1083 users online (255 members and 828 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 90
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476

    myths debunked

    There are so many myths going around about this case that I thought a thread to clear a few up was in order so here goes.

    Myth 1) that madeleine's DNA was found in the hire car


    This is incorect. What was found in the hire car was a mix of dna from three to five people which contained components found in the dna of madeleine, It is incorrect to think because 15 out of madeleine's components were found it is like a 15 out of 19 chance it is hers, simply because all nineteen components are found in the dna of her parents, as well as her grandparents, and to a lesser extent her other relatives. There is no reason why this material could not have come from anyone of the mccanns seen using the car.

    Myth 2) that the smith family identified gerry as a man carrying a child away from the resort at approx ten pm 3rd may.
    Incorrect. the smiths say a man carrying a child away at this time, but all said that they could not identify him as it was dark. Several weeks later one of the family said after seeing Gerry on TV he felt by body language alone it could be him (60% chance), but was uncertain and as it was dark and he did not have his glasses he could not identify the mans face. Several other witnesses, including those outside the tapas nine, testify that gerry was at the complex at this time

    Myth 3)that the fund could ave been set up as a charity and that this would have been more transparent.
    Incorrect under english law (charities act 2006 and 2011) a charity must have a public benefit beyond helping one or a few more name dindividuels. The charity ommission is just a regulator and cannot bend the rules. This is why even funds for sick children are either held in banks or made companies as they cannot be charities. Also charities are not more transparent that normal companies and in fact it is harder to obtain accounts for charities than it is for companies in the UK. The mccanns only option was to keep the money in a private bank account which had no transparency or set up NF company which required the submission of accounts.

    Myth 4) the mccanns were made suspects in the case.

    [I]Incorrect they were made aguidos which is akin to a person of interest, and not suspect. In most places parents are normally the first POIs in a missing child case[/I]
    myth 5) the mccanns have behaved unusually in sueing media outlets.
    Incorrect this is not an uncommon step in the Uk for libel and has been taken by many victims including christopher jeffories and Robert murat. In the jefferies case some media were even prosecuted. Most recently Lord McAlpine has taken action against media and threatened ten thousand twitter users for libel after false accusations were made against him. So the mccanns are not unusual.
    Everyone has the right to sue for libel, but it is easy to defend. If someone is telling the truth they have no problem defending a libel case.

    myth 6) The mccanns used calpol to sedate the children and kates father admitted this.

    Incorrect. Firstly calpol is not a sedative. Secondly Kates father stated that they never sedated the children, and thirdly no evidence of sedation has ever been found.

    Myth 7) Jane tanner changed her story

    Incorrect her story has remained consistant throughout.

    myth 8) There is evidence of a cover up


    Incorrect, not one shred of evidence has ever come to light that there has been any cover-up, let alone one involving different governments, and officials.

    myth 8) the fss did not have a license to examine dna in the Uk and had links to the mccanns.

    Incorrect. The FSS was in fact a government owned agency set up for the purpose of exmainign and storing DNA, and as such had no links to the mccanns

    myth 9) that it was unusual for the embassy and british police etc to be involved.
    Incorrect, any case involving a British national would result in embassy or comsular assistance, as well as offers of assistance from the british police, and the FSS routinely looked at evidence from foreign case.

    myth 10) The EVRD that alerted in the mccanns property was one of the top dogs, and his alerts meant a body had to have been there.

    Incorrect. there are no records claiming the evrd was one of the best at his job. His alerts did also not have to indicate a body was present since he was trained to alert to transfer scent, as well as bodily fluids from living people (this is also confirmed int he jersey case report which states that the dog alerting to tissues was in his remit as they had bodily fluids on them). It is also the case that the handler stated his alerts were not evidence in their own and needed to be backed up, which they could not be.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Regarding Jane Tanner and her many versions... - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
    The thread regarding Jane Tanner's story

    This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.
    ...

