Madeleine McCann 'Died In Holiday Apartment'

reply to post by ipsedixit

All that talk about the dangers of being charged and convicted reminded me of something: what's the maximum penalty for child neglect, child endangerment or even murder in the UK?

I ask this because Portuguese sentences are usually short, the maximum someone can get (multiple murders and genocide) is 25 years.

Elites get away with murder. That's always been the rule.
OJ did. The Ramseys did. That kid in Aruba did. Money buys lawyers and politicians and protection.
Martha Stewart and Roman Polanski do house arrest in their 15000 square foot homes for their minor crimes.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

All that talk about the dangers of being charged and convicted reminded me of something: what's the maximum penalty for child neglect, child endangerment or even murder in the UK?

I don't know what it would be. I'm assuming in aggravated cases like the ones where children have been discovered locked into cribs for years, etc., or kept in a hole in the cellar for twenty years, it could become very severe.

In the McCann's situation, I suspect that the act of leaving them alone, to dine out with friends at the resort was an isolated and unfortunate miscalculation. In the circumstances, I don't think they would do jail time, but they might face some sort of "reporting" situation with child protective services.

If it had been determined that the children had been drugged that evening, as even Gerry McCann himself "wondered" on film, and if it were proved that the McCanns had done the drugging, then I should think that they might face loss of custody of the children for a period, if not permanently.

Either of the above scenarios could impact Gerry's ability to work as a doctor. The drugs case might finish that possibility.

Any kind of conviction like that would also terminate him as a political operator.

One of the main mistakes of the Portugese police was in not seeming to recognise the strategic importance of the child endangerment aspect of the case. If they had, they would have tested the twins for drugs. They also would have realised what a lot of leverage a conviction or potential conviction would have given them in the media and other skirmishes with the McCanns.

I ask this because Portuguese sentences are usually short, the maximum someone can get (multiple murders and genocide) is 25 years.

That is similar to the situation in Canada. There have been some really lamentable cases of absurdly light sentences handed out here in "the true north strong and free".


[edit on 19-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

Kate McCan Statement - 7th September 2007

Volume X, pages 2557-2561

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.
Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.

When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply.

If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said she would not reply. When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply. She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply.

Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply. Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply.

When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply. When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply. When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply. When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply. When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night, she did not reply.

When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.

When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply. When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

When asked whom she phoned after the facts, she did not reply. When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply. When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply.

When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply. When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates, she did not reply.

When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply. Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality, she did not reply. When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply. If she worked every day, she did not reply. When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply.

When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication, she did not reply.

During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.

When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.

The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.

At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.



www.davidicke.com...

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Dock9]

Kate McCann killed Madeleine in a fit of temper because of the childs "behaviour".

Her husband was then convinced to help her dispose of the childs body.

It's only a matter of time before the truth finally comes out.

reply to post by fionnirl


That's one of the theories to emerge in various fora, I realise

But, although it's always possible, I tend to doubt it, human nature being as it is

They're a relatively young couple who invested a great deal (and accumulated debt, no doubt) in order to gain their qualifications

The husband in particular comes across as shrewd and ambitious

They have a reasonably expensive home, couple of vehicles and children to support. The wife apparently worked only infrequently prior to the incident. Has she worked since ?

All most of us know of them is gained from video and still photos, interviews, etc., but they don't impress me as devoted to each other. Both come across as self-contained and quite cold, imo. And I don't buy any of the religious stuff to emerge from their PR people

Ok. This had the potential to destroy them, individually ... as a couple ... as a family. Not to mention what it would do to their career prospects

So, as I've seen nothing even vaguely loyal in the husband, it doesn't make sense (to me at least) that he would sabotage his career or anything else in order to cover for the wife if she had, in fact, killed the child in temper, by mistake or anything else

They're shrewd, no doubt. They're mysteriously 'connected' to some very powerful people. Were they always similarly connected though ? Someone might know

Anyway, if the child had died/been killed --- a good lawyer could have successfully cited mitigating circumstances. If so, one or both parents could have emerged with nothing more damaging (reputation and career wise) than manslaughter of whatever degree. It could have been made to go away. They would have received sympathy and understanding. Post natal depression could have been cited as responsible. The whore media and magazines could have made money from the post-natal depression angle. Millions of women would have readily identified. Spin-off features would also have pulled in the dollars for the whore media: ' Are we working our doctors too hard ? ' ---- ' Fathers .. your working wives need your support ' ... ' Ten seconds was all it took .. child dies in exhausted mother's arm ' .... etc.

