Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

Your confusing me.. You are saying that is far more likely that the specialist sniffer dog got it wrong, than the likelyhood of the McCanns putting on a cheerful face despite their daughter being dead...


Is that what you believe?

Yes, that's pretty much it. Do you really not see how big an ask it is to suggest that a parent completely disguise that they know their child has just died?
If we assume that there is only one chance in 100 than the dog is wrong, would you say that the number of parents you know who could do this are greater than one in a 100? I would suggest that there is a minuscule number of people on the planet (and I would like to think that there are none!) who could so that.

Tommy Tippee wrote: »

Has happened dozens of time in similar cases.

I can't recall a case. There certainly have been cases where people have displayed false anguish. Disguising genuine and intense anguish is something very different.

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

Yes, that's pretty much it. Do you really not see how big an ask it is to suggest that a parent completely disguise that they know their child has just died?
If we assume that there is only one chance in 100 than the dog is wrong, would you say that the number of parents you know who could do this are greater than one in a 100? I would suggest that there is a minuscule number of people on the planet (and I would like to think that there are none!) who could so that.

.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Human nature and guilt will lead people to extremes


The absolute guilt they would have felt would have been soul destroying, they would not have felt deserving of that. Their way of coping with that kind of tragedy, in my opinion, was to put the guilt on an evil outsider who snatched Madeleine away from them, they were not worthy of that guilt .This captured the imagination of the press which they courted .Alot of the press and public latched onto this idea of an abductor, Which is obviously sympathetic to the Mccanns, this scenario gives the McCanns purpose in life, and enables them to feel no guilt to this day , they actually believe what they hear in the media these days because it is mostly supportive , and they feel galvanised to continue the search for their "abductee"


I have never heard a press publication wandering who that dead body in Madeleines apartment was? and the dead body in Madeleines aparents car might have been? Were they two different people? and whether there was a tiny possiblilty that it might just have been Madeleine!?

maebee

Do you really not see how big an ask it is to suggest that a parent completely disguise that they know their child has just died?

There have been many parents who've done this. This lady being one of them:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith

deco nate

there has been posts on here about other parents that have done
just that,video posts.and these people are behind bars cos
of their cockiness,you just have to go back a
few pages.

tbh their were a few posters that said these videos
had nothing to do with the mc case,but i.a.h they
do point out that this has happened in
the past,so they do hold up.

to those with an open mind.that is..

lugha

maebee wrote: »

Hi lugha,

Have you read the Official Police Files and if so, what do you think of them?
Do you discount the findings of the Portuguese and British police?

maebee

I have read some of the material when it first came out but not all, or even most of it, and I have forgotten much of what I did read.

I don't know if the police have offered an opinion on the plausibility of the McCanns disguising intense anguish (perhaps you can enlighten us) but I doubt if they did. The role of police is usually to collect evidence. It is for a court and a jury to ultimately assess it.

Can I ask if you have any problems with this supposition that the McCanns were able to act as if nothing was wrong despite their daughter being dead?

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

Unfortunately you are completely wrong. Human nature is not that pure

Ok but do you think that the number of parents who might do this is more frequent than 1 in 100? If you say no, it is more likely than the dogs are wrong.

maebee wrote: »

There have been many parents who've done this.

Projecting fake anguish, yes. Very common. Disguising real anguish? I don't think so.

TommyTippee

lugha wrote: »

Can I ask if you have any problems with this supposition that the McCanns were able to act as if nothing was wrong despite their daughter being dead?

Lugha, it's happened loads of times...see any of the cases quoted on the last few pages of this thread.

I'd go as far to say that it's expected in a situation like this.

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

Unfortunately you are completely wrong. Human nature is not that pure

Ok but do you think that the number of parents who might do this is more frequent than 1 in 100? If you say no, it is more likely than the dogs are wrong.

maebee wrote: »

There have been many parents who've done this.

Projecting fake anguish, yes. Very common. Disguising real anguish? I don't think so.

Tommy Tippee wrote: »

Lugha, it's happened loads of times...see any of the cases quoted on the last few pages of this thread.