    Tanner's second version, statement taken 4 May 2007 -

    ( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35 – 40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

    (**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.


    The first account is a paraphrase but if accurate she was sure about the pyjamas but not the man's description, because it was too dark to see . The second account she is not sure about the pyjamas anymore but can give a detailed description of the male she couldn't describe the first time. Apparently it was no longer too dark to see.

    This may be consistent to you but it's not for me.
    Last edited by KateB; 04-21-2015 at 07:14 PM. Reason: repair url tag.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    myth 10) The EVRD that alerted in the mccanns property was one of the top dogs, and his alerts meant a body had to have been there.

    Incorrect. there are no records claiming the evrd was one of the best at his job. His alerts did also not have to indicate a body was present since he was trained to alert to transfer scent, as well as bodily fluids from living people (this is also confirmed int he jersey case report which states that the dog alerting to tissues was in his remit as they had bodily fluids on them). It is also the case that the handler stated his alerts were not evidence in their own and needed to be backed up, which they could not be.[/QUOTE]

    ---------

    There are no records to indicate he wasnt. On the contrary.
    There is no proof that eddie alerted to living human fluids in jersey or anywhere else
    mr Grime has never said he alerts to fluids from living people, ONLY blood but then most dogs do
    Eddies cadaver scent alerts couldnt be backd up if the body was not there anymore, no use asking for magic is there?
    Eddie has a long string of successful deployments, thats why he has been used pre and post mccann inthe uk, ireland the usa on several cases, even if Kate Mccann lied in her book that he only alerts to please his master, I will listen to handlers and other dog experts, and not a former suspect in a child missing case who may have a vested interest to trash these dogs, and who directly or indirectly through orivate detectives tampered with witnesses, hmm, not rocket science is it
    Last edited by Clutchbag; 12-04-2012 at 04:56 PM. Reason: Added

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    Regarding Jane Tanner and her many versions... - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
    The thread regarding Jane Tanner's story


    ...





    The first account is a paraphrase but if accurate she was sure about the pyjamas but not the man's description, because it was too dark to see . The second account she is not sure about the pyjamas anymore but can give a detailed description of the male she couldn't describe the first time. Apparently it was no longer too dark to see.

    This may be consistent to you but it's not for me.
    agree, from seeing nothing she ended up stating the length and thickness and colour of every hair onhis head, whether his trousers had creases or not, height of his shoe heels, skin colour, and texture, height, cloth colours and material type and the rest

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Mind you, I would love to see links in a post titled "myths debunked". Otherwise it's just opinions either way and there is not necessarily any way to know if a person's opinions debunk another person's opinions

    Not saying that most of those are a point of contention to me, regardless. It is pretty irrelevant to me what people think of the FSS, the embassy, etc. They are all after the fact and do not tell us what happened to Madeleine.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    there is no debate or doubt that SOME things in this case are myths, thing is, not all of them are and its those that are not that continue to hold theblack clloid over this case

    Nothing has made those clouds white five years plus on, ergo they are not white

    i am open to all suggestion of them being white but what i get is pathetic answers

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    There are so many myths going around about this case that I thought a thread to clear a few up was in order so here goes.

    Myth 1) that madeleine's DNA was found in the hire car


    This is incorect. What was found in the hire car was a mix of dna from three to five people which contained components found in the dna of madeleine, It is incorrect to think because 15 out of madeleine's components were found it is like a 15 out of 19 chance it is hers, simply because all nineteen components are found in the dna of her parents, as well as her grandparents, and to a lesser extent her other relatives. There is no reason why this material could not have come from anyone of the mccanns seen using the car.

