McCanns launch new appeal

[Jayelles]

I don't read the arguidos website regularly, I think I've read it three times u in the past year.

Nor have I ever linked to the PJ, which is why I don't link to their final report now.

I always linked directly to the British media. Period.

The Biritish media were just as bad!

And again, I have more respect for a well trained dog than I do for people who statistically speaking, may have had reason to conceal the truth of what happened to Madeleine. The dogs do not have personal attachments. hey would not get the fees they command if they could not produce credible results most of the time. Remember, just because a body wasn;'t found where the dogs alerted, doesn't mean that a body wasn't once there.

And would you be happy to be accused of murder on the grounds that a sniffer dog barked? Despite there being no body fgound and despite your innocence?

So yes, what they did is evidence. Had only one dog alerted in one spot,it would be questionable. But for both dogs to alert as they did, (same places, two locations) and for blood and dna evidence to then be recovered from their alerts and sent to a renowned British forensic labs for testing---

That's evidence.

No, a body would be evidence because it is a fact. A dog alert is an indication of possibility only.

Justice would go to H*ll in a handbasket if people were charged with murder on the strength of a dog barking only.

 

[Isabella]

The Biritish media were just as bad!



.

And YET you said yourself you got all your information from the British Media lol...

 

[Isabella]

Regarding the appeal..heres an article in the local paper out there.


http://www.algarveresident.com/story.asp?XID=31001

In a poll 84% people said they believe that Madeleine is dead

 

[Texana]

The Biritish media were just as bad!


And would you be happy to be accused of murder on the grounds that a sniffer dog barked? Despite there being no body fgound and despite your innocence?

Why would I ever be happy to be accused of murder on any grounds? Geez, if I killed someone indeed I'd hope I was getting away with it, and if I didn't I'd be upset so matter what the evidence was.

DNA evidence is not a matter of opinion. If you go back and look at the FSS reports you will see that it was a) not ruled out that it was Madeleine's DNA and b) no markers were found that could have belonged to anyone else.

So there is more than "sniffer dog" evidence.

You ask, paraphrasing, "if you were happy, would you be happy based on teh evidence of the sniffer dogs" and the questions logically have to be instead:

What do the alerts of the two dogs show?

What does the DNA evidence show?

What are the statistical odds of parental involvement when a child is missing?

What evidence is there of an abduction?

Are there alibis or accounting for all people who might have had reason to be involved with Madeleine who knew her?

I'm sure there are more questions, but starting with the presupposition "If you were innocent" means you are starting from a conclusion.

 

[april4sky]

respectfully snipped....

DNA evidence is not a matter of opinion. If you go back and look at the FSS reports you will see that it was a) not ruled out that it was Madeleine's DNA and b) no markers were found that could have belonged to anyone else.

Your right DNA evidence is not a matter of opinion.
And certainly not our opinions.

It's a matter of waiting until the forensic experts have completed the tests and released their findings.

You insist on saying the forensics didn't rule Madeleine out........while always leaving out the "FACT' that the experts couldn't rule Madeleine IN or OUT.

Why is that Texana?

You are obviously aware of the forensic findings.

And they tell us the individual components were not uniquely Madeleine's so the markers could not be confirmed as hers!!

According to the forensic experts 50% of Madeleines profile is shared by each parent.

And the genetic profiles of the relatives could not be separated.

They could not even confirm when and how the DNA was deposited - or from which type of bodily fluids it came from.

You need to include "all" the findings of the FSS's forensics before you have all the facts.

 

[Jayelles]

Why would I ever be happy to be accused of murder on any grounds? Geez, if I killed someone indeed I'd hope I was getting away with it, and if I didn't I'd be upset so matter what the evidence was.

Nice evasion of the question. Ok, put it another way. If you were a juror,l would you convict on the strength of a dog alert?

DNA evidence is not a matter of opinion. If you go back and look at the FSS reports you will see that it was a) not ruled out that it was Madeleine's DNA and b) no markers were found that could have belonged to anyone else.

So what if Madeleine's DNA was found in the apartment? She lived there for a week. So what if her DNA was found in the car? The car was used to transfer her stuff to the new apartment.

So what if one of Madeleine's hairs was found in the spare wheel compartment of the car boot? Hairs move. The car was rehired after the McCanns had it. How many times was that boot used?

If there had been the SLIGHTEST proof they'd done this, they'd have been charged. So much depended on that. But they weren't charged, they were cleared on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove that they'd committed ANY crime.

