That's not good enough, it's all from newspapers which are notoriously unreliable at best. Re the dog, you originally asserted dog alerts mean nothing period. Which is untrue. As for a licence running out days before I doubt the dogs abilities suddenly stop on the date lol. There is no evidence of false alerts, the handler himself states as much, he is the only reliable source.
The McCanns' Own Words
- Thread starter rashomon
- Start date
New Posts
-
TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #2- Latest: nodamselindistress
- Status
That's not good enough, it's all from newspapers which are notoriously unreliable at best. Re the dog, you originally asserted dog alerts mean nothing period. Which is untrue. As for a licence running out days before I doubt the dogs abilities suddenly stop on the date lol. There is no evidence of false alerts, the handler himself states as much, he is the only reliable source.
So you are saying when the dog alerted to what experts claimed was coconut shell, the experts were wrong and the police should have listened to the spaniel? Do you then think that there really were murders at the jersey care home because eddie alerted to somethign and it therefore must be a body, and not a coconut shell like kew claimed?
And I do not think the license running out is so much the problem so much as the fact it was not renewed and the police will no longer employ him.
And are you saying the newspapers and bbc are lying about Amaral and that he does not have a criminal conviction?
And are you saying that people should ignore sites like the bbc and only take evidence from anonymous websites?
And I do not think the license running out is so much the problem so much as the fact it was not renewed and the police will no longer employ him.
And are you saying the newspapers and bbc are lying about Amaral and that he does not have a criminal conviction?
And are you saying that people should ignore sites like the bbc and only take evidence from anonymous websites?
QUOTE=brit1981;8069455]So you are saying when the dog alerted to what experts claimed was coconut shell, the experts were wrong and the police should have listened to the spaniel? Do you then think that there really were murders at the jersey care home because eddie alerted to somethign and it therefore must be a body, and not a coconut shell like kew claimed?
And I do not think the license running out is so much the problem so much as the fact it was not renewed and the police will no longer employ him.
And are you saying the newspapers and bbc are lying about Amaral and that he does not have a criminal conviction?
And are you saying that people should ignore sites like the bbc and only take evidence from anonymous websites?[/QUOTE]
mr grime left the south yorkshire police after his work in pdl, his own training on the dogs and testing methods were more stringent than those required to obtain a licence. where is your proof that police wont employ him? he is now freelance and he has been deployed by british and irish police POST PDL and Jersey and also by the fbi on several cases so your argument falls down yet again. his dog findings have been verified in every single case since then since either by a body being found or a confession made since.
The coconut story is a red herring.
And I do not think the license running out is so much the problem so much as the fact it was not renewed and the police will no longer employ him.
And are you saying the newspapers and bbc are lying about Amaral and that he does not have a criminal conviction?
And are you saying that people should ignore sites like the bbc and only take evidence from anonymous websites?[/QUOTE]
mr grime left the south yorkshire police after his work in pdl, his own training on the dogs and testing methods were more stringent than those required to obtain a licence. where is your proof that police wont employ him? he is now freelance and he has been deployed by british and irish police POST PDL and Jersey and also by the fbi on several cases so your argument falls down yet again. his dog findings have been verified in every single case since then since either by a body being found or a confession made since.
The coconut story is a red herring.
I have not heard of him being used by the British police since his license run out (that would be illegal as you need to be licensed otherwise anyone can claim there dog is an expert sniffer dog), look at the links. I have never heard anyone say Grimes standards are higher than those of the police, apart from Mr Grimes himself. As far as I am aware no other body has adopted grimes standards, and he is the only person who uses these standards, and they are not used in the UK. He has worked in jeresey, but only because that is outwith the Uk, since then he has never been employed by the UK as he has no license and according to the police is therefore deemed not competant. If you look at the links, you will see that eddie alerted in an old jersey care home, and specificlly alerted to a piece of old coconut shell, which was believed to be bone, but upon examination turne dout to be coconut shell.
If his standards are more stringent that those required for a license, i do not understand why his license was not renewed.
Eddie alerting to a coconut shell certainly was a red herring, as it could huge speculation a murder had occurred in a care home. the investiagtion cost tens of thousands, including the thousands Grimes charged for his services.
