Madeline Mccann

[sivispacem]

You aren't making opinion statements though. You're claiming opinions are facts, which is totally different and the entire reason I bothered responding in the first place.

 

You're third "fact" is factually wrong and therefore cannot be true as you claim. No animal is trusted in the eyes of the law. This implies it is capable of providing evidence in a legal case which is patently untrue.

 

Got any references from merit worthy sources to corroborate your claims about the accuracy of the dogs? The source you've given is about as useless as they come as a source of non-partisan information. If they're so incredible and without fault, how about an academic reference or two?

[ChumCrumpet]

 

Take your conspiricy threories and f*ck off. Stop using a missing girl as an advantage to see cool.

 

She got kidnapped. It's all we know. Stop playing detective.

 

Don't make me laugh.

 

It's only your 4th week here and you're already talking to people like that? Take your abuse elsewhere.

 

When you can't find the correct words to use and have to resort to swearing, it only makes you look uneducated and ignorant.

 

 

GTA Forums aren't the type of place for you to call out child kidnappers. Don't take this sh*t as a joke.

[uzi 9mm]

 

 

Take your conspiricy threories and f*ck off. Stop using a missing girl as an advantage to see cool.

 

She got kidnapped. It's all we know. Stop playing detective.

 

Don't make me laugh.

 

It's only your 4th week here and you're already talking to people like that? Take your abuse elsewhere.

 

When you can't find the correct words to use and have to resort to swearing, it only makes you look uneducated and ignorant.

 

 

GTA Forums aren't the type of place for you to call out child kidnappers. Don't take this sh*t as a joke.

 

Oh I'm sure know what type of place GTAForums is, when you've only been here for 4 weeks.

And sivispacem, I don't need a reference to prove the legitimacy of the dogs, the dogs' track records are 100%, if not the Police would have said otherwise, but since they first brought the dogs into the situation it was already known that the dogs are the most reliable in the country, finding a source for this now would be near to impossible since the Police are covering up so much, even the link I gave before was retrieved by the person who posted it since it got deleted.

Edited October 24, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[sivispacem]

Yes you do need to verify this claim. It's pivotal to your argument and there's nothing you've presented from a decent, reasonable source that suggests it is even remotely true. It's a totally unverified claim with nothing to support it other than your assertion it is right.

[ChumCrumpet]

 

 

 

Take your conspiricy threories and f*ck off. Stop using a missing girl as an advantage to see cool.

 

She got kidnapped. It's all we know. Stop playing detective.

 

Don't make me laugh.

 

It's only your 4th week here and you're already talking to people like that? Take your abuse elsewhere.

 

When you can't find the correct words to use and have to resort to swearing, it only makes you look uneducated and ignorant.

 

 

GTA Forums aren't the type of place for you to call out child kidnappers. Don't take this sh*t as a joke.

 

Oh I'm sure know what type of place GTAForums is, when you've only been here for 4 weeks.

And sivispacem, I don't need a reference to prove the legitimacy of the dogs, the dogs' track records are 100%, if not the Police would have said otherwise, but since they first brought the dogs into the situation it was already known that the dogs are the most reliable in the country, finding a source for this now would be near to impossible since the Police are covering up so much, even the link I gave before was retrieved by the person who posted it since it got deleted.

 

 

 

You make me f*cking sick. This kind of sh*t will happen to you one day. There's a special place in hell for people like you.

[uzi 9mm]

 

 

Yes you do need to verify this claim. It's pivotal to your argument and there's nothing you've presented from a decent, reasonable source that suggests it is even remotely true. It's a totally unverified claim with nothing to support it other than your assertion it is right.

Well that's impossible, in case you haven't remembered, the Police are covering up information, including the reputation of how reliable these dogs are since they'd been used in the Mccann case. There's no way of me proving the track record of the dogs.There's no source which say the dogs have ever failed either, and I can guarantee that if there was ever an occasion in which the dogs were unsuccessful in their findings, I'm sure it would have been made known. Also bare in mind if the dogs track record was anything but 100% certain, they wouldn't have flown them in in the first place would they? Especially for such an important Police case and all.

 

You can't get a source for everything, you just need to use common sense sometimes, but some heads are too thick to penetrate.

 

You've got so used to people posting fake GTA info that you think crying out for a source is the only way of proceeding in a debate.