    Myth 2) that the smith family identified gerry as a man carrying a child away from the resort at approx ten pm 3rd may.
    Incorrect. the smiths say a man carrying a child away at this time, but all said that they could not identify him as it was dark. Several weeks later one of the family said after seeing Gerry on TV he felt by body language alone it could be him (60% chance), but was uncertain and as it was dark and he did not have his glasses he could not identify the mans face. Several other witnesses, including those outside the tapas nine, testify that gerry was at the complex at this time

    Myth 3)that the fund could ave been set up as a charity and that this would have been more transparent.
    Incorrect under english law (charities act 2006 and 2011) a charity must have a public benefit beyond helping one or a few more name dindividuels. The charity ommission is just a regulator and cannot bend the rules. This is why even funds for sick children are either held in banks or made companies as they cannot be charities. Also charities are not more transparent that normal companies and in fact it is harder to obtain accounts for charities than it is for companies in the UK. The mccanns only option was to keep the money in a private bank account which had no transparency or set up NF company which required the submission of accounts.

    Myth 4) the mccanns were made suspects in the case.

    [I]Incorrect they were made aguidos which is akin to a person of interest, and not suspect. In most places parents are normally the first POIs in a missing child case[/I]
    myth 5) the mccanns have behaved unusually in sueing media outlets.
    Incorrect this is not an uncommon step in the Uk for libel and has been taken by many victims including christopher jeffories and Robert murat. In the jefferies case some media were even prosecuted. Most recently Lord McAlpine has taken action against media and threatened ten thousand twitter users for libel after false accusations were made against him. So the mccanns are not unusual.
    Everyone has the right to sue for libel, but it is easy to defend. If someone is telling the truth they have no problem defending a libel case.

    myth 6) The mccanns used calpol to sedate the children and kates father admitted this.

    Incorrect. Firstly calpol is not a sedative. Secondly Kates father stated that they never sedated the children, and thirdly no evidence of sedation has ever been found.

    Myth 7) Jane tanner changed her story

    Incorrect her story has remained consistant throughout.

    myth 8) There is evidence of a cover up


    Incorrect, not one shred of evidence has ever come to light that there has been any cover-up, let alone one involving different governments, and officials.

    myth 8) the fss did not have a license to examine dna in the Uk and had links to the mccanns.

    Incorrect. The FSS was in fact a government owned agency set up for the purpose of exmainign and storing DNA, and as such had no links to the mccanns

    myth 9) that it was unusual for the embassy and british police etc to be involved.
    Incorrect, any case involving a British national would result in embassy or comsular assistance, as well as offers of assistance from the british police, and the FSS routinely looked at evidence from foreign case.

    myth 10) The EVRD that alerted in the mccanns property was one of the top dogs, and his alerts meant a body had to have been there.

    Incorrect. there are no records claiming the evrd was one of the best at his job. His alerts did also not have to indicate a body was present since he was trained to alert to transfer scent, as well as bodily fluids from living people (this is also confirmed int he jersey case report which states that the dog alerting to tissues was in his remit as they had bodily fluids on them). It is also the case that the handler stated his alerts were not evidence in their own and needed to be backed up, which they could not be.
    "Myth debunking" has the same ring to it as "an Account of the Truth" where the McCanns are concerned.

    I could go ahead challenge every single "correction" as inaccurate, but it's already been done. Those educated on this case know the facts which cannot be explained away and have been linked over and over.

    Spin is alive and well, and paid handsomely for by the Fund. The clever use of language to imply that the glass is half full instead of half empty has had some success with the masses, but it doesn't work so well in other forums where people don't necessarily believe what they're told.

    The problem I have with the McCann defense, is that deflection and criticism are the only tool in their armoury and are launched immediately at the first sign of challenge to those opinions. The entire weight of proof of the McCann supporters is "because I don't believe they did it" which is fine, but the "yes they did" people have a right to be heard too.

    It adds nothing to a debate to continually regurgitate and attempt to debunk the same "myths", if nothing tangible is offered in their place. There is never a logical counter argument made, because the McCann defence has nothing tangible to argue with.

    Not one single shred of evidence supports an abductor, circumstantial or otherwise.