Further, if the child had been killed by a parent in momentary anger and the parents are doctors, it could be portrayed as a 'tragic fall ' for example. If the child was killed by drugs, prescribed or other, the child or its siblings can be blamed ... 'Tot mistakes killer drugs for sweets .. parents beseech drug companies to add bad-tasting coating to prevent further needless deaths' --- 'How many more children must die before health bodies force drug companies to be accountable' for example. The media would spin it as tragic accident. Such tragic accidents are common. Parents everywhere would identify, sympathise. The parents could have grown a career as 'activists' for the prevention of drug-related deaths in children and the aged: 'Out of our suffering came hope. Parents speak for first time and say their child's death through swallowing tablets that looked like sweets, will not be in vain. Drug companies now adding arsenic to all tablets ' (lol -- shouldn't give them ideas, should we )

So, if either of the parents killed the child, it didn't necessarily mean a cell and bread and water. They're doctors. Doctors close ranks, of necessity. And who in government would want a British doctor convicted of murder of a child ? Right .. no one. Who in the Portuguese government would want that sort of scandal, given the cost to the tourism industry ? No one again. If the child had been shoved or punched to death, it could have been made to become 'death by misadventure' ... result of falling from balcony, down rocks after running away, down stairs, etc. etc. Parents exonerated. Death certificate signed. All gone

Question that many people have pondered at length is: Did the child actually die that night ? Did she die earlier ? Was the 'They've taken her' drama rehearsed ?

The dogs indicated cadaver scent in the parents' wardrobe, amongst other locations

Obviously there was no body in the wardrobe when police commenced searches, nor during their searches in days to follow

It was a small apartment. The parents' family and friends flew out to support them --- could very well have gone to that wardrobe at any point, looking for towels, toothpaste, whatever. Is it likely anyone would put a 'missing' child's body in a wardrobe in a small apartment under such circumstances, with reporters literally hiding in cracks, bribing staff for keys and with police arriving unannounced at any time, for 'just a few more questions, please' ?

So how and when did the cadaver scent get into the wardrobe ? Unless the child was dead before the parents sounded the 'missing' alarm

It's strange all the way through, though. What motivated the parents to sue the original Portuguese investigator over his book, thereby putting themselves back in the headlines adn drawing more cricitism and suspicion ? Could the information revealed during the court-case work in the parents' favour ? Would a million dollars (which the parents claim they will in any case donate to charity) be worth the further scrutiny to which they're now being subjected ? Doesn't seem likely, does it ?

If you were the parents, why would you put yourself through the court case ? Unless you are innocent and still determined to bring to justice those responsible for your child's disappearance

Were the parents patsies ? Did the dog handlers deliberately incriminate the parents with false claims of 'cadaver scent' in the parents' wardrobe, on the mother's clothing, on the keys and in the boot of the car, etc. ?

Was Praia de Luz a paedophile headquarters ? Were high ranking European politicians etc. involved ? Were the parents genuinely naive ? Were some within their group of friends (Tapas Nine) involved ? If so, why did the parents behave so oddly in the days and weeks afterwards ... the jogging, the blog, the smiles and laughter, the hair-stylists, the make up and jewellery and what many have described as their 'fake' grief and 'sad faces' when interviewed, followed by smiles hours later

Did that child EVER exist ? Why the photoshopping and seven o'clock Illuminati flash in her eye, et

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Dock9]

Take a look at Gerry's body language in this video interview. Is he telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Those interested in this case will be astonished, I think, by the information on this site:

goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com...

It provides a full English language translation of Goncalo Amaral's book.

Goncalo Amaral, you will recall, was the first of the Portuguese senior investigators. He was later pulled off the case. The McCann's had his book banned. And now they have sued him over contents of the book and are seeking 1.2 million Pounds

The book is made available on the above site

HUGE amount of information there as well


Here are some of the quotes from the site's main page:

"Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann"

Intercalary Report: Chief Inspector Tavares Almeida

Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk’s right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it’s the only way to explain what happened there.

