Cuddle Cat (and Other Obvious Lies)

[Robin Hood]

Good find Rashomon.

RE. Gerry, I don't know how he answered, if indeed he was asked the same questions.

 

[rashomon]

RE. Gerry, I don't know how he answered, if indeed he was asked the same questions.

I think it went 'missing' about the time the sports bag went missing- the sports bag that was in the wardrobe in one photo and then disappeared in the next photo, the same bag Gerry said he never had.

Does anyone know where Gerry said he never had the bag?

 

[Robin Hood]

Does anyone know where Gerry said he never had the bag?

http://www.anorak.co.uk/178705/made...ccann-a-paedo-a-blue-bag-and-the-ophans.html/

''According to Clarence Mitchell, Gerry McCann’s spokesman: “Gerry’s baffled. He’s never owned such a bag. There simply is no missing bag. They are entirely innocent”

Says Clarence Mitchell: “As far as Kate and Gerry are concerned, there is no missing tennis bag''. ..

edited to add http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573575/Gerry-McCanns-tennis-bag-is-focus-of-inquiry.html

 

[brit1981]

There was no missing tennis bag, and the police reports, when they were released, revealed there was no cadaver sent on any of the Mccann's belongings. The British policeman who carried out the search said the results were unreliable and did not show any evidence of a body or the recent prescence of one. Police video showed the dog not finding anything. It is also of note that cadaver dogs are not used as evidence, just as a guide to finding bodies.

 

[Robin Hood]

This might be easier Sky News - New Lines In Madeleine McCann Hunt - YouTube

So this is all lies ? :what:

And this

Madeleine McCann - Sniffer Dogs Eddie and Keela - YouTube

 

[brit1981]

I am not accusing a spaniel of lying. I am saying a trained cadaver dog handler knows what he is doing and saying. The dog handler said the dog did not find any signs of a cadaver. It is a skilled art interpreting a dog's signal, and barking does not always indicate a dog has found anything, it is different for each dog. I really think the dog's handler knows more about how to interpret the dog's actions than an unskilled bystander. I really do not think the dog handler lied and is part of some huge conspiracy involving the British police.
I really would take everything you find on that blogspot with a huge pinch of salt, it sounds a bit like the information that bennett guy put about which is incorrect. On that blogspot (if it is the one I am thinking of) for instance it claims the Mccanns tried to hide the fact nine other people saw the man with the child Jane Tanner saw, when in fact the McCanns made this information public, and wrote about it in their book which was published before this claim on the blogspot. Plus the author of the blogspot implies the mysterious man was gerry mcCann, but does not mention that in the first sighting Jane Tanner had just seen gerry, and has identified the man as being unknown to her, and in the second sighting by nine people, Gerry McCann has over ten witnesses to say he was with them. Plus it says Madeleine's DNA was found, and in actual fact no DNA was ever identified as madeleine's. DNA was found that the forensic science service said could be Madelines, Gerry McCanns, Kate Healey's, her two siblings, or any one of a large number of random people including several members of the FSS who share these compenents.
It is very unreliable in my opinion, and would not get your information from them.

 

[Robin Hood]

''for instance it claims the Mccanns tried to hide the fact nine other people saw the man with the child Jane Tanner saw, when in fact the McCanns made this information public, and wrote about it in their book''

They weren't that fast to add what else the Smith family said -
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

''Just before 10:00pm on the night of 03 May 2007, the Smith family from Ireland pass a man carrying a child in his arms. The man averts his eyes from them to signal that he does not wish to speak.

Four months later, during which time the McCanns never sought to exploit this potentially crucial sighting, the Smith family are watching TV. They see the McCanns return to the UK and observe Gerry leave the plane and walk across the tarmac with Sean in his arms.

The father, Martin Smith, is shocked. He recognises the walking style and the way the child is being held against the shoulder. It is exactly like the man he saw on the streets of Praia da Luz, four months earlier''

 

[rpgman]

There was no missing tennis bag, and the police reports, when they were released, revealed there was no cadaver sent on any of the Mccann's belongings. The British policeman who carried out the search said the results were unreliable and did not show any evidence of a body or the recent prescence of one. Police video showed the dog not finding anything. It is also of note that cadaver dogs are not used as evidence, just as a guide to finding bodies.

The dogs found a scent of a cadaver and of blood in the condo and blood in the boot and that's a fact.

The ONLY question that remains is WHO's DNA was it?

In my opinion, it's Maddies because of the 15 out of 19 markers.

 

[brit1981]

no it is not a fact. No blood was ever found either in the flat or in the car.

the fact that you think markers identify DNA as belonging to someone shows you are confused.
Markers are not unique, there are only so many markers in existance, and unrelated people can share a large number of markers. It is the sequence of the markers that makes someone's DNA uniques.
According to the forensic science service no blood was found in the car.
A microscopic amount of material was found, but not enough to be identified. The DNA of this material was low grade and could not be assigned to any particular person. It consisted of 37 different components. Of these 19 were markers that were present in Madeleine McCann's, Kate Healey, Gerry McCann, Madeleines siblings, and a large percentage of the general population including several employees of the forensic science service and the expert who wrote that report. No sequence of the markers could be identified, meaning the material could have belonged to one of several thousand people including any member of the McCann family.