So there is more than "sniffer dog" evidence.

You ask, paraphrasing, "if you were happy, would you be happy based on teh evidence of the sniffer dogs" and the questions logically have to be instead:

What do the alerts of the two dogs show?

The possibility of SOMEONE'S blood or cadaver. Not proof that madeleine McCann's dead body was there. The same dog also alerted many times at the Jersey children's home and all that was found were animal bones.

What does the DNA evidence show?

That hair/skin cells might be Madeleines. And there are many innocent explanations for them being there which fit the facts more logically and reasonably that her parents committing a feat of horror and moving her putrifying body weeks later in a hire car in full glare of the world's media!

What are the statistical odds of parental involvement when a child is missing?

Not 100%

What evidence is there of an abduction?

A child went missing from her bed whilst her parents were eating in a nearby restaurant. A witness saw a man carrying a child walking away from the apartment. The parents had neither means nor opportunity to carry out all that would have been necessary.

Are there alibis or accounting for all people who might have had reason to be involved with Madeleine who knew her?

???

I'm sure there are more questions, but starting with the presupposition "If you were innocent" means you are starting from a conclusion.

I am starting from the legal presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. What conclusion are you starting from?

I had an interesting hour last night reading through old posts from this forum and I see that a year and a half ago, you were having the precise same discussions with a poster called Gord as you are having with me now. You don't seem to have taken on board a lot of the facts which have emerged from the case since then least of all the fact that the McCanns have been cleasred because the dog and DNA evidence did not prove that they committed any crime.

Dog alerts aren't rocket science. These dogs find bodies all the time but they aren't infallible. Unfortunately, scent is invisible and we have the fact of Eddie alerting at animal bones in the jersey Children's home. If they do actually alert at animal bones, who is to say that the cleaners of the apartments didn't find a dead mouse under the window of apartment 5A at the start of the season? Unless they find proof of Madeleine McCann's death, their alerts prove diddly squat and I'm very glad we don't have a justice system which would incriminate a person solely on the strength of a dog barking.

The burden of proof is on those of you who accuse the McCanns and you have to prove your case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Why don't you map your your timeline for a McCann did it theory. Show us how they managed to all they needed to do in order to pull this off.

Explain how they killed Madeleine or found her dead. Then explain how they managed to conceal her body without anyone seeing. How they managed to eat and socialise with friends calmly for an hour and a half.

Pleaswe also explain how they managed to dig madeleine's putrifying body up again and get it into the hire car under the full glare of the world's press and get rid of it without the smell drawing any attention to them whatsoever. Please also explain WHY they would do this if her body was already successfully concealed and why they would take such a risk.

If youn cannot explain all of this without ignoring established facts or factoring in very high reaching conspiracy theories, then I'm afraid you have no case.

I've asked three anti-McCann posters now to provide this timeline and so far none has responded to the challenge. one has to wonder why. I have mapped out my intruder did it theory which fits all of the facts and required no conspiracy other than those which exist naturally between criminals and paedophiles.

 

[Isabella]

A child went missing from her bed whilst her parents were eating in a nearby restaurant. A witness saw a man carrying a child walking away from the apartment. The parents had neither means nor opportunity to carry out all that would have been necessary.



.

A link to where its been proven she was carried out while her parents were eating in a nearby restaraunt? TIA

Regarding your "witness" not only did the two people who WERE there say Jane Tanner was NOT there...She did not even know where they was STANDING. In addition to this her "vision" totally changed over a few months.

Yes the parents had the means and opportunity. In fact IMO they had more opportunity than any "kidnapper".

 

[Texana]

Jayelles, I wish I had as much time as you have to go through old posts and ask questions again that have already been discussed ad infinitum.

You ask "how did her parents kill her."

They didn't. She fell from the couch while trying to reach the window next to it. She fell on a tile floor and it caused a subdural hematoma. T

As for the DNA evidence, it was one marker short of being what many countries legally allow as evidence for conviction. So again: It could not be ruled out that it was Madeleine in the wheel well of the car. It could not be tied to any other person on the planet.

The DNA evidence was blood evidence found on the tiles where the dogs alerted, behind the couch--the same place the cadaver dog alerted on. She had to bleed a considerable amount to leave that much below the tiles which were cleaned on the surface (the cleaning chemical probably caused the degradation of the DNA.)

