Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Mountainsandh

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

OMG i've started reading this Statement & after two hour's i've just managed to get to Thursday.! My Other half isn't amused..So i'm blaming you..:D

I know... I read a bit then just skimmed down to the Thursday, might go back and read a bit more now.

Don't like that McCann's files site though, the one that is very thorough, it is also very very biased.

But a statement like that is ok to read, more genuine I think without the translation to and from Portugese.

goat2

azvor wrote: »

just as a matter of interest........Where did I use the words "know" and "exactly".....

(azvor) Every time I see the mother on TV, I JUST KNOW she is concealing "something" by her demeanour and especially in her eyes.....

---

this is the sentence above where you state those words, you sound like you are certain,
i still say the mccannes are suffering because of the actions of an abductor

azvor

Look Folks.....Gerry & Kate are medical doctors.....they see death every day and even though it was their own dearest little daughter, it didn't take too long before they would have taken the all-important decision to cover-up....They HAD to cover it up,,,otherwise their lives would have been totally ruined as well as the lives of their other children....
This is ALL theory of course...and that's what discussion is all about.....
"Opinions are like Ass-Holes.....Every one has one"... as the old saying goes....

I also agree with some previous entries in this matter regarding the tendencey of some contributors to "attack" anyone whose opinion differs from theirs.... and as for the contributor who stated that 95% of contributors probaly didn't have children of their own and had never lost a child of their own......well...kiddo, I can tell you from personal experience that that is not the case by a long shot.....

Does anyone have an opinion on the issue of Narco-Interrogation in this matter?????

midlandsmissus

Having read Kate's book, I can actually see now, (and don't flog me), how they left them on their own.

You know 'folie a deux' is when two people do stupid things together, well it was like peer pressure in a way, the whole group were leaving the kids and checking on them, making each parent feel sure it must be okay to do it if everyone else is doing it.

Also Kate said something interesting: that prior to Madeleine's dissapearance it was common practice for parents on holiday to go and dine downstairs for example and for the holiday resort to provide a child listening service, where the staff would go around and listen at the doors of the appartments, to check that the children were'nt awake.

Therefore, hotels were condoning children being left alone until Madeleine's case, is that right?

iamwhoiam

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Having read Kate's book, I can actually see now, (and don't flog me), how they left them on their own.

You know 'folie a deux' is when two people do stupid things together, well it was like peer pressure in a way, the whole group were leaving the kids and checking on them, making each parent feel sure it must be okay to do it if everyone else is doing it.

Also Kate said something interesting: that prior to Madeleine's dissapearance it was common practice for parents on holiday to go and dine downstairs for example and for the holiday resort to provide a child listening service, where the staff would go around and listen at the doors of the appartments, to check that the children were'nt awake.

Therefore, hotels were condoning children being left alone until Madeleine's case, is that right?

I can understand peer pressure at 16 .I cant at mid 30's .It easy to lay blame at every doorstep but your own . They should have known better and of all apartments that 5a was so vulnerable .Anyone would see that it was wide open for theft , never mind three precious kids .
I wouldnt have left cash in it or my jewellary or anything I cared about .
I wonder did the Mc Canns leave money lieing about in it ?

_feedback_

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Having read Kate's book, I can actually see now, (and don't flog me), how they left them on their own.

You know 'folie a deux' is when two people do stupid things together, well it was like peer pressure in a way, the whole group were leaving the kids and checking on them, making each parent feel sure it must be okay to do it if everyone else is doing it.

Also Kate said something interesting: that prior to Madeleine's dissapearance it was common practice for parents on holiday to go and dine downstairs for example and for the holiday resort to provide a child listening service, where the staff would go around and listen at the doors of the appartments, to check that the children were'nt awake.

Therefore, hotels were condoning children being left alone until Madeleine's case, is that right?

You describe Folie à deux as being like peer pressure. It's not. It's a type of psychosis. You might be familiar with the two Sweedish twins that tried to kill themselves on a motorway in the UK, and one went on to murder a man. They are said to have suffered Folie à deux.