Robin,
The symth family have never identified gerry McCann as the man they saw, they identify the man they saw as looking local with darker skin. At the time of their sighting gerry McCann was seen by several witnesses at the complexy

The reports of blood and identifiable DNA were false, and several UK newspapers had to print front page apologies to avoid court action. In the Uk if you have proof that something is true you cannot be prosecuted for libel. The only time you are in danger for libel is if you have written (or braodcast material in a permenent way) material that you claim to be true, when in fact you have no evidence of this whatsoever. the newspapers admitted they had no proof of these accusations and they were untrue.

Again I really would not rely on that blogspot as evidence.

 

[brit1981]

And no dog picke dup a scent of a cadaver. The british dog handler wrote a report stating no evidence was found of a cadaver. I do not think he lied.

besides which there is no such thing as a scent of a cadaver, there is only the scent of decomposition. Even the early stages of this do not start in two or three hours, so a body will have had to be there for considerably longer than the gap between when madeleine was last seen, and when the police entered the flat. The chemicals that the dogs pick up, also do not stay there for more than four to five weeks, and the dogs did a search several weeks after this.

In short I do not think the forensic science service, or the british dog handler are lying or incompetant.

 

[rpgman]

I'm not confused at all.

The dogs, both a cadaver and blood dog, made hits, and it was asked if anyone ever died in that condo and the staff stated NO.

I don't know about you, but when a cadaver dogs hits, it means at one time a cadaver was there.

So, no one died in the apartment prior to the McCann's being there, and Kate and the rest of the family are alive, so that to me leaves Maddie.

Good enough for me, unfortunately it's not good enough to prosecute.

 

[rpgman]

And no dog picke dup a scent of a cadaver. The british dog handler wrote a report stating no evidence was found of a cadaver. I do not think he lied.

besides which there is no such thing as a scent of a cadaver, there is only the scent of decomposition. Even the early stages of this do not start in two or three hours, so a body will have had to be there for considerably longer than the gap between when madeleine was last seen, and when the police entered the flat. The chemicals that the dogs pick up, also do not stay there for more than four to five weeks, and the dogs did a search several weeks after this.

In short I do not think the forensic science service, or the british dog handler are lying or incompetant.

we know they pick up a decomposition scent. It's just easier to say the dog picked up a cadaver hit.

 

[brit1981]

sorry for third post in a row, but citing a random unsubstanstiated website is not citing evidence. Anyone can set up a website and write what they want and then claim it is true. These websites people on here keep citing as evidence are not. they are just random website where random people with no connection to the case state things. You cannot say something is proved, and not libelous or incorrect because someone else has written it on a website. The witness statements, FSS report, and dog handler reports were released and do not tally with these websites.
bennetts site for instance had similar allegations on it and he agreed to take these down, despite the fact in the Uk it is legal to state things if you have actual proof.

 

[rpgman]

And no dog picke dup a scent of a cadaver. The british dog handler wrote a report stating no evidence was found of a cadaver. I do not think he lied.

besides which there is no such thing as a scent of a cadaver, there is only the scent of decomposition. Even the early stages of this do not start in two or three hours, so a body will have had to be there for considerably longer than the gap between when madeleine was last seen, and when the police entered the flat. The chemicals that the dogs pick up, also do not stay there for more than four to five weeks, and the dogs did a search several weeks after this.

In short I do not think the forensic science service, or the british dog handler are lying or incompetant.

do you have any link available for the British dog handler's report and the forensic science service report?

I have read the forensic science service report for the DNA

 

[brit1981]

rgman,
According to the dog handler no cadaver scent was picked up. Are you saying the dog handler is incorrect about his own dog, or that he is lying. harrison, the search expert used backed this up saying there were no indications of a human cadaver. My point about it being decomposition, is that a body would have to be there for more time than madeleine could possibly have been if she had died, and would had to have been in the flat only four weeks before the search despite the fact the parents had not had access to the flat for three months at the time of the search.
Do you have any reports from the dog handler and search expert contradicting the reports they made stating no evidence was found of a cadaver?

 

[brit1981]

here is a link to the BBC story about when the material was released. It says about the FSS findings I made a slight error, the findings were reported in an email, and it did not state all of Madeleines components were found, just that some were present, but they were also present in a lot of people's DNA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7543104.stm

 

[brit1981]

trying to find the full reports, but sadly the internet has been filled with rubbish websites about the case so it is a lot to trawl through.

 

[brit1981]

The reason I said confused was because you said the fact markers was there was evidence it was a person's DNA, and this sound slike you do not realise that markers mean no such thing and just narrow it down to about one in twenty, if that, of the population. It is the sequence that identifies DNA as belonging to a persn.

 

[rpgman]

The reason I said confused was because you said the fact markers was there was evidence it was a person's DNA, and this sound slike you do not realise that markers mean no such thing and just narrow it down to about one in twenty, if that, of the population. It is the sequence that identifies DNA as belonging to a persn.

No kidding.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rpgman]

rgman,
According to the dog handler no cadaver scent was picked up. Are you saying the dog handler is incorrect about his own dog, or that he is lying. harrison, the search expert used backed this up saying there were no indications of a human cadaver. My point about it being decomposition, is that a body would have to be there for more time than madeleine could possibly have been if she had died, and would had to have been in the flat only four weeks before the search despite the fact the parents had not had access to the flat for three months at the time of the search.
Do you have any reports from the dog handler and search expert contradicting the reports they made stating no evidence was found of a cadaver?

I'd just like to read this dog handlers report.

Link?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2