The McCann response was that she "probably" had a skinned knee or bloody nose. When my children were that age, that kind of bleeding was fairly traumatic to them. We remembered it. There was no "probably" about it.

The DNA evidence was unfortunately degraded. So proof, if you want it, will never come from that. But if you think that DNA traces that can be so nearly linked to Madeleine McCann--the missing child--and not to any other person--and in the trunk of the damn car--where she would not, and could not have ever left any physical trace of herself--(check the exact location before you say it was from some sandal sweat or some other such excuse)
and the McCanns are not cleared because evidence conclusively proves them uninvolved.

They are cleared because the evidence cannot go any further. That's a big difference.

As for being desperate enough to move a decomposing body, again, parents have done desperate acts in the past to save their children.

There are two explanations for the hair being found in the wheel well of the car. One is that "hair moves" as you said--which is actually not always possible, due to the laws of physics. Some force would have to be enacted on the hair to move it. Otherwise, it would remain where it was.

SO what object was placed in the trunk, exactly on the same place where the DNA/hair evidence was, and then moved in such a way that it also transported the hair to the wheel well? Or at what time was the wheel well cover lifted and enough wind at the correct angle directed, so the hair evidence blew exactly into the wheel well?

Or the hair came from the body of Madeleine herself, placed under the cover of the wheel well, while transporting her remains to an unknown location.

I teach history. I read so many accounts of horrifying acts during the Holocaust that I no longer have any doubt that faced with the belief that their children will be lost (and again, the reports of "care" in Great Britain seem to be quite terrifying) parents can and will do desperate things beyond belief.

And yes, I started with the belief the McCanns were innocent.

As for the "witness" account of Jane Tanner: Her first report was of a person carrying a "bundle." She changed her account weeks later. Defense attorneys would have a field day with that; the first initial reports are most truthful because the details are filed in short term memory.

The human brain doesn't put things in long term memory unless it's given specific cause to do so. So you'll remember what you had for breakfast today or even three days ago, but a month ago, you won't, unless something hugely significant happened as you prepared it. (assuming the breakfast varies) or happened that day that related to the breakfast.

Jane underwent a kind of hypnotherapist to get the details she 'remembered" later. You don't know what kind of leading questions that other person asked. That wasn't made public at all.

That kind of evidence is far less reliable than the dogs's alerting. Jane is a friend of the McCanns and I believe sincerely wants to help find Madeleine. Her accounts months later can never be considered as reliable as that of the dogs, who rely only on instinct and training.

 

[Isabella]

Jayelles, I wish I had as much time as you have to go through old posts and ask questions again that have already been discussed ad infinitum.

You ask "how did her parents kill her."

They didn't. She fell from the couch while trying to reach the window next to it. She fell on a tile floor and it caused a subdural hematoma. T

As for the DNA evidence, it was one marker short of being what many countries legally allow as evidence for conviction. So again: It could not be ruled out that it was Madeleine in the wheel well of the car. It could not be tied to any other person on the planet.

The DNA evidence was blood evidence found on the tiles where the dogs alerted, behind the couch--the same place the cadaver dog alerted on. She had to bleed a considerable amount to leave that much below the tiles which were cleaned on the surface (the cleaning chemical probably caused the degradation of the DNA.)

The McCann response was that she "probably" had a skinned knee or bloody nose. When my children were that age, that kind of bleeding was fairly traumatic to them. We remembered it. There was no "probably" about it.

The DNA evidence was unfortunately degraded. So proof, if you want it, will never come from that. But if you think that DNA traces that can be so nearly linked to Madeleine McCann--the missing child--and not to any other person--and in the trunk of the damn car--where she would not, and could not have ever left any physical trace of herself--(check the exact location before you say it was from some sandal sweat or some other such excuse)
and the McCanns are not cleared because evidence conclusively proves them uninvolved.

They are cleared because the evidence cannot go any further. That's a big difference.

As for being desperate enough to move a decomposing body, again, parents have done desperate acts in the past to save their children.

There are two explanations for the hair being found in the wheel well of the car. One is that "hair moves" as you said--which is actually not always possible, due to the laws of physics. Some force would have to be enacted on the hair to move it. Otherwise, it would remain where it was.

SO what object was placed in the trunk, exactly on the same place where the DNA/hair evidence was, and then moved in such a way that it also transported the hair to the wheel well? Or at what time was the wheel well cover lifted and enough wind at the correct angle directed, so the hair evidence blew exactly into the wheel well?

