nowhere does it say the bodily fluid had to come from a dead body, that is why the jersey fiasco was blamed on bodily fluids on tissues? And besides someone bled in the flat for best part of an hour, the card fobb had material (possibly blood) from gerry mccann - how on earth can anyone say it was not this material the dog alerted to?
Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?
- Thread starter Tony Bennett
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #196
- Latest: photographer4
- Status
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
No one can say, absolutely and definitively, that we evolved from the apes, either.
What the experts can do however, is piece together evidence.
Some of this evidence is so subtle that it takes an expert to even know about it in the first place, let alone take it as an indicator that a certain event had to have occurred. Certain fossils, for instance, have helped build the chain of evolution to the point they are fairly certain life as we know it crawled out of a swamp somewhere in the beginnings of time.
Some schools in certain parts of the US choose to ignore all the evidence of Darwinism, and continue teaching creationism to their children.
That disturbs the rest of us who know enough about science, and the theory of evolution, to believe that still teaching children that God created Eve from Adams rib is an incongurous with education and free thought.
The same might be said for the McCann supporter.
They ignore all science, all evidence, all likliehood, all experts, all details, all behaviours, in their blind, baseless and almost religious fervour that the McCann must be innocent.
It is personal choice to feel this way, but if one insists on dismissing others who have the more scientific view, one should present at least a shred of cohesive argument to support the alternative.
The McCann supporter does not do that. They "follow the leader" and rely on attacking the investigation.
I would take it far more seriously if rather than trying to constantly dissemble the evidence we DO HAVE, the McCann Supporter would actually present some NEW evidence which supports their own allegations of an intruder.
After five years and how many millions of pounds leaving No Stone Unturned, there should be something...
:waitasec:
I find that it is the minority of people who form the anti-mccanns who ignore all the evidence. We have seen wild claims such as the FSS being part of a cover up for instance because the anti-s did nto get the results they wanted.
There is no way anyone who knows anything about science (and we are talking high school level here) could claim the scientific evidence points to the mccanns involvement. For instance antis have claimed the fact that 15 out of madeleine's 19 compoents were found in the car is like getting 15 out of 19 in a test. This is 100% wrong. Even if all 19 components were found it means nothing because they were not found in any sequence, could not be identified as belonging to just one perosn they could have come from up to five people, and they were found in a place where her close relatives who possessed the exact same 19 cmponents had been.
The antis are the ones who have claimed huge conspiracies or incompetance. The PJ say theory do nto know if madeleine is dead, and there is no evidence the mccanns were involved, and the anti-s claim they are wrong, andy redwoods team say they belive madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger and they are wrong/part of conspiracy, the fss did not come up with any evidence of madeleine or her death or her parents involvement and they are wrong/part of the conspriacy etc, the bristis FLO say they mccanns did nto act unusually in anyway and they are wrong. The only person who they trust is a man with a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence in a case relating to a missing child who only worked on the madeleine case for six motnhs and has had no access to 100% of the fles, and from the extracts I have read in his book makes it clear it does not understand the basics of dna or genetics.
and I do not disassemble the evidence th4e anti's do have, I point out they do nto actually have any evidence, making false claims does not count as evidence which unfortuantly is what the anti's rely on (for instance claiming the mccanns could legally have set the fund up as a charity is incorrect, claiming madeleines dna was found in the car is incorrect). Pointing out fibs is not the same as disassembling evidence (this is why people cna be taken to court for libel)
There is no way anyone who knows anything about science (and we are talking high school level here) could claim the scientific evidence points to the mccanns involvement. For instance antis have claimed the fact that 15 out of madeleine's 19 compoents were found in the car is like getting 15 out of 19 in a test. This is 100% wrong. Even if all 19 components were found it means nothing because they were not found in any sequence, could not be identified as belonging to just one perosn they could have come from up to five people, and they were found in a place where her close relatives who possessed the exact same 19 cmponents had been.
