Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 24

[april4sky]

So is anyone going to respond to this list of facts with something, anything which suggests an abduction of a living child?

Gatinho you said in your earlier post...

If we look at the whole thing objectively, without taking sides

After saying...

All the same questions seem to remain. What is reported by the UK papers/media is very selective while it seems to me that the making of the McCanns arguidos when Kate refused to answer some fairly simple questions which meant by her own admission that she was not helping the investigation, was justified.

I fail to see the objectivity in this.

Kate was made an arguido before the questions were put to her.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7543064.stm

And she refused to answer, as was her legal right, following advice from her lawyer.

 

[colomom]

Maddie's Last Day (in pictures):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2467265&postcount=383

 

[Claycat]

Well, in my opinion, Madeleine is still out there, and the whole search for Madeleine was derailed from the beginning!

 

[SleuthMom]

Which I believe she didn't answer on the advice of her lawyer.

Oh I agree with that but the why she won't answer the 48 questions still a mystery. Which I personally believe is due to the fact that she has lied about Madeleine's abduction. IF she has been telling the truth all this time, those questions should have been a piece of cake for her to answer.

 

[SleuthMom]

Maddie's Last Day (in pictures):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2467265&postcount=383

Thanks, I still don't get how this was a "family holiday" yet the kids spent ALL day in the creche. :waitasec: The only left the creche to go lunch with parents and that's it! At the evening they would eat dinner and go to sleep. "Family holiday?" *sigh* This shows a lot about the coping mechanism of this couple. Want to have kids but don't want to deal with them.

 

[gord]

Oh I agree with that but the why she won't answer the 48 questions still a mystery. Which I personally believe is due to the fact that she has lied about Madeleine's abduction. IF she has been telling the truth all this time, those questions should have been a piece of cake for her to answer.

the way I see it - this wasnt just a few days in - this was three months in to the enquiry -

If you look at the questions you can see where they were going - they were all pretty well pointing at her - saying we think you did it . they were basicaly saying we think you killed your daughter .

I dont think I would have answered any questions once the PJ revealed their hand -

I have rtead reports that she lost it - freaked - only forum rumour - but I wouldnt be surprised .

some of the questions were quite clearly self incriminating - some on face value seem fine .

What I would ask - why wait 3 months before getting that info

 

[gord]

Thanks, I still don't get how this was a "family holiday" yet the kids spent ALL day in the creche. :waitasec: The only left the creche to go lunch with parents and that's it! At the evening they would eat dinner and go to sleep. "Family holiday?" *sigh* This shows a lot about the coping mechanism of this couple. Want to have kids but don't want to deal with them.

I actualy agree with you - I too wouldt go on a family holiday such as this and then send the kids to a creche .

I have a 2.5 year old who does spend 4 days a week at nursery - not ideal but we both work - need must and all that

so holiday wouldnt be like that IMO


But I also as a rule never criticize any one and the way they choose to bring up their kids - ( unless it is total neglect ) sending your kids to holiday club might not be what you or I would do - but thats not the point

 

[SleuthMom]

the way I see it - this wasnt just a few days in - this was three months in to the enquiry -

If you look at the questions you can see where they were going - they were all pretty well pointing at her - saying we think you did it . they were basicaly saying we think you killed your daughter .

I dont think I would have answered any questions once the PJ revealed their hand -

I have rtead reports that she lost it - freaked - only forum rumour - but I wouldnt be surprised .

some of the questions were quite clearly self incriminating - some on face value seem fine .

What I would ask - why wait 3 months before getting that info

I assume you're a mom like I am (of three energetic and beautiful boys by the way ). I put myself in that same situation. Ok, my son is missing. Now I have a bunch of police investigators who think I killed him and I am trying desperately to find him. I will answer ANY questions if that means to clear up my name so then can go on with the search of my son.

Several cases of missing children did something similar. The parents tried their best through lie detector tests, etc to show they were not involved so the police could go on with the search. This is not the case of the Mc Cann couple. They didn't even tried to get a lie detector test privately. I don't give a damn if it is not 100% accurate but do something! They haven't which smells awfully like rat to me.

 

[SleuthMom]

But I also as a rule never criticize any one and the way they choose to bring up their kids - ( unless it is total neglect ) sending your kids to holiday club might not be what you or I would do - but thats not the point

Is it leaving three toddlers alone at night neglectful enough in your books? It is to me. Leaving the tots all day in a creche AND alone at night (not only one) shows a patter of parenthood, and one of neglect IMO.

 

[gord]

I assume you're a mom like I am (of three energetic and beautiful boys by the way ). I put myself in that same situation. Ok, my son is missing. Now I have a bunch of police investigators who think I killed him and I am trying desperately to find him. I will answer ANY questions if that means to clear up my name so then can go on with the search of my son.

Several cases of missing children did something similar. The parents tried their best through lie detector tests, etc to show they were not involved so the police could go on with the search. This is not the case of the Mc Cann couple. They didn't even tried to get a lie detector test privately. I don't give a damn if it is not 100% accurate but do something! They haven't which smells awfully like rat to me.

I am a dad !

 

[SleuthMom]

I am a dad !

So sorry! I thought you was a woman! :bang:

Sorry again dad. Oops.

 

[Texana]

I have taken this again from the officiall PJ final report - which I assume you have seen .