Can you provide links for the cases since PDL where Grimes has been employed by the British police, and where his findings have been vereified, and where his standards have been said to be more stringent than the police (as I said the only person I have seen saying that is Grimes when asked about not getting his licensed renewed).
If his standards are more stringent that those required for a license, i do not understand why his license was not renewed.
Eddie alerting to a coconut shell certainly was a red herring, as it could huge speculation a murder had occurred in a care home. the investiagtion cost tens of thousands, including the thousands Grimes charged for his services.
Can you provide links for the cases since PDL where Grimes has been employed by the British police, and where his findings have been vereified, and where his standards have been said to be more stringent than the police (as I said the only person I have seen saying that is Grimes when asked about not getting his licensed renewed).
also you said the officer in charge, amaral, was never charge with fabricating evidence, but according to the bbc he was not only charged and convicted but received a suspended sentence. Do you think the BBc are incorrect?
the bbc wouldnt know a fala from a *advertiser censored** as has been proven and to which they admitted and offered an apology. Next.
I really wouldnt lose sleep over it if i were you. mr grime has been used several times post summer 2007 by both british irish and usa police and helped solve cases, therefore if just cannot be illegal as you assert to have used him LOL, google it as i am not going to do your donkey work for you. your problem not mine. Carry on trying to beat them down, you will never succeeed because all your facts are wrong. Lids gone down now on the ignore. Phew.
so you are saying that Amaral does not have a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence?
Also grimes does not have a license to practice in the UK and the police issued a staement saying he was no longer used by them.
And who I am trying to beat down.
the fac t is Amaral has a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence, all people who use sniffer dogs must have a license to practice in the UK (hence it raised eyebrows when he was used in jeresey, although as this is outside the Uk he can practice without a license), and eddie has made false alerts, including alerting to a piece of coconut shell!
But earlier you asked me to provide lins, and I was interested in what you were saying about grimes standards being considered higher than the licensing requirements, what bodies claimed this as I have only heard grimes claiming this when ased about his license status? Also what cases do you now of that he has been employed in the UK since his license was not renewed?
Also grimes does not have a license to practice in the UK and the police issued a staement saying he was no longer used by them.
And who I am trying to beat down.
the fac t is Amaral has a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence, all people who use sniffer dogs must have a license to practice in the UK (hence it raised eyebrows when he was used in jeresey, although as this is outside the Uk he can practice without a license), and eddie has made false alerts, including alerting to a piece of coconut shell!
But earlier you asked me to provide lins, and I was interested in what you were saying about grimes standards being considered higher than the licensing requirements, what bodies claimed this as I have only heard grimes claiming this when ased about his license status? Also what cases do you now of that he has been employed in the UK since his license was not renewed?
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 101
The fact is that it was the British Police who first developed evidence that the McCanns were involved. Grime and his dogs were supplied and paid for by British Police, as were the services of FSS Ltd.
It is also undisputed that for some reason, evidence that the British Police had discovered indicating the McCanns, was withheld from the PJ.
It is further undisputed that this case has been afforded some inexplicable political involvement between the UK, the US and Portugal. As a direct result, the PJ have closed the case and refused to reopen it, unless someone comes up with new evidence.
It has to be asked why the governments of all three countries would be involved in a missing child case at all. Children go missing every single day, with no reaction from their governments at all, let alone at DIPLOMATIC level. It smacks of political interferance and subterfuge and I for one would like this explained.
Until it is, discussions focusing on trivia like who barked at which coconut, are fairly irrelevant.:moo:
Just re-reading through these messages, and realizing that the McCanns left the door unlocked so that if Madeleine woke up again she could come out and find them.
So, rather than arrange for one of the caregivers to look after the children, or give up a night of drinking with friends to stay with the children, it seemed like good parenting to these people to just leave the door open so that this very young child could come and find them if she woke up? In the dark. With a roadway with cars presumably driving up and down, a swimming pool nearby, and all kinds of strangers walking around. Would she even know where they were? Did they tell her?
I know, being terrible parents doesn't mean that they have something to do with the child's death.