There was a listening service in other resorts which were owned by the same company, but it was never an option where the McCanns stayed.

midlandsmissus

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I can understand peer pressure at 16 .I cant at mid 30's .It easy to lay blame at every doorstep but your own . They should have known better and of all apartments that 5a was so vulnerable .Anyone would see that it was wide open for theft , never mind three precious kids .
I wouldnt have left cash in it or my jewellary or anything I cared about .
I wonder did the Mc Canns leave money lieing about in it ?

Yeah obviously they shouldn't have done it.

Did hotels used to provide that kind of service though I wonder? A bit lax of them not to mention crazily unsafe with staff going round knowing the kids were ontheir own.

ISDW

azvor wrote: »

Look Folks.....Gerry & Kate are medical doctors.....they see death every day and even though it was their own dearest little daughter, it didn't take too long before they would have taken the all-important decision to cover-up....They HAD to cover it up,,,otherwise their lives would have been totally ruined as well as the lives of their other children....
This is ALL theory of course...and that's what discussion is all about.....
"Opinions are like Ass-Holes.....Every one has one"... as the old saying goes....

I also agree with some previous entries in this matter regarding the tendencey of some contributors to "attack" anyone whose opinion differs from theirs.... and as for the contributor who stated that 95% of contributors probaly didn't have children of their own and had never lost a child of their own......well...kiddo, I can tell you from personal experience that that is not the case by a long shot.....

Does anyone have an opinion on the issue of Narco-Interrogation in this matter?????

Of course people are entitled to their opinion, but your posts come across as though they are facts.

Your theory rests on them taking Madeleine's body away in a car, sorry, you must keep missing my posts, I think this is now the 3rd of 4th time I've asked you, did they have a hire car on the night she went missing? I'll do a deal with you, if you answer that point, then I'll give you my opinion on the Narco-interrogation.:)

K-9

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Having read Kate's book, I can actually see now, (and don't flog me), how they left them on their own.

You know 'folie a deux' is when two people do stupid things together, well it was like peer pressure in a way, the whole group were leaving the kids and checking on them, making each parent feel sure it must be okay to do it if everyone else is doing it.

Also Kate said something interesting: that prior to Madeleine's dissapearance it was common practice for parents on holiday to go and dine downstairs for example and for the holiday resort to provide a child listening service, where the staff would go around and listen at the doors of the appartments, to check that the children were'nt awake.

Therefore, hotels were condoning children being left alone until Madeleine's case, is that right?

One of the couples had a baby monitor so I don't know about peer pressure.

Wouldn't say the hotels condone it, they provide a service. Seems to be a demand for it alright but it wasn't available in this complex.

goat2

i can say that i never let my children out of my sight when on holiday, i would book large ensuite room so that we could put in sleeping bags, i could not sleep even if they were in room next to us, i would lock and take key from door when going to bed, so that any would not sleepwalk or stray on to corridor, at that age they take up very little space, even in the event of fire breaking out in building, it would be much safer to have them close,
i do know that what they did was wrong, and they know it, but it was the cheeky nasty bastard that entered their condo that is to blame for this child being missing, i also wonder was everyone at dinner in that restaurant at the time they were there investigated, as they could have overheard the group saying they were going checking the children, and keeping an eye on them and their checks to see an opening to take the child. it had to be someone who knew the coast was clear and they had to be very close to these people, were they watched for days, or was it employees with ties to the abductor who would have tipped him/her off that the children were alone

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I know... I read a bit then just skimmed down to the Thursday, might go back and read a bit more now.

Don't like that McCann's files site though, the one that is very thorough, it is also very very biased.

But a statement like that is ok to read, more genuine I think without the translation to and from Portugese.