    They have never been able to produce a workable or credible abduction theory, or even a consistent account of their own movements during the night. This minor detail didn't stop them from positively identifying Murat as being the abductor though, and now insinuating Hewlett is responsible, amongst a raft of other innocent families in Morocco, Spain, Australia...need I go on.

    The entire case has now been spun into some sort of stand off where the McCanns are the only ones telling the truth and everyone else is lying.

    They claim the forensics are crap and so are the dogs, the Smiths are mistaken, so is the PJ and Murat and the British Police.

    OK so that's everyone who is being mean about the McCanns dealt with.

    Let's accept the "myth" debunking as done, so now can they come up with some positive evidence and scenarios to support the abductor theory?

    Part of deciding guilt if for a jury is to decide on means, motive, and opportunity.

    The Abductor theory meets none of these requirements, as far as I can see.

    A competent defense presents alternative scenarios, to open up the possiblity of a third party. There has been nothing sound presented by the McCanns.

    If this did get to an impartial court and was presented in bone dry testimony, in my opinion the Prosecution would win hands down, as the McCanns have no defence except offence.

    MOO.
    Last edited by SapphireSteel; 12-04-2012 at 07:03 PM.
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    well said sapphire there is some rot in this case and it needs to be unrotted

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    636
    Couldnt agree more SapphireSteel, I thought the ToS here meant that posts claimed as fact had to be backed up with mainstream media links?
    I dont see anything but the same recycled opinion that has been posted over and over again on every thread and countered many times with links, but hey ho!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    636
    taken from
    OPERATION RECTANGLE SUMMARY REPORT JULY 22 2008

    V/T 9 Re-enforced concrete machine gun post and protective trench, personnel shelter attached. Earth and debris removed by hand and plant machinery to allow access.


    The forensic strategy was implemented with the following results.


    EVRD – positive indication.

    SOCO visual – positive.

    Blood dog - positive indication.

    Visual – positive

    UV – negative (items removed prior to screening).

    Quasar - negative



    Positive indications confirmed as being recently deposited tissues used to clean up after sex by unknown persons. Offences not suspected at this stage. Retained as exhibit should there be future reports of offences. There will be no forensic submission at this stage.
    So in actual fact, both dogs alerted to the tissue which is being used to try and once again rubbish the dogs.
    The whole point of the two dogs is that the EVRD goes in first and then the blood dog goes in to check if blood is present.
    It can therefore be taken that both dogs were alerting to blood which is exactly what they are trained to do, next!


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Now with links

    There are so many myths going around about this case that I thought a thread to clear a few up was in order so here goes.

    Myth 1) that madeleine's DNA was found in the hire car

    This is incorect. What was found in the hire car was a mix of dna from three to five people which contained components found in the dna of madeleine, It is incorrect to think because 15 out of madeleine's components were found it is like a 15 out of 19 chance it is hers, simply because all nineteen components are found in the dna of her parents, as well as her grandparents, and to a lesser extent her other relatives. There is no reason why this material could not have come from anyone of the mccanns seen using the car.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm - link to FSS reort.

    The part about genetic inheritance is basic common knowledge, but if people do not understand inheritance can i suggest they read a GCSE genetics or biology book for starters, or Genes V for a more advanced explanation. Unless people are going to accuse the austrian scientist mendel of being in on it I really do not think we can now rewrite inheritance rules to claim children do not get 100% of their DNA from their biological parents.

    Myth 2) that the smith family identified gerry as a man carrying a child away from the resort at approx ten pm 3rd may.

    Incorrect. the smiths say a man carrying a child away at this time, but all said that they could not identify him as it was dark. Several weeks later one of the family said after seeing Gerry on TV he felt by body language alone it could be him (60% chance), but was uncertain and as it was dark and he did not have his glasses he could not identify the mans face. Several other witnesses, including those outside the tapas nine, testify that gerry was at the complex at this time

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

    Myth 3)that the fund could have been set up as a charity and that this would have been more transparent.