 

Here's the only information you need to acknowledge and understand when questioning the reliability of the dogs, so get this through that stubborn mind of yours:

 

The dogs track record is 100%, they've never had inconclusive results in their findings, this is a fact, the police would not have used them in a case this important, otherwise the first headline would have been 'POLICE USE SNIFFER DOGS WHICH HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE'.

 

@MrPeteyMax, I really don't understand what your input in this debate is at all, I don't know what hole you crawled out of, but can you please go back there? Unless you have anything worth while to say.

 

Maybe you're pissed off because of the warning you've recieved, it can't be helped if f*ck was the first word you ever learned.

Edited October 24, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[sivispacem]

Now you're alleging that the police are covering it up? Yet another baseless allegation with no evidence to support it.

 

Your statements on the dogs and the cover up are totally without merit unless you support them. This is turning into an absurd conspiracy theory. No matter how many times you make your 100% claim, unless you can support it it is invalid. It hasno value. It Iis worthless and meaningless.

[Tchuck]

Really? So because they have been "100%" so far means they will never fail? Or won't fail in this case and can fail after because this case is special? Get real. How was the track record for space shuttles before the Challenger? 100%? By your logic, it should not have failed, it was a "statistical impossibility".

 

On the dogs, both sniffer dogs trained to sniff out cadavers/humans and explosives/drugs follow pretty much the same type of training, only changing the scents you have to imprint on them. So Max's article is still perfectly valid, if not more due to the more complex emotions involved in the search of a missing person.

 

In the eyes of the law, only evidence can be trusted. Not what some dog might think it has found. You know what the finding of the scent is used for? To give detectives a new line of investigation, in order to find evidence. The fact that the dog reacted to something is not evidence, it's a possibility. Law is not based on possibility.

 

Nobody has ever been reported to die in the Empire State, until someone jumped off of it. No one was reported to have died in some random hotel in Las Vegas, until someone overdosed in it. Just because something has never happened does not mean it won't happen. Nobody has ever been reported to die in that hotel, and then a little girl could have been killed there.

 

You're gonna need better logic/evidence.

[Max]

The dogs track record is 100%, they've never had inconclusive results in their findings, this is a fact, the police would not have used them in a case this important,

But this isn't a fact, at all. As my previous post pointed out, sniffer dogs of any sort are not 100% accurate, what they provide is an indication of possibility. But once again their results can be and often are affected by the beahviour of their handlers. Just because they're not 100% accurate doesn't mean police wouldn't use them though because they are aware of their limitations and are aware that they are a helpful, but not perfect tool.

 

Also, be careful, just because evidence for these specific dog's failings is not available with a simple google search does not mean that they have 100% track record.

[uzi 9mm]

Really? So because they have been "100%" so far means they will never fail? Or won't fail in this case and can fail after because this case is special? Get real. How was the track record for space shuttles before the Challenger? 100%? By your logic, it should not have failed, it was a "statistical impossibility".

 

On the dogs, both sniffer dogs trained to sniff out cadavers/humans and explosives/drugs follow pretty much the same type of training, only changing the scents you have to imprint on them. So Max's article is still perfectly valid, if not more due to the more complex emotions involved in the search of a missing person.

 

In the eyes of the law, only evidence can be trusted. Not what some dog might think it has found. You know what the finding of the scent is used for? To give detectives a new line of investigation, in order to find evidence. The fact that the dog reacted to something is not evidence, it's a possibility. Law is not based on possibility.

 

Nobody has ever been reported to die in the Empire State, until someone jumped off of it. No one was reported to have died in some random hotel in Las Vegas, until someone overdosed in it. Just because something has never happened does not mean it won't happen. Nobody has ever been reported to die in that hotel, and then a little girl could have been killed there.

 

You're gonna need better logic/evidence.

 

I never said that the dogs could NEVER fail. I am just going by facts, and the fact is the dogs track record being 100% is true, it must be some insane coincidence that the time it happened to fail was the day it was used in the Mccann's case, if it did, how am I supposed to predict the future? If so, then the probability of the dogs findings being false were 1%, and 99% true since this would have been the first instance in which the results would have been doubted.

 

And like I said before, I won't be able to find a source which says the Police are covering up anything, that would be impossible, it's getting to the stage where you can't even find mp3's online anymore, let alone a certified source claiming the Police are hiding information on one of the biggest investigations still going.