Or the hair came from the body of Madeleine herself, placed under the cover of the wheel well, while transporting her remains to an unknown location.

I teach history. I read so many accounts of horrifying acts during the Holocaust that I no longer have any doubt that faced with the belief that their children will be lost (and again, the reports of "care" in Great Britain seem to be quite terrifying) parents can and will do desperate things beyond belief.

And yes, I started with the belief the McCanns were innocent.

As for the "witness" account of Jane Tanner: Her first report was of a person carrying a "bundle." She changed her account weeks later. Defense attorneys would have a field day with that; the first initial reports are most truthful because the details are filed in short term memory.

The human brain doesn't put things in long term memory unless it's given specific cause to do so. So you'll remember what you had for breakfast today or even three days ago, but a month ago, you won't, unless something hugely significant happened as you prepared it. (assuming the breakfast varies) or happened that day that related to the breakfast.

Jane underwent a kind of hypnotherapist to get the details she 'remembered" later. You don't know what kind of leading questions that other person asked. That wasn't made public at all.

That kind of evidence is far less reliable than the dogs's alerting. Jane is a friend of the McCanns and I believe sincerely wants to help find Madeleine. Her accounts months later can never be considered as reliable as that of the dogs, who rely only on instinct and training.

Tex personally i believe Jane knows what happened. I also think her partner was involved that night. I would love for Jane Tanner to be put in a court of law some day because I think she would be ripped to shreds.

First of all she claims she was late going to the bar when she sees this guy with bundle under a blanket. ( that got changed months later to she went from the bar to the apartment and saw him) and the bundle changed to a child wearing Pjs like Madeleines. (She saw this although it was gone 9 pm ). She says she saw Gerry and Jez..however they say she wasnt there...and when asked Jane says they were standing differently to where they actually was. Oh and ofc the supposed kidnapper went from looking like an egg to a Portugese guy. Weirdly something else i just thought...in the photofit of the "kidnapper" carrying her ( the Portugese looking photofit) there was no blanket...so where did that supposedly go?

In her statement she was erm to every question. She wouldnt be able to do that in a court and i think she could be the weakest link out of that lot.

Btw you keep saying about our care system. I dont really know what its like in other countries admittedly but....kids are normally fostered out pretty quickly and sure...there may be some bad eggs but a lot are pretty decent

I agree that I dont think the McCanns killed Madeleine. Ive said this so many times on here and still i get asked so how did they kill her..so ..it kinda gets repetitive

I also agree what you said "
and the McCanns are not cleared because evidence conclusively proves them uninvolved.

They are cleared because the evidence cannot go any further. That's a big difference. "

I really dont understand why some people have such a big problem understanding that. Its like oh the Pjs have cleared them blah blah ...and yet the Pjs have said a homicide could have happened there ( though i do wonder if homicide means the same there or if it means death for eg)

 

[april4sky]

Respectfully snipped.

As for the DNA evidence, it was one marker short of being what many countries legally allow as evidence for conviction. So again: It could not be ruled out that it was Madeleine in the wheel well of the car. It could not be tied to any other person on the planet.

The DNA evidence was blood evidence found on the tiles where the dogs alerted, behind the couch--the same place the cadaver dog alerted on. She had to bleed a considerable amount to leave that much below the tiles which were cleaned on the surface (the cleaning chemical probably caused the degradation of the DNA.)

The DNA evidence was unfortunately degraded. So proof, if you want it, will never come from that. But if you think that DNA traces that can be so nearly linked to Madeleine McCann--the missing child--and not to any other person--and in the trunk of the damn car--where she would not, and could not have ever left any physical trace of herself--(check the exact location before you say it was from some sandal sweat or some other such excuse)
and the McCanns are not cleared because evidence conclusively proves them uninvolved.

As for being desperate enough to move a decomposing body, again, parents have done desperate acts in the past to save their children.

Texana while you always insist on ignoring most of the FSS's forensic DNA conclusions in your assesment you will always get the result you choose....
.....But it won't be the truth.

Not until the forensic experts have completed all the DNA tests did we learn the truth.

You insist on saying the forensics didn't rule Madeleine out........while always leaving out the "FACT' that the experts couldn't rule Madeleine IN or OUT.
Why is that Texana? You are obviously aware of the forensic findings.

And they tell us the individual components were not uniquely Madeleine's so the markers could not be confirmed as hers!!

According to the forensic experts 50% of Madeleines profile is shared by each parent.

