Madeleine McCann

Charmeleon

retro:electro wrote: »

There is no proof that includes the parents. So logic would dictate that by default, for now, they are excluded.

Nothing puts them above suspicion, apart from feelings.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Charmeleon wrote: »

Nothing puts them above suspicion, apart from feelings.

Huh?

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you cannot rule anyone out until its proven they didnt or couldnt do it.

Well courts rely on the proof of guilt, not proof of innocence. So, until proven otherwise..
I know proof doesn’t mean much to some here, but in the real world it’s important.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

retro:electro wrote: »

There is no proof that includes the parents. So logic would dictate that by default, for now, they are excluded.

No in fairness they cannot be ruled out . They were the last people to see Madeleine alive and as such would be still suspects . Nothing can be ruled out .

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Well courts rely on the proof of guilt, not proof of innocence. So, until proven otherwise, they’re clear.
I know proof doesn’t mean much to some here, but in the real world it’s important.

you seem to think that calling someone a suspect is the same as saying they are guilty
all it means is they need to be looked

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you seem to think that calling someone a suspect is the same as saying they are guilty
all it means is they need to be looked

And you seem to be forgetting that they are no longer “suspect” or “arguido” since 2008.

Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction, and lifted all conditions imposed on them
In a statement, he said: "The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos.
"Hereby the condition of all three arguidos ceases - and the bail measures imposed upon the same have expired."

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

retro:electro wrote: »

And you seem to be forgetting that they are no longer “suspect” or “arguido” since 2008.

Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction, and lifted all conditions imposed on them
In a statement, he said: "The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos.
"Hereby the condition of all three arguidos ceases - and the bail measures imposed upon the same have expired."

In the eyes of the law the Mc Canns are still considered innocent . But that would not mean if a new investigation opened tomorrow that they could be ruled out . They would be suspects in any investigation along with other possibilities and other persons of interest

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

iamwhoiam wrote: »

In the eyes of the law the Mc Canns are still considered innocent . But that would not mean if a new investigation opened tomorrow that they could be ruled out . They would be suspects in any investigation along with other possibilities and other persons of interest

Of course. I’m mainly referencing the here and now. Who knows what could happen in the future. But as of now, with what we know today, they are no longer suspect.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

And you seem to be forgetting that they are no longer “suspect” or “arguido” since 2008.

Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction, and lifted all conditions imposed on them
In a statement, he said: "The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos.
"Hereby the condition of all three arguidos ceases - and the bail measures imposed upon the same have expired."

that has nothing got to do with whether they would be considered supects in th e future

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

that has nothing got to do with whether they would be considered supects in th e future

See my reply above.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

retro:electro wrote: »

Of course. I’m mainly referencing the here and now. Who knows what could happen in the future. But as of now, with what we know today, they are no longer suspect.

They are no longer suspects under investigation thats true . But for anyone discussing the case they cannot be ruled out . There simply is no evidence to rule anything out . That is the huge puzzle

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Of course. I’m mainly referencing the here and now. Who knows what could happen in the future. But as of now, with what we know today, they are no longer suspect.

translation of the relevant 2017 Portuguese ruling.

Quote:
It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.

That ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal’s Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime.

The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Yes, I posted that a few weeks ago. Basically the lifting of their status does not and should not infer guilt or innocence according to the courts. It is just that, the lifting of the status.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

Don't remember this story coming out in 2017. Might be of interest to some on here

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467832/Met-interested-proving-McCann-parents-innocent.html#article-4467832

goat2

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

How can he say something, when he cannot prove it, or has not proved it

Quote (Former detective Goncalo Amaral (pictured), who wrote a widely discredited book saying Madeleiene died in the house, has now said he believes Madeleine's body was cremated0

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

goat2 wrote: »

How can he say something, when he cannot prove it, or has not proved it

Quote (Former detective Goncalo Amaral (pictured), who wrote a widely discredited book saying Madeleiene died in the house, has now said he believes Madeleine's body was cremated0

Easy, he just makes it up and says it. Perhaps a Gypsy with a crystal ball told him.

limnam

goat2 wrote: »

How can he say something, when he cannot prove it, or has not proved it

Quote (Former detective Goncalo Amaral (pictured), who wrote a widely discredited book saying Madeleiene died in the house, has now said he believes Madeleine's body was cremated0

But there was the dogs that indicated _someone_ died in the aparetment considering no one else reportedly died there.....



Cremation is not that far fetched considering she's not been found?

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

The same dogs who, on a later case, mistook a coconut for a dead body? Ah yeah great lads.

retro:electro

The parents did it

retro:electro wrote: »

The same dogs who, on a later case, mistook a coconut for a dead body? Ah yeah great lads.