I never even looked where this statement was posted till now, Never seen this site before tbh.
I haven't read all this statement yet im on the 4th part what I can say so far is, Jane Tanner seem's to be very confused about everything including thing's that have no bearing on the case!
I don't want to judge her here because I really think this women is feeling tremendous guilt from maybe seeing Maddie carried away that night & that must be Horrendous to have to live with! ...What I have noticed is from the very begining though is how she talk's quite freely about Baby monitors they had all taken with them, So from the very begining there was never any intention of hiring any baby sitter's! So imho this must have been a regular thing they all did while holidaying together otherwise how did they all just arrive with these monitor's?,JT Clearly states at one point how Dave & Fiona's monitor was the dog's gonads or words to that effect! I will say this though I have while reading this filled up a couple of times when JT has got distressed regarding no one believeing her that she seen Gerry & Gez that night in the Road talking including Gerry M & Gez Wilkins! Thank-You for the Link btw..

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just some thoughts on the scent of a cadaver in the apartment;

1.) I have read in a few places that a human cadaver won't begin to emit an odour until between 36 and 48 hours after death (the time varied a little between those two).

Source?

Now if Madeleine did die in the apartment you would assume that whoever was responsible would remove the body almost immediately. They certainly would not leave a dead body lying there for the better part of two days. So thus Madeleine's body would have been gone from the apartment long before it started to give out an odour.

Anecdotal, guesstimate, assumptions.

You're making stuff up in your head and trying to post it as facts...and you know it.

hondasam

There is so much in this thread I have forgotten some of it.
did anyone mention the friend of one of the group who had a boat docked at the harbour that night.
I can't recall exactly who it was.

sunflower27

hondasam wrote: »

There is so much in this thread I have forgotten some of it.
did anyone mention the friend of one of the group who had a boat docked at the harbour that night.
I can't recall exactly who it was.

Not heard about that, but ever since I started suspecting the parents' involvement in her death, I was convinced madeleine's body was disposed of at sea. I suspected from the start that it made sense to make sure her body was never found so her murder could never be linked to the parents.

Also, I have always thought the parents seemed very cool, calm and collected from the off and if you know that the body would never be found, I suppose that would be a huge relief.

hondasam

sunflower27 wrote: »

Not heard about that, but ever since I started suspecting the parents' involvement in her death, I was convinced madeleine's body was disposed of at sea. I suspected from the start that it made sense to make sure her body was never found so her murder could never be linked to the parents.

Also, I have always thought the parents seemed very cool, calm and collected from the off and if you know that the body would never be found, I suppose that would be a huge relief.

I remember something at the time about a man who lived in the same town as one of the group and he had a boat there at the time.

I will have a search and see if I can find some ref to it.

sunflower27

Interesting.Found this on wikipedia

Detectives tried to trace a British man who left the harbour in his yacht shortly after the disappearance, after having moored there for two years. A witness reported seeing a man carrying a child in his arms down to the marina, hours after Madeleine disappeared. On 29 May, detectives questioned four boat owners, three of them English, whose vessels were moored at the marina in Lagos, a town about five miles (8 km) from Praia da Luz.[100]

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just some thoughts on the scent of a cadaver in the apartment;

1.) I have read in a few places that a human cadaver won't begin to emit an odour until between 36 and 48 hours after death (the time varied a little between those two). Now if Madeleine did die in the apartment you would assume that whoever was responsible would remove the body almost immediately. They certainly would not leave a dead body lying there for the better part of two days. So thus Madeleine's body would have been gone from the apartment long before it started to give out an odour.

2.)So that begs the question of what the dogs smelt. I had the thought that maybe there was something in the apartment mimicing the smell of a cadaver; rotting food in a bin perhaps or some small animal that died in the apartment. I remember in primary school about 12 years ago a shrew died in one of the presses during a particularly hot week and the smell was atrocious. Perhaps that was what the dogs picked up?




Just some things that occurred to me as I was reading over the thread.