But it does make me curious about why Kate immediately told the people at the restaurant that Madeleine had been taken. Why didn't she assume that she'd woken up again and come to find them and (as would be totally understandable with a child so young) gotten lost? Since that was the reason they left the door unlocked.
Tink
So, rather than arrange for one of the caregivers to look after the children, or give up a night of drinking with friends to stay with the children, it seemed like good parenting to these people to just leave the door open so that this very young child could come and find them if she woke up? In the dark. With a roadway with cars presumably driving up and down, a swimming pool nearby, and all kinds of strangers walking around. Would she even know where they were? Did they tell her?
I know, being terrible parents doesn't mean that they have something to do with the child's death.
But it does make me curious about why Kate immediately told the people at the restaurant that Madeleine had been taken. Why didn't she assume that she'd woken up again and come to find them and (as would be totally understandable with a child so young) gotten lost? Since that was the reason they left the door unlocked.
Tink
The McCanns have never stated they left the patio doors unlocked so madeleine could find them. They said they left the patio door unlocked to make it easier for them to pop in and out. Also at the time after the patio doors, one had to open two gates to get onto the road, and kate says these were both shut and latched when she went into the flat, and the patio doors were closed. So a three year old would not shut the patio doors behind her, and shut and latch two gates behind her. Plus I think the window and shutters being open made Kate think an outsider had opened them, as neither she nor Gerry had opened them, and a toddler could not open them.
No-one knows if he did. He (assuming it is a he) may not have used the patio doors. The window and shutters were open, and there was some problem with the front door, which according to previous occupants meant it could be opened even when locked and with the key in. Plus the other break ins had no sign of forced entry, which according to some people made people think that whoever did break in had some sort of key. The front door and the window were both unlit and faced on to a not busy car park, so it might have made sense to use these rather than the patio where there was more of a risk. Or the abductor could have used the patio to gain entry, automatically closed the gates behind him (which as there was a breeze might make sense as if they were caught in the breeze they could make a noise) and left from one of the other exits. With three entry/exit points all fairly secluded there is just no way of knowing.
But what I notice about what the previous occupants said about the lock was how lax some people are on holiday. If I found out someone could get in through a door which was lcoked and had a key in, I would have been straight down the manager demanding he makes it more secure. But these occupants just said they never did find out what was wrong with the door. Which makes me think they did not make a fuss about it.
fabgod
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 1
The more I read about this apartment and the doors, windows, location, badly lit etc,
makes me wonder how anyone could think it was perfectly safe?
Families with children, not being concerned about locking doors, dodgy windows, no listening services, it would be laughable if it wan't so sad!
makes me wonder how anyone could think it was perfectly safe?
Families with children, not being concerned about locking doors, dodgy windows, no listening services, it would be laughable if it wan't so sad!
fab,
The Mccanns were using their own listening service. That is all these listening services are, a nanny (often a teenager with a childcare qualification) listening outside the door for crying every half an hour. mark warner have since stopped offering this service (there was also a case in Egypt where a child got out of her room, but the alarm was not raised because the nanny had not heard anything), but other places still offer them
Bit i think people (at least some people) do get lax on holiday. Like the previous occupants not getting the front door made more secure (.as far as I am aware the mccanns did not know the front door was not secure, and the window could be opened from the outside).
Assuming that JT did see madeleine and her abductor, and not just a father and child who has been too scared to come forward, it would make most sense for him to have used the front door, as JT would have seen him coming down the steps, but she saw him coming from the car park direction. Plus if this was the abductor then he left not long after Gerry so it would make more sense to leave the opposite direction (assuming he had seen that they used the patio door to check on the children).
If the window was opened as an emergency escape route the it does not matter if it would be noticed or not as the person was using it to avoid getting physically caught and then arrested, and just need to jump out and run quickly. If he had been in the room and one of the parents had suddenly come in, he would have needed to get out quick regardless of being seen by an onlooker, and the bedroom door would have been blocked to him so it woudl have made sense to have the window open just in case.
