Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[fabgod]

Snipped by me from post 631 in this thread
by Brit1981
"on 31st March 2008 an
expert from LGC Forensics told the States of Jersey Police that he believed
that the “skull fragment” was not bone and that this view was shared by a
Doctor from the British Museum. Notwithstanding this, on 7th April 2008 the
anthropologist still maintained the original view. On 8th April 2008 another
expert concluded that the object came from a Victorian context. On 8th April
2008 the States of Jersey Police maintained that it was a “skull fragment” but
on 9th April 2008 the anthropologist was no longer sure but Mr. Harper
decided not to initiate further testing because of the dating issue. On 1st May
2008 an expert from LGC wrote to Mr. Harper to tell him that the object was
not bone and almost certainly wood. On 17th May 2008 that was confirmed by
an e-mail to Mr. Harper. Despite that and despite further questions in the
States of Jersey the Police never come clean on this issue and never
admitted that the original find was not bone let alone a “skull fragment” or
“partial remains of a child”.
{so an anthropologist thought it was bone at first by looking at it but forensics tests confirmed the material was not bone."



snipped by me from post number 5 in the cadaver dog thread
quoted by Brit1981
"The cadaver dog did not alert to these.
Also here are a few facts
1) Martin Grimes says the alerts mean nothing on their own
2) Grimes and his cadaver dog no longer have a license to practice in the UK as the license was not renewed.
3) British police will no longer work with grimes and his dogs
4) Eddie alerted in an old jersey care home, specifically to a piece of organic material thought to be bone. Experts examined the material eddie alerted to and found it to be coconut shell."

So what is it Brit1981?
Is it a fact as stated by you on the "Cadaver Dog" thread that the fragment was Coconut
Or is it Wood?
Which of your Facts is it?

 

[brit1981]

So what is it Brit1981?
Is it a fact as stated by you on the "Cadaver Dog" thread that the fragment was Coconut
Or is it Wood?
Which of your Facts is it?

Er coconut shell is virtually the same as wood in chemical composition so it was not incorrect to say it was wood after forensic analyisis. So the facts of the case are that after a forensic analysis it was confirmed to be almost certainly wood, and on further examination at kew it was found to specifically be coconut shell.

http://dspace.unimap.edu.my/dspace/bitstream/123456789/12850/1/p. 1-24.pdf

 

[fabgod]

Maybe you are choosing to attribute statements by others to me.
Before I need to be stating any proof about serial killings maybe you should show me where I state any such thing?

You stated there was no evidence of any human remains, I have shown a link where experts apparently agreed that human fragments were found

And I have shown a link that confirmed that the anthropologist was proven wrong by forensic testing.

Where did I say there was a murder investigation?

So if there is no murder investigation or investigations into unlawful killings why are you reserving judgement on whether there were murders or unlawful killings. the fact there is no investigation, no charges, nor prosecutions on thse subjects would rather indicate there were no bodies.
Firstly am I to understand that I do not have the right to reserve a judgement on your say so?
I wonder what authority you feel you may have?
As I stated, As far as I can see there wre bone fragments found, in addition, reports I have read from people involved in The Haut de la Garenne care home system, are still attempting to reopen the case and as we know from past cases, many new things come to light (For example Hillsborough taken as the most recent public example)
I posted that I would reserve my judgement on Haut de la Garenne until all other litigation and possibly investigations into Haut de la Garenne events come to light in the future, are you saying I shouldn't do that?

What exactly are you reserving judgement on - whether the dogs were wrong, whether there were killings or somethign else? According to the sources I have linked to above all investigations into child abuse there were concluded in 2010.
I have no need or interest in informing you of my reasons to reserve judgement,
unlike some, I would rather keep my opinions private rather than post them as factI think it is incorrect to claim the dogs may be right because although no bodies were found,
I am perfectly aware of your thoughts about the Dogs, your thoughts have no bearing on official considerations

an official report I have linked to abopve stated they made false positives, there is no investigation into unlawful deaths or burials there, no prosecutions regarding unlawful deaths or burials, one never knows it might happen in the future. We could use that same logic to claim that soemone who has be charged, prosecuted and found guilty is innocent because we never know what new evidence might be found in the future.