Not true that the body does not emit an odour until that long after death. What you are referring to is the strong scent brought about by diamines like cadaverine and putrescine once the putrefaction process is well under way. That scent is one of a level that can be easily detected by a human sense of smell. A canine can detect it at a much lower level and at a much earlier stage.

Also a body does not have to be dead 36 hours or more to create cadaverine, in fact it often has small traces of it whilst alive, and these small amounts can lead to detectable traces, detectable to a trained canine or the right lab equipment at least, from a body dead a few hours at most.

Decomposition in a human body begins at the moment of death, and as such the body begins leaving traces of this, however minute, from pretty close to this moment.

Things like temperature and body size/weight will greatly speed up the process as well, so a small child will decompose far quicker than a full sized adult. Also a body exposed to air will start to decompose two to three times faster than one in/under water.

Mountainsandh

I was just reading this

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]FORENSIC EVIDENCE CANINES: STATUS, TRAINING, and UTILIZATION</U>[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Michael M. Zanoni, Ph.D., Adela Morris, Mary Messer, B.A., Rita Martinez[/FONT]
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
February 1998 - San Francisco CA

and thought I'd share these bits for anyone interested :

"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Gauze Sponge Lineup Project[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The purpose of this activity was to determine if dogs can differentiate between the scent of a live human and cadaver scent in the same lineup. Sterile gauze sponges were placed for twenty minutes on the unbroken abdominal skin of cadavers that were from one hour to seventy-two hours post-mortem. .... The shortest post-mortem duration that resulted in a correct selection was for a sponge placed on a cadaver that was one hour twenty five minutes post-mortem. " It also says there was an overall 50% success rate.[/FONT]

but/and

"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Based upon our experiences in examining the above issues, we arrived at the following opinions and conclusions:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1) There is a significant potential for a dog handler to offer unintentionally misleading or improper testimony about the presence or absence of residual scent from decomposed human tissue.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2) Dogs specifically trained to detect scent of decomposed human tissue can be invaluable in resolving issues related to evidence gathering and determination of investigative direction. It is crucial, however, that dogs be used in situations appropriate to their training level, and that dog handlers are able to support their testimony about dog behavior with accurate training logs. Any canine used for forensic purposes in the location of the scent of decomposed human tissue should never be cross-trained for any other type of scent work if the results of the animal's activities and handler's opinions are to be used for the development of probable cause.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3) Existing training and testing techniques in the general community of handlers now working do not address the specific and rigorous training needs for dogs that are expected to reliably detect and alert on residual scent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4) Research should be conducted to further identify behavioral expectations of forensic evidence dogs. Appropriate training protocols must be developed to continually lessen the potential that observations of the behavior of a dog might be misleading to a trier of fact. This includes educating trainers and handlers to the legal issues involved with formulation of probable cause and the ethical considerations inherent in expert testimony.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5) A severely fatigued dog can inadvertently be pressured to give a false alert because it wants to terminate the search in order to rest. Therefore, it is important to maintain the dog at a high level of physical fitness so that it may work for multiple hours with only brief rest periods.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6) Dogs used to develop probable cause based upon residual scent must be negatively conditioned to human urine, feces, and semen in order to ensure that the animal will not alert when encountering these substances during a search. All dogs, no matter what level of training, used in the detection of decomposed human tissue should be negatively conditioned to the scent of decomposed non-human tissue. It must be kept in mind, however, that many dogs will react or show interest to any decomposed tissue at certain short times during the decomposition process.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7) Training for dogs used in search-and-rescue for lost persons (cadaver dogs) and for general field searching to find visible decomposed remains is generally appropriate and effective for that type of situation, but not for highly specialized situations or to build probable cause based solely upon residual scent. "[/FONT]

Hope it's ok to give such big quotes on here, these are the most relevant bits to this discussion imo.

TheZohanS

1. Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.
Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).
The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).

Reference:
Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.
Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.

AudreyHepburn

So we have one report saying Cadaver dogs are perfect at what they do and another saying that they can actually make mistakes and so on.