Gonçalo Amaral

A couple of doctors spent holidays in Mallorca, in 2005, with David Payne, the McCanns and another couple. The lady says she saw Payne with his finger in his mouth, making a movement in and out, while rubbing his nipple with the other hand. And he was talking about Maddie, next to her father. Those statements should have been given a different treatment by the police. It was relevant to access the information, about doctors, who are just as credible as anyone else.

Goncalo Amaral


Another incredibly comprehensive site:
joana-morais.blogspot.com...



Both sites linked above contain every possible item of information re: the case


I've just found the sites. Going now to begin reading

Does anyone know if the words "lie detector test" and "Kate and Gerry McCann" have been spoken together in the same sentence? Have they ever been asked if they would take a lie detector test?

Just wondering. I don't recall ever having seen mention of the subject in the context of this case.

A blue kit bag was discovered to have gone missing the night that Madeleine went missing. However, neither Jane Tanner nor the Smith family, in their respective sightings of people carrying children, mentions having seen a blue kit bag carried along with the child.

I don't give Jane Tanner's sighting much credibility. I think she saw someone walk by at the end of the street, someone carrying something (bundle of laundry?) and then she got confused, thought she'd been so stupid as to miss raising the alarm on the kidnapper and then overcompensated by fingering Robert Murat, then seeking to recompensate gave a completely fictitious description to a forensic artist to take the heat off Murat and take herself right out of the picture.

Her situation reminds me of the time I was in a car that started to go off the road when the driver fell asleep at the wheel. He woke up suddenly, overcompensated, recompensated, started the car fishtailing and went off the road.

The Smith sighting, on the other hand, is a serious one, verified by several family members. However, nobody among them reports seeing a blue kit bag.

It is very important that the person seen by the Smiths was not carrying the blue kit bag.

I believe that the Smiths did indeed see the person who made Madeleine disappear. Let us suppose that person was not Gerry McCann. Let us suppose that person was a stranger who had kidnapped Madeleine. It is obvious then, that this person did not make the blue kit bag disappear.

Who did make it disappear? The greatest probability is that Kate or Jerry made it disappear, or perhaps one of their close friends. Why? Becase it contained drugs or other evidence related to Madeleine's death.

We know that the man the Smiths saw was not carry a blue kit bag. No blue kit bag was discovered in the searches around the Ocean Club or around Prahia da Luz. Someone made the blue kit bag go away. It wasn't the guy carrying Madeleine.

That means, in all likelihood, more than one person was involved in Madeleine's disappearance. One to make Madeleine disappear, one to make the kit bag disappear.

Let's say that a two man gang of strangers did the crime. This two man gang enters the apartment on a tight timetable. One snatches Madeleine and the other snatches the blue kit bag (containing drugs). Then they tear off in different directions.

How likely is that, as a scenario?

What if it were a two person gang of parents that did the crime? Would the scenario or some variation on it, sound more convincing in that case? I think so.

The blue kit bag may be the WTC7 of the Madeleine McCann case. Hardly anybody even knows it is missing, but like WTC7, it is the inconvenient missing item with no reason to be missing.

If Gerry and Kate are innocent.


[edit on 21-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

A lot of conflicting information to absorb.

Kate McCann declining to answer a lot of questions is not necessarily incriminating. She was forewarned of possible entrapment with supplying answers to questions that might conflict with other statements. It happens with innocent people as well as the guilty. Stories get garbled in retelling. Memory is fallible.

I don't necessarily buy into this 'cadaver smell' thing. It's an assumption. A lot of things can trigger a dog's reaction. Things that people aren't immediately aware of.

I see a lot of circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Does anyone know if the words "lie detector test" and "Kate and Gerry McCann" have been spoken together in the same sentence? Have they ever been asked if they would take a lie detector test?

Just wondering. I don't recall ever having seen mention of the subject in the context of this case.

Lie Detectors can be very unreliable. Past studies have shown that it is possible for those who are telling the truth to be judged incorrectly as lying according to the tests. Then there is the fact that some people are able to consciously manipulate certain bodily processes to elicit certain responses. The McCanns being doctors are also likely to know which physiological responses police might look for in a Lie Detector test.

A blue kit bag was discovered to have gone missing the night that Madeleine went missing. However, neither Jane Tanner nor the Smith family, in their respective sightings of people carrying children, mentions having seen a blue kit bag carried along with the child.
[...]
The blue kit bag may be the WTC7 of the Madeleine McCann case. Hardly anybody even knows it is missing, but like WTC7, it is the inconvenient missing item with no reason to be missing.