This is a quote regarding the tests taken on all the cellular material that was indicated by the dogs

On the locations and the pieces that were marked and signaled by the blood
dog, forensics tests were performed, especially at a reputed British
laboratory (Forensic Science Service – check Appendixes I and VII – FSS
Final Report) but also, some of them at the reputed National Institute of
Forensics Medicine (check Appendix I), whose final results did not
corroborate the canine markings, which is to say, cellular material was
collected that was not identified as pertaining to anyone specific, and it was
not even possible to determine the quality of that material (v.g. whether it
could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).​

Now I take this to read that they didnt match anything to Madeline , in fact they couldnt even tell if it was blood or not .

I could be wrong - but it looks fairly cut and dried that they didnt find Maddy;s blood .


I do think that if the DNA was 99.9% certain and the blood was found then the Mccans would be going though a court case and not cleared .

Actually, that is not the correct interpreatoin for the "could not be identified" does not rule out that it was Madeleine's; it is still a possibility (and a strong one with 15 out of 19 markers.) Scientifically, though, cannot say with 99.99999 % accuracy, so the answer is more correctly interpreted as NO answer either way.

Cannot be verified means not ruled in, not ruled out, either.


Same thing with the identification of the blood. It was cellular; meaning human biological matter. It could not be determined whether it was from blood or sweat or urine, etc.

So again, saying it was "not her blood" is not accurate. No specific fluid could be identified; there fore, none were ruled out.

 

[SleuthMom]

Actually, that is not the correct interpreatoin for the "could not be identified" does not rule out that it was Madeleine's; it is still a possibility (and a strong one with 15 out of 19 markers.) Scientifically, though, cannot say with 99.99999 % accuracy, so the answer is more correctly interpreted as NO answer either way.

Cannot be verified means not ruled in, not ruled out, either.


Same thing with the identification of the blood. It was cellular; meaning human biological matter. It could not be determined whether it was from blood or sweat or urine, etc.

So again, saying it was "not her blood" is not accurate. No specific fluid could be identified; there fore, none were ruled out.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Texana]

So sorry! I thought you was a woman! :bang:

Sorry again dad. Oops.

That's MR. Gord to you, Sleuthmom. :Banane31:

(Sorry, couldn't resist, one of my favorite movie lines.)

 

[Claycat]

Is it leaving three toddlers alone at night neglectful enough in your books? It is to me. Leaving the tots all day in a creche AND alone at night (not only one) shows a patter of parenthood, and one of neglect IMO.

Leaving children alone IS neglect. I don't believe any of us have ever disagreed with that. The McCanns and the others neglected their children by leaving them alone. Any of a number of things can happen besides abduction, fire, accidents, etc. You just don't leave little children alone!

 

[gord]

Actually, that is not the correct interpreatoin for the "could not be identified" does not rule out that it was Madeleine's; it is still a possibility (and a strong one with 15 out of 19 markers.) Scientifically, though, cannot say with 99.99999 % accuracy, so the answer is more correctly interpreted as NO answer either way.

Cannot be verified means not ruled in, not ruled out, either.


Same thing with the identification of the blood. It was cellular; meaning human biological matter. It could not be determined whether it was from blood or sweat or urine, etc.

So again, saying it was "not her blood" is not accurate. No specific fluid could be identified; there fore, none were ruled out.

you could give Clarence a run for his money

no idea what point you are trying to make - they couldnt even tell if it was blood or not - ah well - I didnt think that anythiing would make any diff - not even the PJ report - views too entrenched

 

[SleuthMom]

That's MR. Gord to you, Sleuthmom. :Banane31:

(Sorry, couldn't resist, one of my favorite movie lines.)

lol Well, I don't know his age...who knows, he could well be my dad. :crazy:

 

[SleuthMom]

Leaving children alone IS neglect. I don't believe any of us have ever disagreed with that. The McCanns and the others neglected their children by leaving them alone. Any of a number of things can happen besides abduction, fire, accidents, etc. You just don't leave little children alone!

Correct!

 

[colomom]

so unless we say the FSS are now lying and do not know what they were doing - then the DNA genie can finalyy be put back in the bottle

The DNA genie rears his head once again, eh gord?

Will this ever end???

 

[colomom]

So, assuming that the FSS results were ambiguous then I am back to Eddie and Keela:

From Jornal de Notícias this morning:

The dogs’ work as described by their own handler

They were the main responsible entities for the turnaround of the process, at a point in time when the Polícia Judiciária was already leaving behind the possibility of Madeleine having been kidnapped.

The cadaver detection dog “Eddie” and the blood detection dog “Keela” showed themselves as “very excited” when they entered apartment 5A of the Ocean Club, the one that had been occupied by the McCann couple during their holidays.

Despite the fact that the images can only be visualized in September, the process includes the verbal report from Martin Grime, an expert in dogs that are used in investigations and an FBI advisor, who says that he “noticed in first instance”, as soon as he entered the apartment, that the dogs “are very excited” and how the handler can “pick up the body language”.

He then explains that Eddie (one of the dogs) was the first one to get into action. When he entered the house “he caught up with an odour that he recognizes”. Martin tells that the animal walked through the apartment in an attempt to locate the odour, and that he discovered it behind the sofa in the living room. At that moment, he started to bark. Keela was the second to go into action. “She will only give me the indication when she finds human blood, only human blood”, the expert says, asserting that “there has to be something there, physically, for her to be able to alert me”.

In the dispatch, the prosecutor reminds that “any trace, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected through the use of this type of dogs, has to be subject to a forensics test, in a duly credentialed laboratory”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

200 cases without a false positive....