 

@Max, fair enough, you're right in saying that if a google search cannot produce a source proving the the dogs record being 100%, then it may not be true, but think about it, if those dogs in particular would have ever been wrong in another case, then the Police wouldn't have even bothered putting them on a plane and flying them 1000 odd miles across land and sea to help solve an investigation. Just goes to show that you can't always find a source or proof on the internet, some things just get left unsolved.

Edited October 24, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

Really? So because they have been "100%" so far means they will never fail? Or won't fail in this case and can fail after because this case is special? Get real. How was the track record for space shuttles before the Challenger? 100%? By your logic, it should not have failed, it was a "statistical impossibility".

 

On the dogs, both sniffer dogs trained to sniff out cadavers/humans and explosives/drugs follow pretty much the same type of training, only changing the scents you have to imprint on them. So Max's article is still perfectly valid, if not more due to the more complex emotions involved in the search of a missing person.

 

In the eyes of the law, only evidence can be trusted. Not what some dog might think it has found. You know what the finding of the scent is used for? To give detectives a new line of investigation, in order to find evidence. The fact that the dog reacted to something is not evidence, it's a possibility. Law is not based on possibility.

 

Nobody has ever been reported to die in the Empire State, until someone jumped off of it. No one was reported to have died in some random hotel in Las Vegas, until someone overdosed in it. Just because something has never happened does not mean it won't happen. Nobody has ever been reported to die in that hotel, and then a little girl could have been killed there.

 

You're gonna need better logic/evidence.

 

I never said that the dogs could NEVER fail. I am just going by facts, and the fact is the dogs track record being 100% is true, it must be some insane coincidence that the time it happened to fail was the day it was used in the Mccann's case, if it did, how am I supposed to predict the future? If so, then the probability of the dogs findings being false were 1%, and 99% true since this would have been the first instance in which the results would have been doubted.

 

And like I said before, I won't be able to find a source which says the Police are covering up anything, that would be impossible, it's getting to the stage where you can't even find mp3's online anymore, let alone a certified source claiming the Police are hiding information on one of the biggest investigations still going.

 

@Max, fair enough, you're right in saying that if a google search cannot produce a source proving the the dogs record being 100%, then it may not be true, but think about it, if those dogs in particular would have ever been wrong in another case, then the Police wouldn't have even bothered putting them on a plane and flying them 1000 odd miles across land and sea to help solve an investigation. Just goes to show that you can't always find a source or proof on the internet, some things just get left unsolved.

 

 

The Police are in on it, just like every other corrupt official who claims we have justice anymore.

 

Here's a good example of justice.

 

My Stepdad has written to nearly every single court in the UK for the past 8 years over an appeal for something that he didn't even do? All they wanted was his wallet. They kept manipulating his own letters before they sent them back, deliberately getting dates mixed up and then saying that it was him who got the dates wrong?

 

The people who claim to fight for justice are no less scum than the criminals they prosecute.

Edited October 24, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[Tchuck]

I never said that the dogs could NEVER fail. I am just going by facts, and the fact is the dogs track record being 100% is true, it must be some insane coincidence that the time it happened to fail was the day it was used in the Mccann's case, if it did, how am I supposed to predict the future? If so, then the probability of the dogs findings being false were 1%, and 99% true since this would have been the first instance in which the results would have been doubted.

 

And like I said before, I won't be able to find a source which says the Police are covering up anything, that would be impossible, it's getting to the stage where you can't even find mp3's online anymore, let alone a certified source claiming the Police are hiding information on one of the biggest investigations still going.

 

@Max, fair enough, you're right in saying that if a google search cannot produce a source proving the the dogs record being 100%, then it may not be true, but think about it, if those dogs in particular would have ever been wrong in another case, then the Police wouldn't have even bothered putting them on a plane and flying them 1000 odd miles across land and sea to help solve an investigation. Just goes to show that you can't always find a source or proof on the internet, some things just get left unsolved.

 

Insane coincidence? These dogs could have found a false positive on anything. The fact it could have happened on this case is irrelevant. You're not supposed to predict the future. You're not supposed to use sniffer dogs as evidence. What you are supposed to do, and it's what you are failing to understand, is to use the sniffer dog's suspicion as a line of investigation. Here's what happened: The dogs reacted to some unknown scent on the scene. The detectives investigated. No evidence of anything was found. There. That's how these dogs are used.