I saw that said before. Can you verify it? Is it not true they work on scent, not on objects? Can I rub a coconut on a corpse and the dog react?

If I go in a morgue and remove the corpses and put in a bunch of bananas, is the dog wrong?

Yes, it is absurd. But who knows?

limnam

I think what people might not also understand he's writing a book. From a view point not many people have.


The same dogs/trainer currently hired by the FBI. Sure what would they know......

Sunflower 27

Something Else

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I saw that said before. Can you verify it? Is it not true they work on scent, not on objects? Can I rub a coconut on a corpse and the dog react?

If I go in a morgue and remove the corpses and put in a bunch of bananas, is the dog wrong?

Yes, it is absurd. But who knows?

Very good point. And no, the dog would not be wrong

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I saw that said before. Can you verify it?

Yeah, it’s all here..

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078055/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2031

Interesting reading. I’ve highlighted the most pertinent parts..
Actual Findings

Despite the “extremely strong” reactions of these top dogs which had been used in the McCann case and about whom the McCann’s persecutors will claim a 100% success rate, the Haut de La Garenne investigation ended with the following headlines:-

1 After being examined by experts from the British Museum, a fragment thought to have been from a skull turned out to be a piece of Victorian coconut shell.
2 "Shackles" found in rubble turned out to be "a rusty piece of metal", and there was no evidence to suggest it had been used for anything suspicious.
3 There was no blood in the cellar, and the bath blood was said to have been found in had not been used since 1920.
4 The "secret underground chambers" were just holes in the floor, "not dungeons or cellars".
5 Most of the 170 pieces of bone found in the search came from animals. Three were human and two of these dated from between 1470-1670 and 1650-1950 respectively.

But yeah.. the dogs would not be wrong... :rolleyes:

Anyone know why the dog Eddie lost its licence for forensic work the UK?

nc6000

The parents did it

limnam wrote:

Cremation is not that far fetched considering she's not been found?

OK, so who do you think cremated her and where was this done?

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Gas how the”no evidence of an abduction” brigade have no objection to perpetuating the idea that she’s not only dead but also cremated, despite there being even less evidence of that.
Mad, Ted.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Gas how the”no evidence of an abduction” brigade have no objection to perpetuating the idea that she’s not only dead but also cremated, despite there being even less evidence of that.
Mad, Ted.

Well, generally a body being disposed of is buried, cremated, left out to sea. Like everyone else, I dont know what happened to her body, but despite being one of the most widely publicised missing child, if not most publicised ever, she has never been seen since alive.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Well, generally a body being disposed of is buried, cremated, left out to sea.

What?

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

What?

How are dead people normally dealt with?They are buried or cremated. If someone is trying to conceal a dead body, the bodies tend to be buried, cremated or disposed of at sea. I really can't be any clearer.

The picking up scent of death by dogs in the MCCanns apartment is a point raised a lot. Personally, I don't think it has much weight as the scent would only be present if Madeleine died in the apartment and lay there dead for several hours. If she was found deceased and moved quickly thereafter, no scent would be found. That doesn't mean she didn't die there, just that she didn't remain there for long if she did.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

If someone is trying to conceal a dead body, the bodies tend to be buried, cremated or disposed of at sea. I really can't be any clearer.

Do you have proof of this? What has this got to do with the McCanns?

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The picking up scent of death by dogs in the McCanns apartment is a point raised a lot. Personally, I don't think it has much weight as the scent would only be present if Madeleine died in the apartment and lay there dead for several hours.

But.. but I thought?....

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

the dog would not be wrong

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

But.. but I thought?....

You thought right. The dogs have proven track records and for that reason have been used by the FBI. I think it is naive to discredit them totally. An alert would indicate Madeleine lay dead for a certain length of time. A non alert could mean a body was moved before scent developed. Thus, a non alert does not mean no one died in the apartment.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

You thought right. The dogs have proven track records and for that reason have been used by the FBI. I think it is naive to discredit them totally. An alert would indicate Madeleine lay dead for a certain length of time. A non alert could mean a body was moved before scent developed. Thus, a non alert does not mean no one died in the apartment.

I don’t discredit them totally.. but I do take their “findings” with caution.. and would agree with experts who say "Dog alerts can be unreliable. The handler himself makes it clear in the police report that such alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence. There was no such evidence.
It is vital to note that alerts by such dogs are classified as intelligence rather than evidence, as police officers familiar with their use will verify. These alerts must be supported by forensics in order to be used as evidence. The results of the forensic examinations did not identify any blood or Madeleine's DNA. To suggest or use the dogs' reactions as evidence is simply wrong.
Thus, an “alert” actually means nothing if there is no forensics evidence to back it up.