    Incorrect under english law (charities act 2006 and 2011) a charity must have a public benefit beyond helping one or a few more name dindividuels. The charity ommission is just a regulator and cannot bend the rules. This is why even funds for sick children are either held in banks or made companies as they cannot be charities. Also charities are not more transparent that normal companies and in fact it is harder to obtain accounts for charities than it is for companies in the UK. The mccanns only option was to keep the money in a private bank account which had no transparency or set up NF company which required the submission of accounts.

    http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/...fit_index.aspx

    Myth 4) the mccanns were made suspects in the case.

    Incorrect they were made aguidos which is akin to a person of interest, and not suspect. In most places parents are normally the first POIs in a missing child case

    dealt with in leveson report http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../0780/0780.asp (this also deals with muc of the media falsities put about by this case)

    myth 5) the mccanns have behaved unusually in sueing media outlets.Incorrect this is not an uncommon step in the Uk for libel and has been taken by many victims including christopher jeffories and Robert murat. In the jefferies case some media were even prosecuted. Most recently Lord McAlpine has taken action against media and threatened ten thousand twitter users for libel after false accusations were made against him. So the mccanns are not unusual.
    Everyone has the right to sue for libel, but it is easy to defend. If someone is telling the truth they have no problem defending a libel case.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/gree...nal-newspapers
    http://www.businessinsider.com/lord-...-users-2012-11
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/m...-david-cameron (look at the names at the end)
    http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../0780/0780.asp

    myth 6) The mccanns used calpol to sedate the children and kates father admitted this.
    Incorrect. Firstly calpol is not a sedative. Secondly Kates father stated that they never sedated the children, and thirdly no evidence of sedation has ever been found.

    Madeleine's Grandad 'It's A Farce' - Sky News - YouTube
    transcript of father's interview

    Reporter - Is it possible that Kate with her medical background, might have, wanted to help Madeleine to go to sleep that night?

    Brian Healy - Not at all.

    Reporter - Even out of kindness, she certainly wouldm't have given her...

    Brian Healy - Not even out of kindness, I think they may have used Calpol like most mothers...nothing...it's just outrageous to even think about it. First and foremost was their kids. They would’nt have done that.


    www.calpol.co.uk about calpol

    Myth 7) Jane tanner changed her story
    Incorrect her story has remained consistant throughout.

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/7106086.stm
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html
    http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks...%22Fact%22%207
    - this link provides her description in a table comparison

    myth 8) There is evidence of a cover up
    Incorrect, not one shred of evidence has ever come to light that there has been any cover-up, let alone one involving different governments, and officials.

    as there is no evidence of a cover up it is not possible to link to it obviously.

    myth 8) the fss did not have a license to examine dna in the Uk and had links to the mccanns.
    Incorrect. The FSS was in fact a government owned agency set up for the purpose of exmainign and storing DNA, and as such had no links to the mccanns
    http://www.forensic.gov.uk/pdf/compa...Number_000.pdf info on fss - look on info at end of page to see who owned it.
    http://www.publications.parliament.u...ch/855/855.pdf statement on winding down of FSS with history of fss.


    myth 9) that it was unusual for the embassy and british police etc to be involved.Incorrect, any case involving a British national would result in embassy or comsular assistance, as well as offers of assistance from the british police, and the FSS routinely looked at evidence from foreign case.

    http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-...ings-go-wrong/
    http://www.stabilisationunit.gov.uk/...ber%202011.pdf
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...lice-help.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...p-2319708.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-6988692.html
    http://www.forensic.gov.uk/pdf/compa...Number_000.pdf
    contains info on foreign cases

    myth 10) The EVRD that alerted in the mccanns property was one of the top dogs, and his alerts meant a body had to have been there.
    Incorrect. there are no records claiming the evrd was one of the best at his job. His alerts did also not have to indicate a body was present since he was trained to alert to transfer scent, as well as bodily fluids from living people (this is also confirmed int he jersey case report which states that the dog alerting to tissues was in his remit as they had bodily fluids on them). It is also the case that the handler stated his alerts were not evidence in their own and needed to be backed up, which they could not be.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
    “The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.”
    “Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
    numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
    other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.”
    “'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
    locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
    terrain.”
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
    They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being
    There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction;