Thanks for bringing up that missing blue bag. I like the analogy you made with WTC7. Very interesting perspective.

[edit on 21/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]

These two have been suspicious since day one. And their story just doesn't fly. I doubt they'll ever be caught, but I don't believe they murdered their own kid. I think it was a mistake, and I think they made a stupid and callous decision to cover it up rather than to confess what happened because they were on foreign soil. Really disgusts me how they thought of their own hide as priority #1 in this situation though.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
As a sick twist, I remember reading somewhere that Maddie is an anagram for "I'm dead" - dont remember where I saw it but kinda strange coincidence.

[edit on 12/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]

It does if you can't spell Dead....

Nothing really hard about this, try it yourself.

Maddie, take I and M

I'm, leaving you with

adde

dead.

Originally posted by mmiichael

A lot of conflicting information to absorb.

Kate McCann declining to answer a lot of questions is not necessarily incriminating.

I agree. There is a well known video on YouTube in which a professor of criminal law outlines why people should not talk to the police.

I don't necessarily buy into this 'cadaver smell' thing. It's an assumption. A lot of things can trigger a dog's reaction. Things that people aren't immediately aware of.

This is a more complicated issue. These dogs were highly trained to react only to the smell of a human cadaver or human blood.

The thing is that other factors involved in the handling of the dogs can effect their performance. At one time the courts in certain jurisdictions accepted sniffer dog indications as evidence. They were thought to be highly accurate. At the current time their indications cannot be accepted as evidence without some kind of corroberation in the way of other acceptable evidence.

I looked into the training of sniffer dogs and found out that they are trained with dead pig fetuses. Dead pig fetuses, as far as I know, are the only dead things that secrete the same chemical scents that are secreted by dead human beings.

One has to revise the statement about the skills of a sniffer dog to reflect their training. They are trained to detect only the scent of dead human beings and dead pig fetuses.

That raises a disturbing possibility. It is possible to fake the presence of a dead human being by using the scent of a dead pig fetus. This raises the question of possible planting of evidence on the impounded car by the Portugese police. This would have to be looked into and carefully considered before either admitting or eliminating it as a possible fact. Not knowing all the details regarding the impounding of the car and its storage, who had access to it, etc., it is impossible for me to have a firm conviction one way or the other about this aspect of the dog evidence.

It would be much harder for a crooked policeman to plant pig fetus aroma on the clothing of Kate McCann and Madeleine.

If the crime was committed by a stranger who worked in some way with pig fetuses, a pig farmer, for example, that might explain the cadaver traces on the clothing and in the apartment at the Ocean Club, but to completely explain all of the cadaver traces found, one would have to assume that a pig farmer (or someone with similar access to pig fetuses) did the crime and that a crooked cop, knowledgeable about the training of sniffer dogs planted evidence in the impounded car. In my view, this is not impossible but it is something of a stretch as a scenario.

If Kate and Gerry did the crime (disposing of Madeleine's body) the difficulties are of a different sort. The cadaver traces are pretty much as one might expect. The missing blue kit bag is much as one would expect.

The difficulties involve people's movements, particularly those of Gerry McCann and the possibility that one or more of the Tapas 9 were helping Kate and Gerry cover up what happened to Madeleine.

One would have to go over every statement made by these people, whether to the media or in so-called rogatory interviews given to the police, to look for tell tale inconsistencies or unexplained references like the one made by Jane Tanner in the documentary "Madeleine Was Here", mentioning the fact that during dinner at the restaurant, Gerry was missing for a while and Kate said that he was "watching football".

Finding the blue kitbag would be very revealing I think, if one could not find Madeleine.

I see a lot of circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun.

I think the cadaver dog evidence is smoke but it isn't clear where the smoke is coming from. Not bringing the dogs in immediately was a very big mistake made by police in this case. Hindsight is next to godliness.


[edit on 22-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

The problem is the AMOUNT of circumstantial evidence, plus disquiet (at the least) at the circumstances and at the behaviour of the parents. I'll bet there are people who actually want them to guilty.
The way I see it, there are several possible scenarios. But there is no incontrovertible evidence either way.
I would be prepared to bet on one of those scenarios. But most probably not my life savings!