Again, I will reiterate that Eddie lost his licence to work forensically in the UK.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t discredit them totally.. but I do take their “findings” with caution.. and would agree with experts who say "Dog alerts can be unreliable. The handler himself makes it clear in the police report that such alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence. There was no such evidence.
It is vital to note that alerts by such dogs are classified as intelligence rather than evidence, as police officers familiar with their use will verify. These alerts must be supported by forensics in order to be used as evidence. The results of the forensic examinations did not identify any blood or Madeleine's DNA. To suggest or use the dogs' reactions as evidence is simply wrong.
Thus, an “alert” actually means nothing if there is no forensics evidence to back it up.

Again, I will reiterate that Eddie lost his licence to work forensically in the UK.

I understand taking them with caution. There is always room for error.

These dogs are, to my understanding, usually used in the search of bodies and have had success. There was unlikely to be a body found in the McCann apartment and if she was moved within hours they would have detected nothing. I certainly wouldn't expect doctors to be unaware of cadaver scent. No way they would have kept a body hidden in an apartment for any length of time.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Right, but you said this..

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

An alert would indicate Madeleine lay dead for a certain length of time.

An alert “indicates” absolutely nothing if it’s not supported by forensic evidence. The dogs own handler even stated same.

Tbh you’re confusing me now..
First you said this

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

the dog would not be wrong

Then this..

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Personally, I don't think it has much weight as the scent would only be present if Madeleine died in the apartment and lay there dead for several hours.

Then this...

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The dogs have proven track records and for that reason have been used by the FBI. I think it is naive to discredit them totally.

Then this..

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I understand taking them with caution. There is always room for error.

But I *think* beneath it all you are agreeing with my initial point, which is that their “findings” are unreliable and prove nothing if not supported by forensics. Hence not dismissing them totally at first, but taking any “alerts” with caution until confirmed by forensics; which in this case there was none.

goat2

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Very good point. And no, the dog would not be wrong

Ant the Titanic was unsinkable

Sunflower 27

Something Else

To clarify, there was a joke back a page about a banana being put in place of a dead body and a dog alerting to the banana. I am saying the dog would not be wrong in this case if it detected the scent of death, where cadaver scent had been, in this case under or around the banana. The dog found the scent, which it is trained to do.

I don't know of any case where detecting cadaver on its own as the primary piece of evidence, saw someone convicted of a crime. I could be wrong but I imagine there would have to be far more than that. And that is because of course there is room for error.

I believe there is a place for scent dogs and don't discredit them by any means. I'm sure the families of people who have had remains returned to them are very grateful for their contribution.

Also, lack of detection of blood in the McCann apartment by a dog is neither here nor there. A person can die without spilling blood, i.e. choking, drowning, breaking neck, overdose, to name a few. None of these would necessarily leave blood.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

goat2 wrote: »

Ant the Titanic was unsinkable

The Titanic wasn't unsinkable. A human just said it was

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

This thread has gone to the dogs.

Not for the first time.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Also, lack of detection of blood in the McCann apartment by a dog is neither here nor there. A person can die without spilling blood, i.e. choking, drowning, breaking neck, overdose, to name a few. None of these would necessarily leave blood.

Keela is trained to detect blood. Both dogs will alert to dried blood of live human beings.
None of the alerts by Keela have been confirmed by forensics as being blood. No blood OR DNA of Madeleine was found/identified. The DNA that was identified belongs to three living persons. As well as that, the dog who confused a coconut for a skull is now unlicensed and does not work forensically in the UK anymore.
So, now that all of that has been debunked and we have established that the dogs are unreliable, what exactly is supporting your theory that she died in the apartment?

limnam

nc6000 wrote: »

OK, so who do you think cremated her and where was this done?

Don't recall stating I thought anyone cremated anyone.


Try reading the post again.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Keela is trained to detect blood. Both dogs will alert to dried blood of live human beings.
None of the alerts by Keela have been confirmed by forensics as being blood. No blood OR DNA of Madeleine was found/identified. The DNA that was identified belongs to three living persons. As well as that, the dog who confused a coconut for a skull is now unlicensed and does not work forensically in the UK anymore.
So, now that all of that has been debunked and we have established that the dogs are unreliable, what exactly is supporting your theory that she died in the apartment?

I'm not sure what you have established or debunked with the dogs. If Madeleine died in the apartment and was moved quickly after there would be no cadaver. If she died in one of the ways I mentioned in a previous post there would be no blood. The dogs are proof of no blood and no body being left for a lengthy period of time.