In my opinion, Haut de la Garenne is a cover up, of what I don't pretend to know, just as nobody else apart from those involved knows, the difference is, I didn't cherry pick what information I want to promote and state it as fact when it clearly isnt.

How do you know it is a cover-up. There have been prosecutions for historic child abuse so that does not appear to be a cover-up, what cover-up could there be and do you have any evidence of this cover-up?

Can you see the part that says my opinion? that means I don't know, pretty much answers your pointless question

I find it a ridiculous comment on a forum such as this to state
"I do not think the police base their investigations on wikipedia entries."
Who said they did?
Well you were partly basing your claims that body parts were found on a wikipedia entry rather than the official reports which state otherwise.

Am I Police Officer? what link do I have to the Police, another pointless statement again I'm afraid

So are you also saying that Powers is at fault now? This guy was a top Police officer in the UK force and he is suspect as well?

Where have I said he was a suspect? I pointed out he never said he was suspended because of a cover up regarding unlawful deaths, and I linked to a report about the actions against him.

Again, maybe if you considered my post, you would see it says "he is suspect as well" It doesn't say he is a suspect, another proof of not taking other peoples comments at face value

Doesn't offer much hope that the UK produces Police officers of any quality then, which is a worry when the UK police are carrying out this much vaunted review of the Madeleine case if that is the case does it?
Er jersey is not in the UK, so i fail to see why the discplinary action against an officer in Jersey has any influence on the behaviour of the police in the UK.

Once again an ill informed comment, it is becoming very tiresome and is far from constructive, the Officer in question was a long serving UK Police Officer who had only recently transferred to Jersey, therefore his experience was gained from the UK Police Force

And if a disciplinary action against a Jersey officer who had nothing to do
with the McCann case is a worry in regards to the mccann case, i think the fact that the initial few months of the investigation in Portugal were carried out by an aguido who later received a criminal conviction for fabrication of evidence as well as a mention in an amnesty international report on torture is more of a worry. At least Powers and Harper were never involved in the mccann case[/QUOTE]

All in all, point made in my opinion

 

[fabgod]

Er coconut shell is virtually the same as wood in chemical composition so it was not incorrect to say it was wood after forensic analyisis. So the facts of the case are that after a forensic analysis it was confirmed to be almost certainly wood, and on further examination at kew it was found to specifically be coconut shell.

http://dspace.unimap.edu.my/dspace/bitstream/123456789/12850/1/p. 1-24.pdf

I tried to buy a couple of wooden coconuts in the Greengrocers today based on your knowledge, I couldn't get them lol!
Maybe I should have tried a shop in Jersey?

 

[brit1981]

I tried to buy a couple of wooden coconuts in the Greengrocers today based on your knowledge, I couldn't get them lol!
Maybe I should have tried a shop in Jersey?

Are you saying that coconut and wood do not have an extremely similar chemical compisition? If that is what you are saying do you have any evidence for this because it flies in the face of what is know about their compositions. http://dspace.unimap.edu.my/dspace/b.../p. 1-24.pdf

 

[Donjeta]

What I meant about Jersey was that either we believe that there were bodies in Jersey and now the police are lying when they say there were no bodies, or we belive like you say thta no dog is infallible and the dogs can alert when no bodies were present. Personally I am going with the idea that the dogs are not always right

It is not a belief that no dogs are infallible. It is a self-evident fact. Perception is always a complex system with performance limits which in essence means that it's fallible.

However, it doesn't imo mean that the dogs couldn't have been right in Jersey? If the dogs alert to the presence of traces of blood and such, not solely to the presence of a dead human individual, they could have been completely right and alerted to them in Jersey unless we assume that no one ever bled, etc., in Jersey. Who's to say how many people nicked themselves shaving or had an accident? Hello? A children's home? How many children have never cut themselves falling down?