The Mccanns were using their own listening service. That is all these listening services are, a nanny (often a teenager with a childcare qualification) listening outside the door for crying every half an hour. mark warner have since stopped offering this service (there was also a case in Egypt where a child got out of her room, but the alarm was not raised because the nanny had not heard anything), but other places still offer them
Bit i think people (at least some people) do get lax on holiday. Like the previous occupants not getting the front door made more secure (.as far as I am aware the mccanns did not know the front door was not secure, and the window could be opened from the outside).
Assuming that JT did see madeleine and her abductor, and not just a father and child who has been too scared to come forward, it would make most sense for him to have used the front door, as JT would have seen him coming down the steps, but she saw him coming from the car park direction. Plus if this was the abductor then he left not long after Gerry so it would make more sense to leave the opposite direction (assuming he had seen that they used the patio door to check on the children).
If the window was opened as an emergency escape route the it does not matter if it would be noticed or not as the person was using it to avoid getting physically caught and then arrested, and just need to jump out and run quickly. If he had been in the room and one of the parents had suddenly come in, he would have needed to get out quick regardless of being seen by an onlooker, and the bedroom door would have been blocked to him so it woudl have made sense to have the window open just in case.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 515
IDk... I think it would have made more sense to me to spend the time needed to fiddle with the window getting the hell outta there. I'd make an alternative escape route for myself if I wanted to do something that takes a lot of time such as search the room for valuables but if I just go in, grab a kid and get out I would just make sure the parents aren't on the way when I enter and then run away as fast as possible.
It depends I suppose. It is possible they opened the window from the outside, and then entered the flat through another entry point. But maybe someone who is an experienced intruer, or is a bit cooler would not rush in and go, but take their time before to prepare an escape just in case. Its all very well watching the parents leave, but what if gerry had suddenly popped back for something just after he left. Its a huge risk, that could be largely eliminated by having the open window.
fabgod
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 1
Just been reading about Jane Tanners sighting, she didnt tell the McCanns about the man (probably carrying a child - Gerry McCanns press statement),
The man was 10 to 15 feet in front of her, by her own admission, it was dark, again by her own admission,
If a man walks in front of you at a distance of 10 to 15 feet, you would be in no doubt of where he came from, its not even the length of two beds away from you.
Jane Tanner didnt mention the sighting to the McCanns, only telling Fiona Payne, who it seems also didnt pass on this information?
Jane Tanner informed the PJ at about 11.15pm, over an hour after Madeleine was first discovered to be missing.
Jane Tanner didnt see the mans face as it was turned away, but says the child was lolling in the mans arms, she says that she saw Mr Wilkins and Gerry McCann but they didnt see her and they didnt see the man possibly carrying a child.
There are so many discrepancies in Jane Tanners statements, that I dont think we can assume she saw the man to be honest.
As for people being lax on holiday, yes i think you can make an argument for that, but you could also quite as easily make an argument that many if not most people are more aware of security on holiday, in a different country, their valuables and passports are in the apartment (not to mention some peoples children), so its an assumption but not really any more or less valid than any other assumption.
Regarding listening services, its not really of any interest that Mark Warner subsequently stopped using this service, they have probably made a lot of changes to proceedures since.
The listening service the MCCanns were using, wasnt a listening service, it was a checking service by their accounts (and thats all we have to go on),
as with any system, it was flawed in that there was always going to be a timeframe where the children were vulnerable, but that is the chance that they took.
My point is that the area was not safe, the doors were left unlocked or were possibly not secure, there had been an issue with the shutters, they were upsteps, they couldnt see the apartment, the area was badly lit, you yourself stated in one of your posts that they thought it was safe, safe to some but wreckless to many.
Kate McCann apparently stated that she felt like they were being watched, the children had been crying on earlier nights, yet they still felt it was safe to leave them, I personally don't know what it would have taken for them to feel it wasn't safe!
Another question that maybe you can answer Brit1981, Russell O Brien checked on his children and found one of them had been sick, he then asked a friend to get Jane Tanner to go back to the apartment and help him, this was the trip that led to her seeing the man probably carrying the child, do you know who that friend was?
fabgod
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 1
Just for clarity, could the window be opened from the outside or just the shutter?
- Status
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 291
- Guests online
- 4,208
- Total visitors
- 4,499