I don't believe there was an abduction. To me, an accidental death when a child is left alone for 20,-30 minutes at a time is far more likely than an abductor. Maybe it isn't to you, but it is to me.

If there was proof of any theory we would know it. The reason this case is so mind boggling is because there is no evidence at all.

Now, in the absence of me giving you definitive proof Madeleine died in the apartment, how about you care to tell me your evidence it was an abductor. If you have it, I would be very interested in hearing it.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

So you have no proof to support your claims that she died in the apartment? What about all the blogs you’ve read? There must be something, no?

You may be right in that, generally, an accidental death is more likely than an abduction, however, subsequent and unexplained disposal of a body under the glare of the world’s media and cover up lasting over a decade is certainly not.

Also I’ve already outlined my theory directly to you and the how’s and why’s of it over and over on this thread. Feel free to go back and refresh if you’re failing to remember. Funny how you agree that there’s no proof of any scenario but that still doesn’t prevent you from accusations of drugging, bagging, burial.. possible cremation? But the abduction theory is what you have a problem with cos it’s “less likely”, despite the fact that all we actually know is a child was there one minute and gone the next. :rolleyes:

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The dogs are proof of no blood and no body being left for a lengthy period of time.

How’d you figure that?

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

So you have no proof to support your claims that she died in the apartment? What about all the blogs you’ve read? There must be something, no?

You may be right in that, generally, an accidental death is more likely than an abduction, however, subsequent and unexplained disposal of a body under the glare of the world’s media and cover up lasting over a decade is certainly not.

Also I’ve already outlined my theory directly to you and the how’s and why’s of it over and over on this thread. Feel free to go back and refresh if you’re failing to remember. Funny how you agree that there’s no proof of any scenario but that still doesn’t prevent you from accusations of drugging, bagging, burial.. possible cremation? But the abduction theory is what you have a problem with cos it’s “less likely”, despite the fact that all we actually know is a child was there one minute and gone the next. :rolleyes:

What can I say, I don't believe she was abducted. You can roll your eyes, demand evidence but until you have proof of an abduction then sorry, I just don't believe it. Yes someone could have got in and left without being seen by anyone. I'm not denying that could have happened. I just dont believe it happened like that. And it appears my views are far from isolated

Yes, a child was there and is gone. That is what we know. We also know abduction is not the only scenario. Failure to prove how something happened doesn't mean it couldn't have. In the absence of definitive proof that Madeleine was taken, I will continue to hold my opinion until proven otherwise.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

How’d you figure that?

If you are saying the dogs are unreliable then you are saying they could not alert to blood or cadaver. Maybe they were ubreliabe. I can't answer that either way. I don't believe cadaver was there unless Madeleine lay on the apartment dead for several hours, and that is highly unlikely if she was being checked as her parents describe.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

What can I say, I don't believe she was abducted. You can roll your eyes, demand evidence but until you have proof of an abduction then sorry, I just don't believe it. Yes someone could have got in and left without being seen by anyone. I'm not denying that could have happened. I just dont believe it happened like that. And it appears my views are far from isolated

Yes, a child was there and is gone. That is what we know. We also know abduction is not the only scenario. Failure to prove how something happened doesn't mean if couldn't have. In the absence of definitive proof that Madeleine was taken, I will continue to hold my opinion until proven otherwise.

You don’t want to provide possible timelines, you don’t want to provide proof. You don’t want to do anything at all that might tarnish the baseless poison you’ve been posting throughout the thread. And yes, accusing two parents of drugging their child and disposing of her body when you admit you have absolutely no proof for saying so is nothing short of poisonous. Basically you want unrestricted and unquestionable free reign to post whatever unsubstantiated rubbish you like and accuse whoever you want of anything without the burden of having to back up your claims. No. You cannot say anything you like and then close yourself off to being challenged. The real world doesn’t work like that. Most of us can’t walk around accusing people of all sorts without proof and without being answerable to someone, unless looking rational and sane is not a priority.

You have basically plucked a theory out of the sky and ran with it. I think most of the theories of parental involvement are projections from posters who could possibly see themselves acting in the manner they accuse the McCanns of resorting to. But it’s not the reality for many. Most people could not and would not dispose of a child they loved in such a dismissive manner and carry on a front for over a decade.