Here are some quotes from grime about the evrd

"The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site."

"Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication. "

"There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction"

"Cross-contamination is immediate."

So if Grime is correct something can touch a dead body or dried blood and immediately the scent is transferred to such an extent the dog will recognize it. To be honest i think we can talk about the dogs until the cows come home, no-one will agree, and to be honest it does not matter what we think, the dogs are not considered evidence, and they did not find a body.

So, there is no quote saying that his dogs will never miss anything?

Thought so.

If the McCanns are innocent their defence will stand without attributing false quotes to people.

 

[brit1981]

It is not a belief that no dogs are infallible. It is a self-evident fact. Perception is always a complex system with performance limits which in essence means that it's fallible.

However, it doesn't imo mean that the dogs couldn't have been right in Jersey? If the dogs alert to the presence of traces of blood and such, not solely to the presence of a dead human individual, they could have been completely right and alerted to them in Jersey unless we assume that no one ever bled, etc., in Jersey. Who's to say how many people nicked themselves shaving or had an accident? Hello? A children's home? How many children have never cut themselves falling down?



That is what I have been asking, what is considered a false positive? An official report stated that the dog made a false positive alert in Jersey, and Grime has previously said there had been no false alerts with his dog (pre-jersey). But if the dog alerts to a bodily fluids that is nothing to do with a body, but is still something he has been trained to alert to then surely that is not a false positive. But at the same time I think this has to be spelt out in reports or court cases, because it is misleading when people are told that a dog has never made a false alert - most people will automatically assume this means a body was always present when they alerted.
I do question the usefulness of the dogs as guides to whether a body was there when grime states eddie alerts to dried blood from a living person. There will be very few places where there is no dried blood somewhere, flat 5A had certainly had someone bleeding in their according to previous tennants. But if we are to assume that the dogs lack of an alert does not also indicate that something was there or not, then how much reliance can anyone put on the fact they did not alert elsewhere?

What we do know is that an alert form eddie does not have to indicate a body was present (grime's statement and the jersey case), that eddie alerts to dried blood from a living human (grime's statement), and that a previous tennant had bled in flat 5A for 45 mins and walked around the flat as he tried to stem the bleeding (Gordons statement in PJ files). We know eddie alerted at the car door, and then when presented with the card fobb as did keela. We know the material on the card fobb most likely came from gerry, and we know he is alive.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There is a cadaver dog thread for all this.

 

[Clutchbag]

Some people have a problem wig the dog alerts


OOps

Whenhas a dog alerted to the last place a missing person was seen and that person turned up Alive


Only once in GB in the Shannon matthews case when it alerted to a death off an o,d mattress apart from that NEVER, which means their alerts are 99.9% kosher to remnant scent of a dead body , sadly Maddie is dead

 

[brit1981]

Some people have a problem wig the dog alerts


OOps

Whenhas a dog alerted to the last place a missing person was seen and that person turned up Alive


Only once in GB in the Shannon matthews case when it alerted to a death off an o,d mattress apart from that NEVER, which means their alerts are 99.9% kosher to remnant scent of a dead body , sadly Maddie is dead

When the dogs have made false positives, and they alerts to things other than bodies it is reasonable to question the relevance of the dog alerts. In jersey the dogs alerted when there were no bodies and no missing people. In the case of eddies other laerts the police have not eleased details of all the other times he alerted so we have no idea if he alerted and a perosn turne dup alive afterwards, the same goes for all other searches involving recovery dogs. Plus the police do not tend to use the dogs until they are fairly certain a perosn is no longer alive which means that the chance sof anyone being alive by the time the dogs are calle din are remoe. How many people go missing in suspicious circumstances, especially minos, and then turn up alive - I can think of natacsha Klampulusch )or however it is spelt), shawn hornbeck, jaycee lee dugaard, and stephen staynor. Do we know if recovery dogs had been used when these people disappeared?