Disguising genuine anguish? I'm afraid I must have missed them.

deco nate

lugha wrote: »

Ok but do you think that the number of parents who might do this is more frequent than 1 in 100? If you say no, it is more likely than the dogs are wrong.

Projecting fake anguish, yes. Very common. Disguising real anguish? I don't think so.

read my post,and go back a few pages and have a look
for your self

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

Yes, that's pretty much it. Do you really not see how big an ask it is to suggest that a parent completely disguise that they know their child has just died?
If we assume that there is only one chance in 100 than the dog is wrong, would you say that the number of parents you know who could do this are greater than one in a 100? I would suggest that there is a minuscule number of people on the planet (and I would like to think that there are none!) who could so that.

THe McCanns left three toddlers, one 4 year old and two 2 year olds alone in an appartment while they wined and dined in the resort restauraunt ,300 yards away

I think most people and especially parents would not have been so reckless (and I would like to think that there are none!)would think to do this?

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

THe McCanns left three toddlers, one 4 year old and two 2 year olds alone in an appartment while they wined and dined in the resort restauraunt ,300 yards away

I think most people and especially parents would not have been so reckless (and I would like to think that there are none!)would think to do this?

Fine. So they were irresponsible parents. But do they know more than they are saying about Madeleine's disappearance? This is really the only question of interest for me at this stage.

deco nate

will you please watch the videos of
parents that have have had something
to do with their kids deaths,cos you
keep skippin over this.without
a coment on it.now saying this i know
you may think im on one side
more than the other.

im not .im just pissed off about posters that turn a blind eye to posts
that are here,yet they pick an chose which they coment on

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

Fine. So they were irresponsible parents. But do they know more than they are saying about Madeleine's disappearance? This is really the only question of interest for me at this stage.

Yes, they know alot more than they are saying. Hopefully they will go back to Portugal and answer the "inconsistancies" and to partake in a reconstruction of the events that took place that evening, I think that is at least what any parent would do to if they wanted the Police to help find their daughter or find out what happedned to her. Kate MccCann was also asked 48 question=s which she refused to answer

The McCanns refused to cooperate with the Portugese.

lugha

deco nate wrote: »

will you please watch the videos of
parents that have have had something
to do with their kids deaths,cos you
keep skippin over this.without
a coment on it.now saying this i know
you may think im on one side
more than the other.

im not .im just pissed off about posters that turn a blind eye to posts
that are here,yet they pick an chose which they coment on

You could just quote me a couple of names! I did go back a few pages and didn't find them.

But in any case it would not negate my point even if there were some cases that were relevant (and parents who were responsible for their children's deaths but tried to play innocent are not necessarily relevant).
Let us suppose that there are hundreds or even thousands of relevant cases. That is still extremely rare, perhaps of the order of 1 in a million or rarer.

So if there is a chance in 100 of the dogs being wrong but a chance of 1 in a million of the McCanns just happening to be the kind of people who could pull of this feat surely you would conclude it is more likely that the dogs are wrong. You may of course dispute my estimates and offer your own but I think you will still find that it more plausible that the dogs would be wrong.

All of this presupposes that if the McCanns were involved then the conspiracy was already in play when they went to the bar. I don't think this is true. It simply throws up too many implausibilities.

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

Yes, they know alot more than they are saying.

Not for the first time have I got the impression that the McCanns know "something".
I think this is one thing that we can definitely rule out. Either they know nothing at all or they know everything, or everything that is relevant. They are either involved or they are not, there is no middle ground.

Mountainsandh

lugha wrote: »

Ok but do you think that the number of parents who might do this is more frequent than 1 in 100? If you say no, it is more likely than the dogs are wrong.

Projecting fake anguish, yes. Very common. Disguising real anguish? I don't think so.

`


I wanted to keep away from this discussion, but Lugha, thanks for bringing that up.
People who crucify the McCanns are quick to dismiss other theories, and other statistics.
Okay, so the possibility is put forward that these 2 people are in fact either cold blooded murderers able to cover up, or not murderers but well able to cover up (for several years), along with the Tapas friends.
Statistically, what would the possibility of this be ?