The fact the are cold people who made strange decisions does not mean it’s open season for a free for all to accuse them of all and sundry. An abduction is a reasonable conclusion to come to when there is such a remarkable lack of evidence pointing to anything else, unless she vanished into a poof of thin air which is not plausible. What isn’t reasonable is accusing the parents of the remaining McCann children of drugging and body disposal without a shred of proof and then posting that all over the internet as if it were fact.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

You don’t want to provide possible timelines, you don’t want to provide proof. You don’t want to do anything at all that might tarnish the baseless poison you’ve been posting throughout the thread. And yes, accusing two parents of drugging their child and disposing of her body when you admit you have absolutely no proof for saying so is nothing short of poisonous. Basically you want unrestricted and unquestionable free reign to post whatever unsubstantiated rubbish you like and accuse whoever you want of anything without the burden of having to back up your claims. No. You cannot say anything you like and then close yourself off to being challenged. The real world doesn’t work like that. Most of us can’t walk around accusing people of all sorts without proof and without being answerable to someone, unless looking rational and sane is not a priority.

You have basically plucked a theory out of the sky and ran with it. I think most of the theories of parental involvement are projections from posters who could possibly see themselves acting in the manner they accuse the McCanns of resorting to. But it’s not the reality for many. Most people could not and would not dispose of a child they loved in such a dismissive manner and carry on a front for over a decade.

The fact the are cold people who made strange decisions does not mean it’s open season for a free for all to accuse them of all and sundry. An abduction is a reasonable conclusion to come to when there is such a remarkable lack of evidence pointing to anything else, unless she vanished into a poof of thin air which is not plausible. What isn’t reasonable is accusing the parents of the remaining McCann children of drugging and body disposal without a shred of proof and then posting that all over the internet as if it were fact.

How I came to my conclusion of what I think happened is actually none of your business. If I want to say it came to me in a dream, I read it in tea leaves, read it on a forum or indeed plucked it out of the air, then I actually can. I'm not breaking any rules here. No one on this thread needs to provide you or anyone with anything to support the theory they believe. This is a thread about a mystery, you have to expect people to air their opinions of theories.

I have never said it is a fact Madeleine's parents sedated her. It is and only ever has been a theory, so please don't claim I am making factual statements when I am not. It's the theory I believe most likely and quite possibly one of the the most widely accepted theories.

By all means defend the McCanns. I personally cannot defend anyone that thinks what they did was like leaving children asleep in bed while they dined in the backyard. These are educated people that knew, possibly more than most, what horrible things could happen to three small children left alone for 20-30minutes in an unlocked and unfamiliar apartment. As doctors they know how easily a child could choke, fall, cut themselves. And yet despite this they chose to prioritise themselves. That is key for me. They prioritised themselves.

You are right, most parents wouldn't conceal the death of a much loved child. They would, on finding their child dead call the police and face possible prosecution for neglect, lose their careers and reputations and custody of their two remaining children.

It's a lot to lose when it won't bring a daughter back.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

How I came to my conclusion of what I think happened is actually none of your business. If I want to say it came to me in a dream, I read it in tea leaves, read it on a forum or indeed plucked it out of the air, then I actually can.

Lol, okay. I’ve read enough.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Lol, okay. I’ve read enough.

Amen.

Charmeleon

retro:electro wrote: »

Keela is trained to detect blood. Both dogs will alert to dried blood of live human beings.
None of the alerts by Keela have been confirmed by forensics as being blood. No blood OR DNA of Madeleine was found/identified. The DNA that was identified belongs to three living persons. As well as that, the dog who confused a coconut for a skull is now unlicensed and does not work forensically in the UK anymore.
So, now that all of that has been debunked and we have established that the dogs are unreliable, what exactly is supporting your theory that she died in the apartment?

You’ve only established your lack of understanding of how the dogs work. The dog specially trained to indicate for blood did not indicate at all of the same places as the cadaver dog, therefore the cadaver dog was not indicating dried blood from a living person.

The dog also did not identify a coconut shell as human bone. The dog indicated and it is up to a human to collect any evidence that may or may not be there. The person decided the ‘coconut shell’ was the ‘hit’, not the dog.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Charmeleon wrote: »

You’ve only established your lack of understanding of how the dogs work

Na. The ones showing a lack of understanding are the ones who have posted claims such as “alerts indicate Madeline lay dead for a period of time”, and dogs could not be wrong etc etc.

Charmeleon wrote: »

The dog also did not identify a coconut shell as human bone. The dog indicated and it is up to a human to collect any evidence that may or may not be there. The person decided the ‘coconut shell’ was the ‘hit’, not the dog.

And thank god for human forensic analysis right? Otherwise if we stopped short of that and judged only on the merit of the “alert”, we’d be led to believe the coconut was a skull
Dogs lead police to evidence, alerts are not considered evidence unless there’s something forensically substantial to support it. What a lot of people on here have done is taken the alerts alone as something weighty and built a fantasy around it consisting of all sorts of unsubstantiated waffle. Maybe they are the people you need to direct your information at.