And the genetic profiles of the relatives could not be separated.

They could not even confirm when and how the DNA was deposited - or from which type of bodily fluids it came from.

You need to include "all" the findings of the FSS's forensics before you have all the facts.

 

[Jayelles]

Tex personally i believe Jane knows what happened. I also think her partner was involved that night. I would love for Jane Tanner to be put in a court of law some day because I think she would be ripped to shreds.

First of all she claims she was late going to the bar when she sees this guy with bundle under a blanket. ( that got changed months later to she went from the bar to the apartment and saw him) and the bundle changed to a child wearing Pjs like Madeleines. (She saw this although it was gone 9 pm ). She says she saw Gerry and Jez..however they say she wasnt there...and when asked Jane says they were standing differently to where they actually was. Oh and ofc the supposed kidnapper went from looking like an egg to a Portugese guy. Weirdly something else i just thought...in the photofit of the "kidnapper" carrying her ( the Portugese looking photofit) there was no blanket...so where did that supposedly go?

In her statement she was erm to every question. She wouldnt be able to do that in a court and i think she could be the weakest link out of that lot.

Btw you keep saying about our care system. I dont really know what its like in other countries admittedly but....kids are normally fostered out pretty quickly and sure...there may be some bad eggs but a lot are pretty decent

I agree that I dont think the McCanns killed Madeleine. Ive said this so many times on here and still i get asked so how did they kill her..so ..it kinda gets repetitive

I also agree what you said "
and the McCanns are not cleared because evidence conclusively proves them uninvolved.

They are cleared because the evidence cannot go any further. That's a big difference. "

I really dont understand why some people have such a big problem understanding that. Its like oh the Pjs have cleared them blah blah ...and yet the Pjs have said a homicide could have happened there ( though i do wonder if homicide means the same there or if it means death for eg)

Please tell us why the reasons upon which you have formed these opinions. OPinions on their own are groundless unless you provide arguments and sources.

I ask you once again to map out your theory and provide the sources for it.

 

[Jayelles]

Jayelles, I wish I had as much time as you have to go through old posts and ask questions again that have already been discussed ad infinitum.

You ask "how did her parents kill her."

They didn't. She fell from the couch while trying to reach the window next to it. She fell on a tile floor and it caused a subdural hematoma. T

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Why did her parents - who are both medics cover it up instead of trying to get her to a hospital?

Why did they go to dinner and pretend nothing was wrong? (how did they manage that?

Why did they dig her body up and move it under the glare of the world's media?

As for the DNA evidence, it was one marker short of being what many countries legally allow as evidence for conviction.

Source?

So again: It could not be ruled out that it was Madeleine in the wheel well of the car. It could not be tied to any other person on the planet.

Utter garbage. A dog alerting does not rule anyone in or out without the discovery of evidence to corroborate the dog alert.

The DNA evidence was blood evidence found on the tiles where the dogs alerted, behind the couch--the same place the cadaver dog alerted on. She had to bleed a considerable amount to leave that much below the tiles which were cleaned on the surface (the cleaning chemical probably caused the degradation of the DNA.)

Source for that particular blood stain being Madeleine's and source for it having come from her on that evening (as opposed to earlier in the week)

The McCann response was that she "probably" had a skinned knee or bloody nose. When my children were that age, that kind of bleeding was fairly traumatic to them. We remembered it. There was no "probably" about it.

Source for the McCanns saying this. Primary source please, no tabloid innuendo.

The DNA evidence was unfortunately degraded. So proof, if you want it, will never come from that. But if you think that DNA traces that can be so nearly linked to Madeleine McCann--the missing child--and not to any other person--and in the trunk of the damn car--where she would not, and could not have ever left any physical trace of herself--(check the exact location before you say it was from some sandal sweat or some other such excuse)
and the McCanns are not cleared because evidence conclusively proves them uninvolved.

As you say - not proof.

They are cleared because the evidence cannot go any further. That's a big difference.

No they are cleared because there is no evidence that they committed ANY crime.

As for being desperate enough to move a decomposing body, again, parents have done desperate acts in the past to save their children.

You think they would move a putrifying body to "save their children"? Yet they wouldn't take Madeleine to a hospital to try and save her? Please tell me how taking the enormous risk of moving a putrifying body in the full glare of the world's media is "saving their children"? especially where no-one suspected anything at that point? why not just take their twins home to England?

