star, Taylor Armstrong.

    She is in the process of writing a "tell all" book about her ex-husband, Russell, who committed suicide.

    His family clearly don't want her to profit in any way from his death, however as they are in the United States they will attempt nothing to stop her as they respect freedom of speech.

    His sister said, I'm paraphrasing -

    The only remedy for her telling this false story is for us to keep telling the true story. Every time she gives an interview, we will give an interview.

    It struck me that the McCann could have counteracted their detractors like this, instead of interminable and expensive libel actions.

    But of course, that would mean the McCanns would have to answer questions. Which they do not wish to do.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Free speech does not give people the right to lie. Libel only covers lies about living people so if someone is telling the truth then they have no problem. If people are so certain they are telling the truth then why are they worried about being sued since they woudl win their case
    Also as the person beign written about in your above statement is dead they cannot be libeled, people can say what they want about the dead.
    And in the Uk the mccanns are not the only people by far to sue for libel, they just get the most international attention. At the moment ten thousand twitter users are facing libel action as well a spossible criminal prosecution for naming someone as a paedophile when they were not. The action is not just against those who actually named him, but those who implied it, or directed people to sites doing the same, and they are not covered even if they put allegedly, in my opinion, "i heard", or if they honestly believed it. They are only protected if they have proof he is a paedophile, which obviously they do not. people have the right not to have malicious lies spread about them on the web or on the streets. How many here if they found out their neighbourhood had been leafleted with claims they were a child abuser would support those doing the leafleting even if it was to the parents of your children's friends and was relentless etc? I know I woudl not, and I doubt anyone else would either.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    On Battleship Hill
    Posts
    3,282
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    Well first the PJ final report stated that they belived the parents to be innocent as there was no evidence against them, and there was no explanation as to how they got rid of the body.

    Scotland yard have stated they believe the child was taken by a stranger, but have obviously not listed the individuel reasons.

    1) First there is no proof that cadaver scent was found. If we assume the dogs are always accurate we have to remember that according to Grime the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids and dried blood from living people. Therefore there is no way of proving that the dog did not alert to dried blood for instance. If we assume that the dog did alert to cadaver scent, it does not actually implicate the McCanns anyway as I will explain later.

    2) Kate had already answered these questions if one looks at the actually questions. Plus these questions were not designed to find madeleine, and her interest was in finding madeleine.

    3) her parents did call her name according to witness statements.

    4) I have not seen anywhere syaing both she and gerry had mobiles. But in a panic running to alert her hisband that there child was gone doe snto seem unusual.

    Now the mccanns do not bluster. In the UK and Portugal it is not allowed to lie about someone. Now if someone prints lies be it on the internet or in the main stream media then they are liable for at best libel, and at worst contempt of court cases. In the McCanns case severla main stream media outlets admitted printing lies. Other people have also printe dlies and as such are now facing lawsuits. Several of the McCanns friends also won damages for lies being printed, Murat also won amages for lies being printed. If people are telling the truth then they have nothing to worry about a slibel is one of the easiest things to defend. It si also important to remember that libel cases are nto just related ot the McCanns. A man connected to the Joanna Yeates case won six figure damages for libel, and the media were prosecute dfor contempt of court for writing lies about him, currently in the UK a tory peer is taking action against individuels on the internet and the websites fro writing lies about him.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...s-legal-action

    So the mccanns actions are not in the least unusual - if people do not want to go to court make sure they have evidence to back up their claims (also in the EU people cannot protect themselves from claiming something is just a theory/opinion/alleged if it is defamatory, and not based on facts, honest or fair comment will nto cover them), which if they are telling the truth as they claim shoudl not be so difficult.



    As for what evidence is the intruder theory based on, well for the public it is base don the fact that two LEs have stated it was not the parents. The LE only have to give evidence of who committed a crime, not of who did nto commit a crime, due to the rule innocent before guilty i.e they have to demonstrate someone's guilt and not their innocence.

    Ther eis also the fact that despite five years going by not one person ahs come up with a theory as to how the mccanns did it, and evidence against them that is base don facts. So far we have seen people making up claims about the forensic reports, accusing anyone official such as the FSS, SY etc of being part of a giant conspiracy if they do not support the idea the mccanns did it, and then pure speculation. If peopel have to rely on inaccuracies and giant conspiracies involving everyone from the US government, to the mcanns friends, friend's wife's mother then they are clutching at straws.

    But lets look at this, for an intruder to have done it they needed to watch Gerry walk out, then open the unlocked sliding doors, walk in (perhaps opening the window as an escape route/way to hand the child out etc or perhaps it was opened earlier by the cleaner and because the curtains were shut and there was no breeze at this time the window was already open), pick up the child and then walk out again. It woudl ahve taken five minutes maximum and would not have led to the intruder leaving dna behind or even fingerprints if they wore gloves, and lets face it it was a holidya flat how can one identify an unidenitified fingerprint as belonging to a previous tennent, workman, intruder etc.
    If the intruder took madeleine just after gerrys approx 9pm check then the timings fit with the Tanner sighting as she saw the man after gerry had walked from the flat steps, and a bit down the road and stopped for a few mins to talk to jeremy, meaning the abductor had by then had the few minutes needed. This also fits in with the smith sighting who saw a man matching tanners description but who they could not identify (and no they did not identify the man as gerry). Why is there a gap coudl be explained by any one of a number of theories, perhaps the abductor was supposed ot meet soemone near the flat but for some reason plans went askew and they had to walk somewhere else to meet them, perhaps they had a vehicle there etc).