 

And where are you getting these 1% and 99% figures from? They're completely stupid. If you wanna find the probabilities properly, you'd need to do a much better study on not only the track record of those dogs, but of all dogs used in such situations, the likelihood of a number of other factors, the possible different scents a dog can find etc. Then you'd probably end up with a figure closer to the truth, these dogs in no way were 99% "probability" of being right. This just further proves your belief that because these dogs weren't "wrong" in the past, then they could never be wrong.

 

If your impression on this case is that it's a conspiracy, then say so. Don't make up bullsh*t facts, misuse real facts, and create lame excuses for yourself. Dogs are used to provide leads, not evidence. Detectives use these leads to find evidence. None was found in this case from the leads provided by the dogs. That's how sniffer dogs work. Do you get it?

[uzi 9mm]

 

I never said that the dogs could NEVER fail. I am just going by facts, and the fact is the dogs track record being 100% is true, it must be some insane coincidence that the time it happened to fail was the day it was used in the Mccann's case, if it did, how am I supposed to predict the future? If so, then the probability of the dogs findings being false were 1%, and 99% true since this would have been the first instance in which the results would have been doubted.

 

And like I said before, I won't be able to find a source which says the Police are covering up anything, that would be impossible, it's getting to the stage where you can't even find mp3's online anymore, let alone a certified source claiming the Police are hiding information on one of the biggest investigations still going.

 

@Max, fair enough, you're right in saying that if a google search cannot produce a source proving the the dogs record being 100%, then it may not be true, but think about it, if those dogs in particular would have ever been wrong in another case, then the Police wouldn't have even bothered putting them on a plane and flying them 1000 odd miles across land and sea to help solve an investigation. Just goes to show that you can't always find a source or proof on the internet, some things just get left unsolved.

 

Insane coincidence? These dogs could have found a false positive on anything. The fact it could have happened on this case is irrelevant. You're not supposed to predict the future. You're not supposed to use sniffer dogs as evidence. What you are supposed to do, and it's what you are failing to understand, is to use the sniffer dog's suspicion as a line of investigation. Here's what happened: The dogs reacted to some unknown scent on the scene. The detectives investigated. No evidence of anything was found. There. That's how these dogs are used.

 

And where are you getting these 1% and 99% figures from? They're completely stupid. If you wanna find the probabilities properly, you'd need to do a much better study on not only the track record of those dogs, but of all dogs used in such situations, the likelihood of a number of other factors, the possible different scents a dog can find etc. Then you'd probably end up with a figure closer to the truth, these dogs in no way were 99% "probability" of being right. This just further proves your belief that because these dogs weren't "wrong" in the past, then they could never be wrong.

 

If your impression on this case is that it's a conspiracy, then say so. Don't make up bullsh*t facts, misuse real facts, and create lame excuses for yourself. Dogs are used to provide leads, not evidence. Detectives use these leads to find evidence. None was found in this case from the leads provided by the dogs. That's how sniffer dogs work. Do you get it?

 

The dogs didn't react to some unknown scent, it was the scent of cadaver, i.e. a human corpse, that was what the dog reacted to, that's all it had been trained to sense, and it didn't react that way to any of the other vehicles it was tested on. The other dog used detected minute samples of blood which was sent off to be tested and the DNA results showed it belonged to Madeline Mccann, how much more probable can it really be?

 

The dog did find leads, the only reason they were discarded (like pretty much every other thing going against the Mccanns) is because this bloody thing probably is a conspiracy. Even the tabloids were forced to apologise to the Mccann family, why should they apologise to them when they haven't even been proven innocent? What is so special about this family that they've been given so much support and publicity? Only God knows.

Edited October 24, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[Tchuck]

There we go. That's all we wanted you to admit, that you're looking for a conspiracy theory. The dog's lead was followed, no conclusive evidence was found. In law, it's about hard solid evidence, not probability. Otherwise you'd end up with a lot of wrong convictions because the person was probably the culprit. It's not probable enough. If the McCanns are guilty, then they are getting away with it. If they are innocent, then they are getting free from it. If the prosecution can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that they did it, they will be convicted. They haven't been able so far, because there has been no hard evidence.

 

Those are the facts of the case so far. Anything else is conspiracy.