Ok. So now, I have been looking at the site below, US site.
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PubCaseSearchServlet

So out of curiosity, I have done my own little statistics for each State that I "visited".
That is, for example, the state of Florida has 319 kids missing, out of these 64 are family abductions, that's 20.03%, and 17 are non family abductions, that's 5.3%.
The rest are endangered runaways or endangered missing, or just "missing". I think the label "missing" is used when it wasn't figured out how they became missing, so that could include a few more non family abductions.

You can repeat the process for every state. Florida would of course have a high proportion of family abductions since a lot of people of hispanic origins live there, and I'm guessing a lot of parents pack up their things and leave with the kids to return to Mexico, Havana, etc...
For some reason Missouri has 18 % of non family abductions, but most other states seem to hover around the 5 to 10% mark.

I guess what I am trying to point out is that, non family abductions are sadly more common than some seem to believe on here. The probability of Madeleine being abducted by a non family member may be higher than the probability that her parents are murderers/covering up.
And it may be higher than the dogs' success rate.

Or the dogs may have been correct, but the evidence planted. Goncalo Amaral has been charged with tampering with the course of an investigation, for example. So how unlikely or likely is it that whoever was in charge at that time might have decided to plant evidence, or (Conspiracy Theory warning ) the political pressures might have triggered that sort of reaction on the part of the Portugese police ?

For those who haven't seen my earlier posts, I would like to mention again that I have near personal (my husband) experience of corruption of the Portugese police.

The other theory I have heard briefly mentioned on Youtube by some journalist (for a tabloid, admittedly, but I still find the theory plausible), is that it was a planned abduction, by not one but 2 people, and they were organised and prepared enough to think of cleaning up evidence. That would explain no fingerprints, and also the barely touched window, since one could have opened shutters from inside, and window, passed on Madeleine to the other outside, cleaned up (if there was a need since organised abductor may have the brains to wear gloves), jumped out (ninja style, childless), and pulled down shutters just a bit.

Again, what are the probabilities that the parents are steadfast concealers of a crime, to that of there being 2 abductors carrying out a premeditated crime ?

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

You could just quote me a couple of names! I did go back a few pages and didn't find them.



So if there is a chance in 100 of the dogs being wrong but a chance of 1 in a million of the McCanns just happening to be the kind of people who could pull of this feat surely you would conclude it is more likely that the dogs are wrong. You may of course dispute my estimates and offer your own but I think you will still find that it more plausible that the dogs would be wrong.

s

If you think that Humans are more honourable than dogs , than you are wrong


Police Dogs are trained for one job and one job alone, These dogs don't lie

Humans that are accused of crimes, that is another story as it it is completely different scenario with entirely different consequences

K-9

Mountainsandh wrote: »

`



For those who haven't seen my earlier posts, I would like to mention again that I have near personal (my husband) experience of corruption of the Portugese police.

You've posted this several times now. Can you post details or your husband post?

Mountainsandh

badabing106, I have to say though, I have watched a few of these videos of the dogs, and the handler either tapping or signalling with the hand to a particular area was quite obvious to me. In the McCanns hire car case, the handler repeatedly calls back the dog, and signals with the hand where he wants the dog to check. I'm not sure I quite trust that tbh.

Look for the long version of the hire car check, the short version is edited and does not show the handler calling the dog back AFAIR.

Again in the apartment, it is like the handler is pointing the dog towards the back of the sofa, even pulling up the curtains if I remember well. I had read accounts that the handler wasn't there, but in the video I have seen, he definitely was on the spot, signalling to the dog what areas to check.

Mountainsandh

K-9 wrote: »

You've posted this several times now. Can you post details or your husband post?