What that says to me is that while the dogs are of course an important tool and the results they give can be vital we should be careful about assuming they are 100% all the time.

AudreyHepburn

Kess73 wrote: »

Not true that the body does not emit an odour until that long after death. What you are referring to is the strong scent brought about by diamines like cadaverine and putrescine once the putrefaction process is well under way. That scent is one of a level that can be easily detected by a human sense of smell. A canine can detect it at a much lower level and at a much earlier stage.

Also a body does not have to be dead 36 hours or more to create cadaverine, in fact it often has small traces of it whilst alive, and these small amounts can lead to detectable traces, detectable to a trained canine or the right lab equipment at least, from a body dead a few hours at most.

Decomposition in a human body begins at the moment of death, and as such the body begins leaving traces of this, however minute, from pretty close to this moment.

Things like temperature and body size/weight will greatly speed up the process as well, so a small child will decompose far quicker than a full sized adult. Also a body exposed to air will start to decompose two to three times faster than one in/under water.

Well you may be right but I certainly read those time frames.

In any case I still think the smell is not enough to hang the McCanns because the abductor , if there was one, could have killed Madeleine.

Or the dog might have made a mistake.

Mountainsandh

Or the police could have planted the evidence.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So we have one report saying Cadaver dogs are perfect at what they do and another saying that they can actually make mistakes and so on.

What that says to me is that while the dogs are of course an important tool and the results they give can be vital we should be careful about assuming they are 100% all the time.

We have one report that's 13 years old and not backed up by any academic or scientific organisation that was carried out under no strict conditions and then we have a report from 3 years ago that is scientific and follows all the guidelines for experimentation.

There's a huge difference....and you know it.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well you may be right but I certainly read those time frames.

In any case I still think the smell is not enough to hang the McCanns because the abductor , if there was one, could have killed Madeleine.

Or the dog might have made a mistake.

You did read those time frames, I am 100% of that, but I know that those time frames are for the scents/odour that can be detected by a human level of smell.

I am not suggesting that the scent is enough to blame the McCanns. I was just posting to say that decomposition begins at the moment of death and as such traces that can be detected begin to appear very quickly.

The dog could have been wrong, but it is very odd that a dog, one with an amazing track record like the british dog has, found something to respond to in four different locations, three being outside of the apartment (the steps near the patio, the chuch the McCanns used, and under the mat of the boot of the McCanns rental car) that the McCanns were and to no other locations.

The fact the dog reacted to four seperate locations also blows the idea that someone/something else died where the dog checked, unless we are to buy into there being four different deaths that just happened to be in locations the McCanns went to.

The fact that a second dog, the one trained for blood rather than traces of a dead person, also responded to those spots casts some doubt as to whatever happened that night.

The same two dogs were also used ( at seperate times of course) on the hallways by the apartment, in the adjoining apartments, around the complex and in the car park where the rental car was, and the dogs did not respond to other spots nor did the dogs react to other areas where the other dog had been.

The dog picking up a scent in the apartment does not cast doubt on the McCanns in my view as you rightly pointed out that an abductor could have killed the child there. But the fact the dog picked up the same scent in other locations is interesting/suspicious. Plus if Kate McCann's comments about how she might have brought the scent with her from her place of work, then the scent should have been found on pretty much everything Kate touched and not just in four specific spots.


As always though I am simply speculating based on what we know so far in the case, and your take on the scent/dogs etc could just as easily turn out to be correct.

lugha

The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).

I'm not sure what the distinction is between specificity and negative predictive value?
But either way, it would seem that there is about a 10% chance that the dogs are wrong. Not trivial, but far from conclusive.

OutlawPete

I reckon this thread will keep going until the thread title is apt again.

thebullkf

dark crystal wrote: »

The Lindy Chamberlain case is a prime example of the public jumping to their own conclusions and the parents being wrongfully convicted of the murder of their baby daughter.