[sivispacem]

Others have covered pretty much everything I wanted to say, but can I just pick up on this:

 

@Max, fair enough, you're right in saying that if a google search cannot produce a source proving the the dogs record being 100%, then it may not be true, but think about it, if those dogs in particular would have ever been wrong in another case, then the Police wouldn't have even bothered putting them on a plane and flying them 1000 odd miles across land and sea to help solve an investigation. Just goes to show that you can't always find a source or proof on the internet, some things just get left unsolved.

 

 

What you've done here is admit that you might be wrong as you can't support a statement, and then continued to assert that, and argue as if, the statement is true, even when you've just admitted that it may well not be. Which ranks up there with the silliest things I've ever seen in a discussion.

 

Without any actual evidence to support either of your hypotheses (the murder one or the cover-up one), someone who claimed that Madeline McCann was abducted by aliens because she told her so herself has basically as much merit in the discussion as you do.

 

Here's a good example of justice.

 

My Stepdad has written to nearly every single court in the UK for the past 8 years over an appeal for something that he didn't even do? All they wanted was his wallet. They kept manipulating his own letters before they sent them back, deliberately getting dates mixed up and then saying that it was him who got the dates wrong?

The people who claim to fight for justice are no less scum than the criminals they prosecute.

 

 

Now, this is interesting too. Why are you extrapolating general trends from a single subjective experience? If I once met a man who was a chef, that doesn't mean that all men are chefs does it? Using an anecdote as the sole basis of an argument is the second silliest thing I've ridiculed in this post. By the same logic, I've never had any negative experiences with the police in the UK, so corruption and laziness must in fact be myths, mustn't they ?

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Others have covered pretty much everything I wanted to say, but can I just pick up on this:

 

@Max, fair enough, you're right in saying that if a google search cannot produce a source proving the the dogs record being 100%, then it may not be true, but think about it, if those dogs in particular would have ever been wrong in another case, then the Police wouldn't have even bothered putting them on a plane and flying them 1000 odd miles across land and sea to help solve an investigation. Just goes to show that you can't always find a source or proof on the internet, some things just get left unsolved.

 

 

What you've done here is admit that you might be wrong as you can't support a statement, and then continued to assert that, and argue as if, the statement is true, even when you've just admitted that it may well not be. Which ranks up there with the silliest things I've ever seen in a discussion.

 

Without any actual evidence to support either of your hypotheses (the murder one or the cover-up one), someone who claimed that Madeline McCann was abducted by aliens because she told her so herself has basically as much merit in the discussion as you do.

 

Here's a good example of justice.

 

My Stepdad has written to nearly every single court in the UK for the past 8 years over an appeal for something that he didn't even do? All they wanted was his wallet. They kept manipulating his own letters before they sent them back, deliberately getting dates mixed up and then saying that it was him who got the dates wrong?

 

The people who claim to fight for justice are no less scum than the criminals they prosecute.

 

 

Now, this is interesting too. Why are you extrapolating general trends from a single subjective experience? If I once met a man who was a chef, that doesn't mean that all men are chefs does it? Using an anecdote as the sole basis of an argument is the second silliest thing I've ridiculed in this post. By the same logic, I've never had any negative experiences with the police in the UK, so corruption and laziness must in fact be myths, mustn't they ?

 

Oh shut the f*ck up you limey bastard! Seriously!!! You're a blind f*cking fool, you probably wouldn't even notice if our establishment treated you like sh*t! You're not as smart as you make out! Believe me, stay ignorant of truth, see what will happen. My Stepdad wrote the letters in our house, we've all the papers where courts from all over the country have continuously f*cked us over! Do we get justice? No, common folk like us don't get such a thing!

 

They don't give a sh*t about us and you won't have it!

[ROCKGTASTAR]

I never said that the dogs could NEVER fail. I am just going by facts, and the fact is the dogs track record being 100% is true, it must be some insane coincidence that the time it happened to fail was the day it was used in the Mccann's case, if it did, how am I supposed to predict the future? If so, then the probability of the dogs findings being false were 1%, and 99% true since this would have been the first instance in which the results would have been doubted.

 

And like I said before, I won't be able to find a source which says the Police are covering up anything, that would be impossible, it's getting to the stage where you can't even find mp3's online anymore, let alone a certified source claiming the Police are hiding information on one of the biggest investigations still going.