I'm sorry K-9, I expected that question, but there is absolutely no way I would explain anything on here, you just have to take my word for it I'm afraid. I know it sounds mysterious, but I can tell you it's not as serious as a murder case, but much more serious than a traffic offense sort of thing. (I have seen a good few of reports of people being extorted money by Portugese road police for minor offences, in magasines, news...).
Sorry.

badabing106

Mountainsandh wrote: »

badabing106, I have to say though, I have watched a few of these videos of the dogs, and the handler either tapping or signalling with the hand to a particular area was quite obvious to me. In the McCanns hire car case, the handler repeatedly calls back the dog, and signals with the hand where he wants the dog to check. I'm not sure I quite trust that tbh.

Look for the long version of the hire car check, the short version is edited and does not show the handler calling the dog back AFAIR.

Again in the apartment, it is like the handler is pointing the dog towards the back of the sofa, even pulling up the curtains if I remember well. I had read accounts that the handler wasn't there, but in the video I have seen, he definitely was on the spot, signalling to the dog what areas to check.

For your information


The expert police cadaver dog( flown in especially from the U.K) checked all the appartments in the vicinity of the McCanns and only found the scent of a corpse in Appartment 5A-The appartment of the McCanns

The same expert police cadaver dog checked 10 cars in an underground carpark, and only found the scent of a corpse in the McCanns car

K-9

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm sorry K-9, I expected that question, but there is absolutely no way I would explain anything on here, you just have to take my word for it I'm afraid. I know it sounds mysterious, but I can tell you it's not as serious as a murder case, but much more serious than a traffic offense sort of thing. (I have seen a good few of reports of people being extorted money by Portugese road police for minor offences, in magasines, news...).
Sorry.

All we have is really your word and one thing we all should have learned from this thread is, it counts for nothing. It needs some sort of back up.

Nothing personal, in a different thread I'd give it more credence.

Sure the Attracta Herron case was near me and one of the dogs involved identified the killer! Means nothing.

badabing106

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm sorry K-9, I expected that question, but there is absolutely no way I would explain anything on here, you just have to take my word for it I'm afraid. I know it sounds mysterious, but I can tell you it's not as serious as a murder case, but much more serious than a traffic offense sort of thing. (I have seen a good few of reports of people being extorted money by Portugese road police for minor offences, in magasines, news...).
Sorry.

You have an obvious predujice against Portugese police and judicial system, rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter, just because you heard unverified reports of extortion

and you expect people to take your views on a totally unrelated case , as prove for your convictions?

Mistyeyes321

Onething keep's coming up time & time again is. The Mcs went into the Tapas bar that night & behaved Normal?! On who's say so do we have this as Fact? Surely not the Tapas 7? I mean come on now! The very same Tapas 7 who left their Children alone too?! & the Same Tapas 7 who have been found to be telling a few Porkies in their Statements?!
I don't think any of these Numpty's would have noticed if the Mcs we're stark Bollox Naked probably to Hissed to notice anything. In one statement the person says yeah we had a few drinks at the beach & then another statement says noo we didn't have a drink just Orange Juice??? Liar Liar Liars.! The dog's don't discrimainate against human's they just have a Job to do their not bothered if the Mcs hurt their Child or not cos guess what they don't understand!!!

badabing106

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

The dog's don't discrimainate against human's they just have a Job to do their not bothered if the Mcs hurt their Child or not cos guess what they don't understand!!!

That is a crucial point that alot of people don't consider unfortunately.

I think most rational people would consider the evidence of these dogs quite telling, considering they are the best at their job.

I have no idea what spin the Pr appartment of Team mcCann puts on these findings, would be very interested to hear though ?

Mountainsandh

badabing106 wrote: »

For your information


The expert police cadaver dog( flown in especially from the U.K) checked all the appartments in the vicinity of the McCanns and only found the scent of a corpse in Appartment 5A-The appartment of the McCanns

The same expert police cadaver dog checked 10 cars in an underground carpark, and only found the scent of a corpse in the McCanns car

first grey car : 4 seconds, calling dog back once, pointed at vehicle once
wine car : 13 seconds, calling dog back once, pointed at vehicle once
grey car : 13 seconds, didn't have to call dog back, did not point at vehicle.
mccanns car : 1.08 > ending 3.05 minutes that's nearly 2 full minutes, had to call the dog back 4 times, tapped twice on vehicle and pointed at vehicle 3 times, that were on camera (some camera shots very close not showing the pointing). That's only the outside sniffing. Very obvious hand signalling in the boot by handler by the way.