There are two explanations for the hair being found in the wheel well of the car. One is that "hair moves" as you said--which is actually not always possible, due to the laws of physics. Some force would have to be enacted on the hair to move it. Otherwise, it would remain where it was.

I think we know that I was not inferring that the hair moved of its own accord.

SO what object was placed in the trunk, exactly on the same place where the DNA/hair evidence was, and then moved in such a way that it also transported the hair to the wheel well? Or at what time was the wheel well cover lifted and enough wind at the correct angle directed, so the hair evidence blew exactly into the wheel well?

You tell me. Do we know for a fact that the spare wheel was not used during then months between the McCanns hjiring the car and the tests being done on it? How many hires in that time? How much luggage placed in there? How many checks on the spare wheel by the rental company? I imagine checking the spare wheel might be a routine thing - if only to check that someone who hired the car hadn't nicked it!

Or the hair came from the body of Madeleine herself, placed under the cover of the wheel well, while transporting her remains to an unknown location.

Stinking to high heaven - and detectable from a great distance. Funny how nobody noticed any unusual smells.

I teach history. I read so many accounts of horrifying acts during the Holocaust that I no longer have any doubt that faced with the belief that their children will be lost (and again, the reports of "care" in Great Britain seem to be quite terrifying) parents can and will do desperate things beyond belief.

And isn't is normal for parents to go to great lengths to save their children when they are hurt? How normal is it for them to immediately dispose of their bodies and calmly go to dinner with friends?

And yes, I started with the belief the McCanns were innocent.

And you can't get past the dog alert. So suddenly you have to believe that they carried off the crime of the century and were not only able to callously dispose of their daughter, but also callously dig her rotting corpse up again and move it for some unknown reason?

As for the "witness" account of Jane Tanner: Her first report was of a person carrying a "bundle." She changed her account weeks later. Defense attorneys would have a field day with that; the first initial reports are most truthful because the details are filed in short term memory.

Source please. Tabloids reports of anonymous sources do not count.

The human brain doesn't put things in long term memory unless it's given specific cause to do so. So you'll remember what you had for breakfast today or even three days ago, but a month ago, you won't, unless something hugely significant happened as you prepared it. (assuming the breakfast varies) or happened that day that related to the breakfast.

Yes, but would you remember the precise time that you brushed your teeth or ate that second slice of toast? You might be able to work it out later, but if put on the spot, you'd only be able to give an apporximate time in most instances.

Jane underwent a kind of hypnotherapist to get the details she 'remembered" later. You don't know what kind of leading questions that other person asked. That wasn't made public at all.

Source please.

That kind of evidence is far less reliable than the dogs's alerting. Jane is a friend of the McCanns and I believe sincerely wants to help find Madeleine. Her accounts months later can never be considered as reliable as that of the dogs, who rely only on instinct and training.

Even if her witness sighting was wrong, it doesn't mean the McCanns did this OR that their friends coverd up for them. You still need to make a theory fit ALL of the facts and the facts simply do not fit a McCann did it theory unless you ignore some of the facts and factor in a few conspiracies and tabloid fantasies!

 

[Jayelles]

PS Texana, no disrespect, but you say your speciality is history. We all know history is full of guesswork and contradictory evidence which historians pick and choose to fit their own particular theories.

My background is science and engineering so perhaps that's why we cannot agree. In my line of work there is no room for guesswork. Accuracy and precision aren fundamental requirements.

Perhaps that is why we view things differently.

 

[Refugee]

Nice evasion of the question. Ok, put it another way. If you were a juror,l would you convict on the strength of a dog alert?




So what if Madeleine's DNA was found in the apartment? She lived there for a week. So what if her DNA was found in the car? The car was used to transfer her stuff to the new apartment.

So what if one of Madeleine's hairs was found in the spare wheel compartment of the car boot? Hairs move. The car was rehired after the McCanns had it. How many times was that boot used?

If there had been the SLIGHTEST proof they'd done this, they'd have been charged. So much depended on that. But they weren't charged, they were cleared on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove that they'd committed ANY crime.



The possibility of SOMEONE'S blood or cadaver. Not proof that madeleine McCann's dead body was there. The same dog also alerted many times at the Jersey children's home and all that was found were animal bones.



That hair/skin cells might be Madeleines. And there are many innocent explanations for them being there which fit the facts more logically and reasonably that her parents committing a feat of horror and moving her putrifying body weeks later in a hire car in full glare of the world's media!