    If the parents did it then it becomes incredibly complicated. First of all we know madeleine was seen alive at five thirty, gerry was seen at the tennis courts at six to seven thirty, the mccanns were seen at the tapas bar at eight thorty, the mccanns were each only alone after eight thorty for five minutes each, and it got dark at eight thirty. Now for her parents to be guilty they had to dispose of the body by ten when the searches began so we can rule out them disposing of it after eight thrty as they only had five minutes each. So that means that they had a maximum of an hour (since gerry was at tennis for the six to seven thirty period) to decide to dumpt the body of their first born, go on foot without digging implements and find a suitable place to hide the body in a place they did not know and where the only had access to public areas in broad daylight without a single person seeing them and where not one person int he five years since, not even the sniffer dogs which those who think they are guilty cling to, and those who know the area well. They then had to change and appear at dinner in a normal manner. We know that the handler of the EVRD claims the dog alerts to dried blood and since he alerted in the room where someone says they bled for nearly an hour, and on a card fobb that contained geryr mccanns bodily fluid it seems that Grime is correct. Even if we assume Grime is wrong and the dog fails to alert to dried blood it doe snot implicate the mccanns nor simplify the case. It simply means that madeleine died either behind the sofa or in the wardrobe which means that it is unlikely she had been sedated, and therefore poses the question of why the mccanns would hide an accidental death (assuming she fell) when they were there. It also begs the question of how come the mccanns managed ot have to body only touch these tow spots, and did nto transfer the scent to anythign else in the flat, yet several weeks later transfered the scent to the card fobb yet not the boot, not the steering wheel, not the gearstick etc as if the person who touched the card fobb did not tiuch anythign else. This cannot be explained, unless we go back to assume Grime is correct about his dogs abilities and that it can indeed alert to dried blood or bodily fluids.

    So far for all the cries of the mccanns must be guilty, not one person so convinced of their guilt has come up with any explanation as to how the mccanns disposed of the body in broad daylight in a hour on foot in public places without a single witness or the body being found.

    Dried blood yes, all dogs will do this. Bodily fluids -no. You keep repeating this like a broken record. It does not make it true
    England's dancing days are done...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    I can keep repeating too.

    Cadaverine only comes from a cadaver. Cadaverine only comes from a cadaver.

    And so on...

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    LE in the EU do not declare someone innocent because they do not need to as it is automatic that anyone who has not been found guilty is innocent. The Pj stated there was no evidence against the parents and in the EU evidence is needed before someone can even be charged let alone foudn guilty, it is illegal in the EU to take someone to court when there is not a shred of evidence aganst them. It would indeed be a sad day if we started to complain because people were deemed innocent just ebcause there was no evidence against soemone. If there is no evidence then how can they be found guilty in any civilized court? So by saying there was no evidence against the mccanns there were declared innocent, as was murat, since this happened in a EU country where we need evidence.

    The mccanns are the ones who have campaigned for the case to be reopened, they campaigned and set up petitions and sent open letters to the PM to get a review. Not anyone else. In fact one group have even set up a petition to try to get the review shut down!

    And they have not embarke don libel suits against those who spoke against them, just those who have written lies about them. The media admitted writing lies about them. Murat and their friends and all ten received compensation (yes murat sued as well). Others are beign sued for on the basis they have written lies, but if they have written the truth then the defendent shave nothing to worry about do they - we will se eif they will be able to prove their claims in court or if they will fail in doing this, or try to avoid the chance to prove their claims. Wy shoudl people be able to publish out right lies about people, I can think of no country where freedom of speech is such that it is acceptable to publish out right lies about individuels.

    Can you please provide evidence that this case was close ddue to uncoperation from the mccanns and from political pressure from the US?
    From Martin Grimes profile

    "Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent."

    Brit I haven't seen anything that says that Eddie alerts to bodily fluids. I think it's only Keela.

    Want your opinion on the above as i'm not great at putting into words the DNA stuff.

    TIA

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Some attempt to discredit the dogs, some attempt to discredit the science...some attempt to discredit both, but always in separate posts.



    What they cannot even attempt to explain however, is the appearance of cadaverine/body fluid/whatever consistent with Madeleine, on her parents belongings ONLY, in all of the Ocean Club.

    The dogs indicated, the forensics confirmed.

    The science can be blurred, but this detail just cannot be explained any other way than, the McCann handled Madeleine's dead body. If not Madeleine's, then Sean's or Amelie's, and they apparently survived the Family Holiday From Hell.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 10:19 AM