 

[SapphireSteel]

When the dogs have made false positives, and they alerts to things other than bodies it is reasonable to question the relevance of the dog alerts. In jersey the dogs alerted when there were no bodies and no missing people. In the case of eddies other laerts the police have not eleased details of all the other times he alerted so we have no idea if he alerted and a perosn turne dup alive afterwards, the same goes for all other searches involving recovery dogs. Plus the police do not tend to use the dogs until they are fairly certain a perosn is no longer alive which means that the chance sof anyone being alive by the time the dogs are calle din are remoe. How many people go missing in suspicious circumstances, especially minos, and then turn up alive - I can think of natacsha Klampulusch )or however it is spelt), shawn hornbeck, jaycee lee dugaard, and stephen staynor. Do we know if recovery dogs had been used when these people disappeared?

You said it.

It was the British Police who developed evidence Madeleine was no longer alive, then brought the dogs in, who confirmed it, as did (arugably, it seems) the forensics.

As far as all the other examples you named, none were suspected to have died alone in a holiday apartment - they all vanished off the side of the road ie. vehicular abduction, an entirely different scenario and one recovery dogs are famously unsuited for.

 

[brit1981]

You said it.

It was the British Police who developed evidence Madeleine was no longer alive, then brought the dogs in, who confirmed it, as did (arugably, it seems) the forensics.

As far as all the other examples you named, none were suspected to have died alone in a holiday apartment - they all vanished off the side of the road ie. vehicular abduction, an entirely different scenario and one recovery dogs are famously unsuited for.

No they did not. The forensics did not in anyway confirm that madeleine had died. The british police helped by helping bring the dogs in and helping arrange the FSS analysis.
As for the other abductions, in jaycee's case it was her stepfather's word she was abduced in this way, and plenty of people thought he was involved and acuse dhim of lying, in the Natascha case people accused the parents, one man even tried ot prosecute them, and there was a court case about it even after she was found alive, and insisted her parents had nothing to do with it.

The fact is not even the dog handler is insisting that the dogs are proof that anyone died there.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Know we know even DNA can be wrong (see JonBenet) it still comes back to "proof without reasonable doubt" which should be decided by a jury.

Unfortunately, as in the case of Jonbenet before, we have wheels within wheels, mysterious connections in high places, secret handshakes and memos between governments. Masons clubs, church memberships, old school blackmails and alliances, expensive consultants, all of which can be brought to bear to play the media, and make something enough of a potential embarrassment that everyone just wants it all to go away.

 

[brit1981]

Know we know even DNA can be wrong (see JonBenet) it still comes back to "proof without reasonable doubt" which should be decided by a jury.

Unfortunately, as in the case of Jonbenet before, we have wheels within wheels, mysterious connections in high places, secret handshakes and memos between governments. Masons clubs, church memberships, old school blackmails and alliances, expensive consultants, all of which can be brought to bear to play the media, and make something enough of a potential embarrassment that everyone just wants it all to go away.

What evidence do you have of mysterious connections in high places, mason clubs, old school blackmails and alliances? And why should governments not send memos to each other, and what is wrong with being a member of the church - <modsnip>.

And whilst DA evidence can be wrong, it seems a bit far fetched so say "well the fss may be wrong so we shoudl take it as evidence that it was madleine's dna and what is more it got there form her body rather than from her belongings which were in the car"

 

[SapphireSteel]

David Brown in Praia da Luz
May 27, 2007 - sbm


Clarence Mitchell, the Foreign Office liaison officer for the family, is helping the McCanns plan the trip. "I can confirm that approaches have been made to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and to the British ambassador to the Holy See and we are certainly exploring the possibility of Gerry and Kate McCann visiting Rome to meet the Pope in the near future," he said.

Detectives only released the description after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister in waiting, intervened with the Portuguese authorities last week.

Mrs McCann and her husband, Gerry, are convinced this was the abductor and were angry at the delay in publicising the description.