Originally posted by unicorn1
The problem is the AMOUNT of circumstantial evidence, plus disquiet (at the least) at the circumstances and at the behaviour of the parents. I'll bet there are people who actually want them to guilty.
The way I see it, there are several possible scenarios. But there is no incontrovertible evidence either way.
I would be prepared to bet on one of those scenarios. But most probably not my life savings!

There seems to me there are 2 teams: team Mccan & team Maddie... I really want maddie to be alive and well and that she will be fouund, but too much evidence is building up against team Mccan, and it looks as though maddie wont be found because the parents, by accident or otherwise have killed her. Im not confident that the whole truth will come out unless 1 of the Mccans cracks and tells the world the truth

[edit on 22-1-2010 by squidley_35]

[edit on 22-1-2010 by squidley_35]

reply to post by squidley_35


I suspect there are two teams behind the opposing factions

This is a lot bigger than the McCanns, I suspect

In fact, I suspect the McCanns have agreed to play the patsy role ... the red-herring role ... and to this ends, the whore media has turned the situation and them into a circus for mass consumption and profit

while those actually responsible ('big, important someones) remain unscathed, unaccountable

They ensure no harm comes to the McCanns (and it hasn't, although parents have been jailed and had their children removed for far, far less)

and there's money in it

It's deep and very ugly, imo. We most probably wouldn't believe the truth if it were ever revealed

Meanwhile, all parties are playing their roles on the world's stage. And a child is used as the bone over which hundreds of people, worldwide, fight internet wars over the conflicting evidence tossed like crumbs to the Sheepie public

Originally posted by ipsedixit

These dogs were highly trained to react only to the smell of a human cadaver or human blood.

The thing is that other factors involved in the handling of the dogs can effect their performance. At one time the courts in certain jurisdictions accepted sniffer dog indications as evidence. They were thought to be highly accurate. At the current time their indications cannot be accepted as evidence without some kind of corroberation in the way of other acceptable evidence.

The dog issue is extra-complicated because an animal cannot qualify it's testimony. It cannot say how strong a scent is, how certain it is, the specifics of what it is smelling. It's a binary system, there is or isn't a smell that provokes an response.

I've suggested elsewhere smells left by a female dog in heat or some kind of tantalizing food might provoke reactions and no one would know.

The McCanns will always be given the benefit of the doubt as this is high profile and no one wants to mistakenly condemn people later proven to be innocent. Were this a low level case with known previous offenders of any type of crime it might be ramrodded into a guilty verdict.


Police forces of late have come under a lot of scrutiny and criticism as we are finding many people falsely imprisoned, some even executed, who were later exonerated by new techniques like DNA testing.

Myself I lean towards believing the McCanns are concealing something. But know from experience the more you examine any complicated case the more anomalies and inconsistencies you can find.

So the world might just have to carry on with a British couple in some way responsible for the death of their daughter who will never be tried or convicted.

There are a lot of untried unconvicted felons out there.


M

[edit on 22-1-2010 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
The dog issue is extra-complicated because an animal cannot qualify it's testimony. It cannot say how strong a scent is, how certain it is, the specifics of what it is smelling. It's a binary system, there is or isn't a smell that provokes an response.

This is the key to the dog aspect IMO-although what you say is true,(that it is hard to quantify the animal's senses),We have to look at the record of these dogs,and how many times they have led to a positive identification of other bodies.
That is how we should judge the dogs IMO.

There was mention in the reports of the dogs having a 200/200 sucess rate.
If thats true,I would take their opinion as accurate.
Dogs do not make things up,they tell us truths only IMO.

If you need to see if that is a true statement,try setting a "false trail" though the woods and get a dog to follow it,instead of following you.
A good dog will get you every time in my experience-they will see the fake trail,then double back.
The capability of dogs noses are pretty much incomprehensible to us mere humans.

reply to post by JJay55


None of the people you listed were/are elite. Martha was set up, and Jason Simpson murdered those two people. However, I agree with the premise and spirit of your post, which is, money can buy you justice.

Also, forgive me because I haven't been keeping up with the case, but when it first broke and I saw that little girls eye, I immediately thought rituals, occult activity and underground smut rings.

Can anyone post a summary or cliff notes, or is it best I read the entire thread?