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html
    In operational deployment and in training, the dog is successful in detecting human remains, body fluids and blood, to cellular levels that can be recovered by low copy
    analysis at forensic laboratories.
    Search to locate very small samples of human remains, body fluids and blood in any environment or terrain.
    Locate and give an alert to cross contamination by a cadaver.


    From operation rectangle (the jersey case)

    VT / 9 Trench and gun emplacement containing small personnel shelter. Forensic examination revealed recently deposited tissues that appeared to have been used to ‘clean up following sexual intercourse’. It would appear that the shelter had been used as a venue for courting couples. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.
    it should also be noted that Griem states the csi dog only alerts to blood, not bodily fluids whereas the evrd alerts to cadaverine, bodily fluids and blood. Therefore the use of both dogs can dismiss cadaverine and blood, but not bodily fluids. Nor can it tell whether the cadaverine comes from a dead donor or just dead material, nor who the donor was, nor how the scent got there or who was responsible (i.e it cannot tell if an intruder killed someone then removed the body or whether the relatives did).

    If anyone has any evidence and links that in actual fact prove the myths to be true could they please post them i.e links that show the evrd is always correct, was officially listed as the best vrd in europe, only alerted to dead bodies and not bodily fluids, that the material found was positively madeleine's and coudl not have come from her parents or relatives, that the charity commission is wrong about the charities act 2006 and it is legal to have a charity set up to benefit only one or a specific handful of people, that calpol is a sedative, that the mccanns used sedatives, that tanner contradicted herself, that the smiths 100% identified gerry and saw his face, that the fss was not a government owned company, that there was a cover-up involving governments etc.
    also if anyone can demonstrate how it is impossible for a person to walk in an unlocked patio door, walk into the bedroom pick the child up and walk out again could they please show this. also if anyone can demonstrate how the mccanns hid the body so well it was never found in either an hour of broad daylight or five minutes of darkness in a place they did not know on foot and in a public accessible area with not one witness could they please show this. TIA

    I should also point out that no-one has claimed the mccanns are the only ones telling the truth and that the forensics, smith, murat etc are wrong. the forensics do not implicate the mccanns, murat has never implicated the mccanns, the smiths have not once said they could positively identify Gerry (and what about those who say they saw him elsewhere at this time), the dog alerts mean diddley squat. In fact it is those claiming the mccanns are guilty who are claiming everyone else is wrong by claiming the forensics and the dogs implicate the mccanns, falsly claiming the smiths identified gerry, claiming cover-ups involving governments (i mean seriously). The british police have also never said the mccanns are implicated, and in fact andy redwood said that after over a year of looking at the evidence they believed it was a stranger abduction.
    Last edited by KateB; 04-21-2015 at 07:15 PM. Reason: repair url tag.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    The Jane tanner links don't seem to address the discrepancy noted in the above posts.

    Also, I think there are several discrepancies about the clothing and the shoes. The colors shift and the jacket is either a duffel coat that is not that thick or an anorak or a heavy jacket. Since when are a duffel coat and an anorak the same thing? "Not that thick" and "heavy" seem like opposite descriptions as well. And the mans's trousers are linen or cotton...or... the same material as the jacket... so the man wore duffel trousers? Duffel is a coarse woollen material.