Mrs McCann discovered her daughter was missing when she entered her ground-floor bedroom at 10pm. It is believed that Madeleine was taken between 9.10pm and 9.15pm.

The rear patio doors to the apartment had been left unlocked to allow easy access for regular checks by the parents in the group. The other parents made entered the apartment after 9.10pm to check that the children were asleep but had not actually gone in to the bedroom to avoid waking them.

Mrs McCann, a locum GP from Rothley in Leicestershire, realised something was wrong when she entered the apartment as an internal door blew shut. She found the window in the bedroom had been opened and its shutter raised. The pink soft toy cat which Madeleine carried with her everywhere was still in the room.

Mr and Mrs McCann, both 38, had grown increasingly frustrated about the failure of the Portuguese police to make a public appeal for sightings of the abductor. When their friend returned home she repeated the statement to Leicester police, which is coordinating the inquiry in Britain and regards her as the "principal witness".

The police source admitted: "The officers who were first given the description just did not seem interested and they just seemed to have filed it away."

Mr McCann, a consultant cardiologist, last week had several telephone conversations with Mr Brown after the Chancellor promised to help the couple. The pair have formed a close bond because Mr Brown's elder son, John, is slightly younger than Madeleine and they both come from Scotland.

British Government officials put pressure on their counterparts in Lisbon for the suspect's description to be released despite the appeal breaching strict Portuguese laws covering the secrecy of police investigations.

Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa of the Policia Judiciaria said: "The parents of Madeleine had already asked us to reveal the details that could help with the investigation. The release of the detail was authorised by the public prosecutor".

The political pressure is freely acknowledged. The above article refers to conversations and chats less than a fortnight after Maddie vanished, when you or I may still be expected to be incoherent with grief and anguish. Not our Gerry who rises to every challenge.

Team McCann has attempted to steer and influence this one from the beginning and due to political reasons, they have succeeded.


https://acs.thetimes.co.uk/?gotoUrl...uk/tto/news/world/europe/?token=null&offset=0

ETA: Clarry did well. New job working for Team McCann.

 

[SapphireSteel]

What evidence do you have of mysterious connections in high places, mason clubs, old school blackmails and alliances? And why should governments not send memos to each other, and what is wrong with being a member of the church - <modsnip>.

And whilst DA evidence can be wrong, it seems a bit far fetched so say "well the fss may be wrong so we shoudl take it as evidence that it was madleine's dna and what is more it got there form her body rather than from her belongings which were in the car"

Who are you quoting?

:waitasec:

 

[brit1981]

Who are you quoting?

:waitasec:

No-one, I was saying that seems to be the attitude if we decide to go on the basis thta the FSS analysis may be wrong and it may have been madeleine's DNA. And if we are going to assume the FSS was wrong, then why assume they were right about finding any of her components?

 

[SapphireSteel]

No-one, I was saying that seems to be the attitude if we decide to go on the basis thta the FSS analysis may be wrong and it may have been madeleine's DNA. And if we are going to assume the FSS was wrong, then why assume they were right about finding any of her components?

Indeed.

Who's going to say the dogs are right either?

When it comes right down to it, who's actually got physical proof that Madeleine even existed in the first place?

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

Indeed.

Who's going to say the dogs are right either?

When it comes right down to it, who's actually got physical proof that Madeleine even existed in the first place?

:banghead:

You do not think Madeleine existed?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I think that some of the allegations and assertions from Team McCann and supporters are grossly inaccurate and would not stand up in a court of law.

I think that Madeleine is completely overlooked and completely lost in all the spin.

I think that her case is the most blatant travesty in so-called "justice" in UK legal history.

I think that those surrounding Madeleine have been allowed to publicly claim funds, sympathy and entitlements that other people would not.

I think the entire mess should be reexamined in a transparent manner by IMPARTIAL experts in a public forum.

I think a coronial inquiry should be held and everything and everybody dragged kicking and screaming into the light, and forced to answer questions on record in a court of law.

Until then Team McCann can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. The Spin Doctors show us that "justice" can indeed be bought in the UK.