Another case, that of David and Cynthia Dowaliby is also quite similar : http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/ilDowalibySummary.html

The murder of Jonbenet Ramsey also has similar conotations to that of the McCann case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

In all these cases, the parents of the children co-operated with police and were still believed to have been involved by the authorities. There were many 'hypothesis'' put foward, but none of them appear to have any truth in relation to the parents involvement and the cases remain unsolved.

Sometimes, the police will cling to the belief that the parents were involved because it seems the most straightforward theory - this certainly doesn't mean they're right.

this.

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Or the police could have planted the evidence.

Why would they want to do that though?!
I've finally finished JT interview just something bother's me about this sighting of the Man & Child....JT say's she only seen the Child's feet! So how would she know if this Child was a Boy or Girl? it's impossible to say oneway or another, Could this be a reason why no one has come forward because just maybe the Child being carried was infact a Boy & not a girl as reported? & so whoever was carrying a child that night think's it doesn't apply to them so hasn't come forward?! Just a thought really but maybe not impossible!

Inreference to some on this thread regarding the Abductor Killing the child in the Apartment....Why would a Abductor make all that effort to get hold of a child, kill this Child & then take away her Body? it just doesn't make any sense to me!
Reading JT interview convinces me even more that the timelines given are a Fabrication by all 9 of the Tapas group when you read it it's like people we're supposedly leaving the table every 5 minutes... as one sat down from checking the Children another one would leave the table so why bother with the Baby Monitor's they all had with them? No I don't believe this part...I would like to read the other member's of the Tapas group though maybe I might get a different view point from them!!

Have just read Racheal M Statement!! Well we do know alot of people in high places don't we?! According to her statement it was her who contacted the BBC 24. & Spoke to several reporter's that night! who are friends! She also had the Number of the British Consulate who she also contacted the same night irrc.! Busy Lady! Who's statement is very similar to JT in as much as the how fantastic the mcs are as Parent's not the same word's as JT used but meaning the samething! I was also quite surprised by the Accuracy of both their statements the times when everyone arrived & the times when they supposedly left for their check's etc even to the in crowd joke maybe i'm cynical but if these people haven't been in the same room discussing their statements before hand...I will show my ass in Dublin market!

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

We have one report that's 13 years old and not backed up by any academic or scientific organisation that was carried out under no strict conditions and then we have a report from 3 years ago that is scientific and follows all the guidelines for experimentation.

There's a huge difference....and you know it.

No there isn't. Perhaps testing methods 13 years ago were not what they are now but that does not make the results any less valid and you know it.

Your post still shows 10% doubt or margin for error and there is no use in pretending otherwise.

But then that would not support the 'guilty McCanns' would it?

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No there isn't. Perhaps testing methods 13 years ago were not what they are now but that does not make the results any less valid and you know it.

Your post still shows 10% doubt or margin for error and there is no use in pretending otherwise.

But then that would not support the 'guilty McCanns' would it?

You've contradicted yourself in your first two sentences of your post, and you know it. One test was carried out by an amateur organisation and the other by the Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center, Hamburg,Germany. Now if you're not familiar with this institute I highly recommend that you Google it. I suppose you believe that first astronomers who surmised that the world is flat is as valid as the scientific findings that the world is round?

The McCanns are guilty, guilty of not taking proper precautions to ensure the safety of their daughter, and you know it. They're also guilty of neglect, and you know it. Whether they played a bigger part in their childs disappearance is not for me to say, all I will say is that there is a lot of evidence against them, and you know it.

I'm keeping an open mind on the cadaver dogs and all the evidence that has been presented, I think it's foolish to think that these people are not capable of doing something more sinister given the facts, and that's exactly what they are. Facts.

You seem to have a bit of a hard-on for the McCanns and are defending them no matter what facts are put to you, but you're defending them with anecdotal evidence, stuff you "read" but cannot source and your own opinion. Whilst you're entitled to your own opinion it doesn't negate the mountain of evidence currently stacked against the McCanns, and you know it.