    A duffel coat:


    An anorak:


    Duffle coat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://www.leesarmystore.co.uk/store...php?xProd=1178



    A “duffy” (duffel) type jacket but not that thick
    -
    big heavy jacket
    As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of "anorak". As for the footwear she relates that she cannot confirm with certainty but [they were] shoes which enabled the man to be fleet-footed.
    Last edited by KateB; 04-21-2015 at 07:13 PM. Reason: repair url tag.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    The Jane tanner links don't address the discrepancy noted in the above posts.

    Also, I think there are several discrepancies about the clothing and the shoes. The colors seem to shift and the jacket is either a duffel coat that is not that thick or an anorak or a heavy jacket. Since when are a duffel coat and an anorak the same thing? "Not that thick" and "heavy" seem like opposite descriptions as well. And the mans's trousers are linen or cotton...or... the same material as the jacket... so the man wore duffel trousers? Duffel is a coarse woollen material.




    A duffel coat:


    An anorak:


    Duffle coat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://www.leesarmystore.co.uk/store...php?xProd=1178
    In not great light I would think a duffle jacket that was not that thick could be seen as a anorak that was rather heavy. It also depends on what a perosn means by a duffle coat, I think of them as paddington coats that go past the waist, but often peopel mean those thick wollen waist length coats. Tanner does nto seem to mean that the coats was not that thick and that it was heavy, but either it was a not so thick duffle or a heavy annorak. besides we are talking somethig very slight here, woudl it not be more suspicious if she gave a word for word exact description each and every time.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    In not great light I would think a duffle jacket that was not that thick could be seen as a anorak that was rather heavy. It also depends on what a perosn means by a duffle coat, I think of them as paddington coats that go past the waist, but often peopel mean those thick wollen waist length coats. Tanner does nto seem to mean that the coats was not that thick and that it was heavy, but either it was a not so thick duffle or a heavy annorak. besides we are talking somethig very slight here, woudl it not be more suspicious if she gave a word for word exact description each and every time.
    We will have to disagree about this. I do agree with you that witness descriptions may change even if they're being totally honest about what they think they saw since memory plays tricks on people but by definition if descriptions change they do not also stay consistent at the same time.

    The difference between an anorak and a duffel coat and trousers that are the same material as the coat and trousers that are different material than the coat are not very slight differences to me. But in any case it's not likely to matter now, is it? The man she saw, if she saw somebody, is probably wearing a different jacket nowadays: If they do find that suspect and that jacket and it happens to be an anorak the defense atty will say, "But you said it was a duffel coat", and if it's a duffel coat the atty will say, "Yeah but you said it's an anorak".
    Last edited by Donjeta; 12-05-2012 at 08:53 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Same old same old.

    For each link produced claiming that the glass is half empty, I could produce 5 links proving it is half full.

    How about some solid evidence of an intruder, instead of constantly explaining away the evidence we do have?

    How about presenting a workable scenario that fits the evidence?

    It's not part of the McCann strategy, mainly because it can't be done.

    Yet somehow their PR has worked ...with those who believe everything they're told that is, and have next to zero understanding of human nature.

    I for one am heartily sick of being told there could have been innumerable McCann relatives dead in the Renault, by those who harp on the DNA results.

    The fact is CADAVERINE was located in the Renault, by Eddie. Cadaverine only comes from a cadaver, and the other four members of the immediate family survived the Holiday from Hell.

    So....who exactly was it that the McCann defence suggest curled up and died in 5a, on Kate, near cuddle cat, and in the Renault?

    As far as we know the entire crew of McCanns are alive and well and spending the Fund in Rothley. There is only one member unaccounted for, which is Madeleine and....oh look! The DNA found matches hers!

    So whos 15/19 alleles and cadaver were in the boot, according to the McCann defence? And how did it get there, under the carpeting and boot lining?

    moo
    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 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. How Many Myths Can You Bust? I Got Eight Out Of Ten.
    By Steely Dan in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 08:34 PM
  2. The Bruises and other myths
    By Dani_T in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-24-2005, 01:04 AM

Tags for this Thread