The antis are the ones who have claimed huge conspiracies or incompetance. The PJ say theory do nto know if madeleine is dead, and there is no evidence the mccanns were involved, and the anti-s claim they are wrong, andy redwoods team say they belive madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger and they are wrong/part of conspiracy, the fss did not come up with any evidence of madeleine or her death or her parents involvement and they are wrong/part of the conspriacy etc, the bristis FLO say they mccanns did nto act unusually in anyway and they are wrong. The only person who they trust is a man with a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence in a case relating to a missing child who only worked on the madeleine case for six motnhs and has had no access to 100% of the fles, and from the extracts I have read in his book makes it clear it does not understand the basics of dna or genetics.
and I do not disassemble the evidence th4e anti's do have, I point out they do nto actually have any evidence, making false claims does not count as evidence which unfortuantly is what the anti's rely on (for instance claiming the mccanns could legally have set the fund up as a charity is incorrect, claiming madeleines dna was found in the car is incorrect). Pointing out fibs is not the same as disassembling evidence (this is why people cna be taken to court for libel)
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
Please provide the link for this.
I wasn't aware their "review" was complete, so how could they have formed any opinion?
:waitasec:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
They have not finished their review, but after about a year they gave interviews about the current findings and said that they believed she was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. It is worth noting that they have 100% of the PJ files, whilst only 80% were released to the general public, and that they have professionally translated versions and not the edited, poorly translated ones that most of the general public have used.
They have not finished their review, but after about a year they gave interviews about the current findings and said that they believed she was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. It is worth noting that they have 100% of the PJ files, whilst only 80% were released to the general public, and that they have professionally translated versions and not the edited, poorly translated ones that most of the general public have used.
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
They are reviewing the investigation, not reinvestigating.
I find it extremely unprofessional to blab an opinion when only a quarter through the review.
About on a par with announcing the shocking revelation that Madeleine is either dead or alive.
:banghead:
Well if you find that unprofessional you must not think much of the PJ who had someone making leaks illegally during the initial investigation. And not only did they break the law and leak info to the papers, they actually leaked false information.
And given that they have looked through enough infomation to discount people Madeleine knew, then why shoudl they not tell the media this.
Plus what is wrong with saying that at present they have not found evidence to discount the fact that madeleine may be alive, or that sadly she may be dead. If so far they have not uncovered this information then it is obvious they are going to say that madeleine may be dead, but that they is evidence to suggest she may still be alive. They were not annoucning the result, just the current findings. Plus they are reviewing not just the investigation, but all information relating to the case including the PJ investigation, information gathered by private investigators, and information from any individuels who think they may know something.
Remember Madeleine is an EU citizen and a British subject who disappeared in an EU country, and whatever actually happened is still legally alive. This means that the european human rights act applies to her, and it is her human right to be looked for in order to uphold her right to a family life (among other rights).
And given that they have looked through enough infomation to discount people Madeleine knew, then why shoudl they not tell the media this.
Plus what is wrong with saying that at present they have not found evidence to discount the fact that madeleine may be alive, or that sadly she may be dead. If so far they have not uncovered this information then it is obvious they are going to say that madeleine may be dead, but that they is evidence to suggest she may still be alive. They were not annoucning the result, just the current findings. Plus they are reviewing not just the investigation, but all information relating to the case including the PJ investigation, information gathered by private investigators, and information from any individuels who think they may know something.
Remember Madeleine is an EU citizen and a British subject who disappeared in an EU country, and whatever actually happened is still legally alive. This means that the european human rights act applies to her, and it is her human right to be looked for in order to uphold her right to a family life (among other rights).
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
What is wrong with saying all those things?
1. It makes them look inept
2. It implies a forgone conclusion
I can already tell you what this "review" will uncover. Exactly nothing. The same as all the millions of pounds spent by the No Stone Unturned Fund. Not one single scrap of further information or evidence.