Not 100%



A child went missing from her bed whilst her parents were eating in a nearby restaurant. A witness saw a man carrying a child walking away from the apartment. The parents had neither means nor opportunity to carry out all that would have been necessary.



???



I am starting from the legal presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. What conclusion are you starting from?

I had an interesting hour last night reading through old posts from this forum and I see that a year and a half ago, you were having the precise same discussions with a poster called Gord as you are having with me now. You don't seem to have taken on board a lot of the facts which have emerged from the case since then least of all the fact that the McCanns have been cleasred because the dog and DNA evidence did not prove that they committed any crime.

Dog alerts aren't rocket science. These dogs find bodies all the time but they aren't infallible. Unfortunately, scent is invisible and we have the fact of Eddie alerting at animal bones in the jersey Children's home. If they do actually alert at animal bones, who is to say that the cleaners of the apartments didn't find a dead mouse under the window of apartment 5A at the start of the season? Unless they find proof of Madeleine McCann's death, their alerts prove diddly squat and I'm very glad we don't have a justice system which would incriminate a person solely on the strength of a dog barking.

The burden of proof is on those of you who accuse the McCanns and you have to prove your case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Why don't you map your your timeline for a McCann did it theory. Show us how they managed to all they needed to do in order to pull this off.

Explain how they killed Madeleine or found her dead. Then explain how they managed to conceal her body without anyone seeing. How they managed to eat and socialise with friends calmly for an hour and a half.

Pleaswe also explain how they managed to dig madeleine's putrifying body up again and get it into the hire car under the full glare of the world's press and get rid of it without the smell drawing any attention to them whatsoever. Please also explain WHY they would do this if her body was already successfully concealed and why they would take such a risk.

If youn cannot explain all of this without ignoring established facts or factoring in very high reaching conspiracy theories, then I'm afraid you have no case.

I've asked three anti-McCann posters now to provide this timeline and so far none has responded to the challenge. one has to wonder why. I have mapped out my intruder did it theory which fits all of the facts and required no conspiracy other than those which exist naturally between criminals and paedophiles.

I'm afraid its you who has 'no case'.

I'd like to remind you that outside of a court of law, there is no presumption of innocence, nor could there be. If there were such an out of court presumption there would never be any investigations could there!

Pro-McCanners always want everyone else to prove the case against the McCanns but never are able to prove their innocence.

The McCanns themselves have never provided a believable time line after all this time, yet you demand one from posters here!

Gerry even said he was looking down at his daughter at the exact same time Jne Tanner claimed she saw the mysterious 'abductor' (he gave the time as 9:15 PM and so did she - he in writing on his blog and she verbally on panorama).

So, tell me this, why do you blindly defend the McCanns instead of taking an object look at the facts as we know them? Why not start from the assumption that we do not know, then look at the possibilities. why not be objective? Or do you have some vested reason for blindly defending them?

Oh and the McCanns were never 'cleared' - this is completely untrue.

Anyway, what 'timeline' are you desperately looking for? The one where the McCanns took the eyes of the media to Rome for the funeral whilst someone else disposed of the body? remeber, its quite possible that madeleine was killed on the 2nd May after the McCanns had spent yet another night drinking whils ttheir children were alone and abandoned and crying in their holiday apartment.

 

[Texana]

PS Texana, no disrespect, but you say your speciality is history. We all know history is full of guesswork and contradictory evidence which historians pick and choose to fit their own particular theories.

My background is science and engineering so perhaps that's why we cannot agree. In my line of work there is no room for guesswork. Accuracy and precision aren fundamental requirements.

Perhaps that is why we view things differently.

Then with any scientific mindset whatsoever, Jane Tanner's account is thrown out.

Her version of what she saw changed, weeks later.

She was not seen by either Gerry McCann or Jeremy Wilkins, who according to her own account should have seen her.

No one else saw the person she says was carrying a child.

So Jane Tanner's account can be verified and while you can believe it if you like, from a scientific point of view, it is not credible evidence.

You can believe she's telling the truth but she could just as well not be.

And belief based on just just wanting to believe her isn't very scientific.

 

[Texana]

I'm afraid its you who has 'no case'.

I'd like to remind you that outside of a court of law, there is no presumption of innocence, nor could there be. If there were such an out of court presumption there would never be any investigations could there!

Pro-McCanners always want everyone else to prove the case against the McCanns but never are able to prove their innocence.