Can't find you the long version right now (have to go to bed :eek:), but yeah. Found evidence in McCann's flat, not the others... in their car, not the others...
still not convinced.

badabing106

Mountainsandh wrote: »

first grey car : 4 seconds, calling dog back once, pointed at vehicle once
wine car : 13 seconds, calling dog back once, pointed at vehicle once
grey car : 13 seconds, didn't have to call dog back, did not point at vehicle.
mccanns car : 1.08 > ending 3.05 minutes that's nearly 2 full minutes, had to call the dog back 4 times, tapped twice on vehicle and pointed at vehicle 3 times, that were on camera (some camera shots very close not showing the pointing). That's only the outside sniffing. Very obvious hand signalling in the boot by handler by the way.

Can't find you the long version right now (have to go to bed :eek:), but yeah. Found evidence in McCann's flat, not the others... in their car, not the others...
still not convinced.

I think you need to sleep alright, THe dogs checked all the appartments arounds the McCanns, and checked a dozen cars in an underground car park, for the car, so you think the dogs were pretending?

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

first grey car : 4 seconds, calling dog back once, pointed at vehicle once
wine car : 13 seconds, calling dog back once, pointed at vehicle once
grey car : 13 seconds, didn't have to call dog back, did not point at vehicle.
mccanns car : 1.08 > ending 3.05 minutes that's nearly 2 full minutes, had to call the dog back 4 times, tapped twice on vehicle and pointed at vehicle 3 times, that were on camera (some camera shots very close not showing the pointing). That's only the outside sniffing. Very obvious hand signalling in the boot by handler by the way.

Can't find you the long version right now (have to go to bed :eek:), but yeah. Found evidence in McCann's flat, not the others... in their car, not the others...
still not convinced.

Please find this for me 4 seconds? surely the dog wouldn't have had time to sniff anywhere being called back after 4 seconds? Maybe i'm reading this wrong though??!! Btw Martin Grimes couldn't possible have Had any Hidden agenda either? Why would he? He has trained these Animals why would he want them discredited? Doesn't make sense...I get what your saying regarding your experience with the PJ But sorry you can't really mean this Dog Handler instructed his Dogs to give a False Signal's...No i'm not buying that one!! Sure if i'm wrong I will apologies try & find the video so we can all watch it the full lenghth version!! Thanks.

Mountainsandh

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Please find this for me 4 seconds? surely the dog wouldn't have had time to sniff anywhere being called back after 4 seconds? Maybe i'm reading this wrong though??!! Btw Martin Grimes couldn't possible have Had any Hidden agenda either? Why would he? He has trained these Animals why would he want them discredited? Doesn't make sense...I get what your saying regarding your experience with the PJ But sorry you can't really mean this Dog Handler instructed his Dogs to give a False Signal's...No i'm not buying that one!! Sure if i'm wrong I will apologies try & find the video so we can all watch it the full lenghth version!! Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA
took the times from the short version, I'll leave you count seconds and go to bed, yes.
And yes, people can be corrupted/bought/convinced, isn't that what is suggested of a lot of other people in this case ?

Not suggesting dogs are lying, dogs are influenced by handler.

Byyyyyyyyye.

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA
took the times from the short version, I'll leave you count seconds and go to bed, yes.
And yes, people can be corrupted/bought/convinced, isn't that what is suggested of a lot of other people in this case ?

Not suggesting dogs are lying, dogs are influenced by handler.

Byyyyyyyyye.

Thanks I will do it tomorrow lol.
No not buying this about the Dog handler & just as a matter of interest if there was going to be any Interference from the Handler Being Bribed or otherwise, Do you honestly think they would Video it? Then have it placed on Youtube where everyone can study the set up:pac: Ridiculous!