1. It makes them look inept
2. It implies a forgone conclusion
I can already tell you what this "review" will uncover. Exactly nothing. The same as all the millions of pounds spent by the No Stone Unturned Fund. Not one single scrap of further information or evidence.
It does not make them look inept. The only people I have seen saying they look inept are a minority on the internet who think that the only person who can be trusted is a convicted criminal with a record for fabricating evidence in a case relating to a missing girl who worked on the case for just a few months and has not had access to all the investigation. And whilst not on this forum, the anti-mccann forums als spew bile about other missing little girl's families too (for instance one person who repeatedly spouts bile about the mccanns has also put up a rewritten sgement of a comedy sketch that makes fun of the disappearence of a little girl in wales called april Jones). In fact one of the "leading" anti-mccanns' Tony bennett, has a reputation for conspiracy theories and madeleine mccann is not the first case he has jumped onto in this manner. So they fact they look inept in the eyes of people like this does not mean much.
I also fail to see how saying that the evidence so far leads them to believe madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, and that as of april/may they had credible evidence to suggest she may still be alive, but sadly could not discount that she was now dead is wrong. It is hardly saying that they have reached a forgone conclusion.
I also fail to see how saying that the evidence so far leads them to believe madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, and that as of april/may they had credible evidence to suggest she may still be alive, but sadly could not discount that she was now dead is wrong. It is hardly saying that they have reached a forgone conclusion.
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
I for one am waiting with baited breath for Andy Rocket scientist to produce one single shred of evidence of a "criminal act by a stranger". Just one will do.
Just one teeny tiny shred. After all, if Andy and his team have come to this conclusion so early in their "review", there must be something quite compelling.
Perhaps they will even produce Madeleine alive and living with some Romany Gypsies. Now that really would shut the McCann bashers up.
None of us know what information/evidence they have or what they are doing to solve this case. Just because they are not informing the media of what they are doing doesn't mean it's a lost cause. Madeleine could potentially be anywhere in the world this is no easy task.
IMO this is a little girl we're talking about and all leads should be followed.
I find it quite heart wrenching that so many people have given up on Madeleine
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
Her parents have given up on her.
They have admitted that the "searches" have been wound down.
Some would say they were wound down on the evening of 3 May 2007 when Kate and Gerry sat on their bums in 5a while the Mark Warner staff and guests cracked their shins in the dark searching for them.
I would have a lot more hope Madeleine was still alive if it wasn't for the cadaver dogs, forensic evidence, and the behaviour and lies of her parents and others...oh and the sighting by the impartial witnesses, of her father carrying her toward the beach.
:banghead:
:cow:
who are the MANY? All those that come forward with sightings from 2007 to today? Even though they are all bunkum?
Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry. He was not 100% sure. There were 3 other adults in the group who have made no statement to say they think that man was Gerry.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
wrong, his wife agreed with him but didnt want to make another statement, obviously leaned on hello?
Many people have given up on the possibility of Madeleine being alive. You can see that all over the internet.
Or maybe because like him she was even less sure that it was Gerry and didn't want to make a statement saying so. Who's leaning on her and not her husband?
More conspiracy theory talk?
There were still 2 other adults who didn't think it was Gerry.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 546
Are there recent leads that aren't being followed?
A thought experiment:
Suppose Madeleine is alive. Everyone who thinks she is dead must be blamed for having given up on her since their efforts won't help find her.
What if it's the other way around? Suppose she is dead and has been for a very long time. Are we to blame all the people who are looking for a living Madeleine for giving up on her, since their efforts won't help find her remains and ensure that she gets justice?
A thought experiment:
Suppose Madeleine is alive. Everyone who thinks she is dead must be blamed for having given up on her since their efforts won't help find her.
What if it's the other way around? Suppose she is dead and has been for a very long time. Are we to blame all the people who are looking for a living Madeleine for giving up on her, since their efforts won't help find her remains and ensure that she gets justice?
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
Martin Smith statement from 30th jan 2008
"I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife"
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
3/4 of the way down
- Status