The McCanns themselves have never provided a believable time line after all this time, yet you demand one from posters here!

Gerry even said he was looking down at his daughter at the exact same time Jne Tanner claimed she saw the mysterious 'abductor' (he gave the time as 9:15 PM and so did she - he in writing on his blog and she verbally on panorama).

So, tell me this, why do you blindly defend the McCanns instead of taking an object look at the facts as we know them? Why not start from the assumption that we do not know, then look at the possibilities. why not be objective? Or do you have some vested reason for blindly defending them?

Oh and the McCanns were never 'cleared' - this is completely untrue.

Anyway, what 'timeline' are you desperately looking for? The one where the McCanns took the eyes of the media to Rome for the funeral whilst someone else disposed of the body? remeber, its quite possible that madeleine was killed on the 2nd May after the McCanns had spent yet another night drinking whils ttheir children were alone and abandoned and crying in their holiday apartment.

Exactly.

 

[Texana]

PS Texana, no disrespect, but you say your speciality is history. We all know history is full of guesswork and contradictory evidence which historians pick and choose to fit their own particular theories.

My background is science and engineering so perhaps that's why we cannot agree. In my line of work there is no room for guesswork. Accuracy and precision aren fundamental requirements.

Perhaps that is why we view things differently.

I teach science as well.

And I have a mathematics based degree. (double major, both mathematics based.)

And Mr. Texana has a graduate degree in engineering and thinks I am an idiot for being on this forum at all, as it is more than obvious to him that based on the facts and evidence and DNA evidence, Madeleine is not living and her parents have some involvement. Fortunately, after a quarter century of marriage, he is tolerant of my faith that people can be persuaded to come to an understanding of facts.

That is why I teach, and he doesn't.

So you will have to find another reason as to why we view things differently.

 

[Texana]

I can't get past the dogs alerting in the same spot because I can't come up with a reasonable explanation for both a blood evidence dog and a cadaver dog alerting in the same spots and then DNA evidence being recovered in those spots other than it being evidence of Madeleine being injured and then passing away.

I need an explanation that makes sense for the dogs' alerting. One dog could be an error on the dog's part, but both dogs? Did the handler cheat? Or lie?

There has to be some explanation. The dogs are right, or they are wrong, and if they are wrong, there is a reason.

As for the McCanns not rushing their child to a hospital, they are skilled physicians used to calling time of death on patients. They would know very quickly if there was any hope for Madeleine, and if they found her already dead or beyond reviving, I can certainly believe they wouldn't then expect the Portuguese medical authorities in a small resort town to have the resources--or ability--to bring her back.

If Jane Tanner's account is mistaken, then there is no independent verification of Madeleine's abduction other than Kate's word.

I have, in decades of car ownership, and completely packed trunks, never lifted the cover to the spare tire compartment in any car I have ever owned. There's no space to put anything.

That's where the DNA evidence in the Renault was recovered--not from the boot/trunk alone, but from the wheel well.

So somehow, that physical piece of matter ended up in a place where it should not have been. There has to be an explanation for that. It either moved somehow from the rest of the trunk or it came from a body being placed there.

How did anyone drive in the car with a decomposed body? I don't know. But because I don't know how someone else could stand it, doesn't mean they couldn't.

Basing a line of reasoning along what you can live with or deal with is not very scientific. There have been numerous cases of people who had a spouse or partner pass away, and they left the body in the home or continued living for months or years with that.

Not very pleasant to think about, but based on scientific fact.

 

[Texana]

The possibility of SOMEONE'S blood or cadaver. Not proof that madeleine McCann's dead body was there. The same dog also alerted many times at the Jersey children's home and all that was found were animal bones.


.

No DNA markers belonging to anyone else were identified at the apartment from the trace evidence found there, or from the evidence in the Renault. All of the markers found belonged to Madeleine and no one else. The only thing lacking was ONE marker that would have conclusively proved it was her--15 out of 19 were hers and hers alone.

Are you suggesting that another cadaver was in the apartment or the Renault?

 

[april4sky]

No DNA markers belonging to anyone else were identified at the apartment from the trace evidence found there, or from the evidence in the Renault. All of the markers found belonged to Madeleine and no one else. The only thing lacking was ONE marker that would have conclusively proved it was her--15 out of 19 were hers and hers alone.

Are you suggesting that another cadaver was in the apartment or the Renault?

Not true!
Can you provide any link that confirms the forensic "experts" report said any such thing?
TIA