 

@Max, fair enough, you're right in saying that if a google search cannot produce a source proving the the dogs record being 100%, then it may not be true, but think about it, if those dogs in particular would have ever been wrong in another case, then the Police wouldn't have even bothered putting them on a plane and flying them 1000 odd miles across land and sea to help solve an investigation. Just goes to show that you can't always find a source or proof on the internet, some things just get left unsolved.

 

 

You're right about the McCann's, personally I've never like them, I always had the suspicion that this was a publicity stunt for money.

 

 

This was 4 days after Madeline's apparent disappearance, Gerry's seen laughing here? Why would he do such a thing?

 

How can anyone trust these pair? They've gotten guilt written all over them.

Edited October 24, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Oh shut the f*ck up you limey bastard!

 

No thanks, I think I'll keep talking.

 

Seriously!!! You're a blind f*cking fool

 

Right, some hormonal teenager barely capable of constructing an arguemnt that doesn't contradict itself, and I'm the fool?

 

you probably wouldn't even notice if our establishment treated you like sh*t!

 

What makes you think I'm not part of that establishment?

 

You're not as smart as you make out!

 

Aren't I? Based on what? I've not lost my rag because someone on an internet forum told me that making judgements about things based on a single anecdote was stupid?

 

Believe me, stay ignorant of truth, see what will happen.

 

What truth? In fact, the truth about what? Or is "the truth" some kind of entity who only visits you when you get really frustrated with being publicly ridiculed?

 

My Stepdad wrote the letters in our house, we've all the papers where courts from all over the country have continuously f*cked us over! Do we get justice? No, common folk like us don't get such a thing!

 

I'd be lying if I said I cared, or that this had any relevance to the point I was making, but that's sailed so far over your head I'll be surprised if it doesn't burn up on re-entry.

 

They don't give a sh*t about us and you won't have it!

What won't I have? I'm genuinely concerned about what I won't have?

 

Also, nice job of not reading anything anyone else posted on the thread about judging people undergoing emotional trauma by the standards of normal versus abnormal behaviour, but I imagine it's well beyond you to actually think or, god forbid, read a thread before you contribute to it.

Edited October 24, 2013 by sivispacem

[ROCKGTASTAR]

"What truth? In fact, the truth about what? Or is "the truth" some kind of entity who only visits you when you get really frustrated with being publicly ridiculed?"

 

You're gravely mistaken. "Entity?" Are you trying to say that I believe in god?

 

Man you are a retard, you're just looking high and low for something clever to say!

 

Just because I don't believe that our establishment can be trusted doesn't automatically mean that I believe in some ridiculous sky daddy!

 

I was angry at you, simply because this has actually happened to us, yet all you can do is sit there and mock us for fighting for our own rights? You type of people are disgusting! You might as well join the c*nts!

Edited October 24, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Let's see what this woman has to say about the McCanns?

 

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

Dan sanderson 2 years ago

Don't believe this nonsense from the McCann's, read the Police files, then Decide who you think is involved in Madeleine disappearance. , you have to ask yourself why would an innocent couple have a PR spin doctor, and not one but three of the highest paid lawyers in the UK and one in Portugal,

 

Think people? If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is!

Edited October 24, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[uzi 9mm]

There we go. That's all we wanted you to admit, that you're looking for a conspiracy theory. The dog's lead was followed, no conclusive evidence was found. In law, it's about hard solid evidence, not probability. Otherwise you'd end up with a lot of wrong convictions because the person was probably the culprit. It's not probable enough. If the McCanns are guilty, then they are getting away with it. If they are innocent, then they are getting free from it. If the prosecution can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that they did it, they will be convicted. They haven't been able so far, because there has been no hard evidence.

 

Those are the facts of the case so far. Anything else is conspiracy.

But the thing is, evidence was found, when they traced the DNA and found it it was Madeline's. It was her blood, hair and bodily fluids that were found in the car, and also between the tiles near the window in the apartment, the results from the sniffer dogs are just one of the things pointing towards them being guilty.

The reasons the Mccanns gave were unreal, they said the blood by the window which seeped between the tiles came from a nose bleed which can't be true unless she stood there the whole time while copious amounts of blood fell to the floor.

Regarding the smell of cadaver in the car, Gerry Mccann's stated that he was transporting rotten meat and garbage in the car, and the cadaver scent is that only of a human corpse, he obviously didn't realise this when answering the question.

Kate Mccann responded to the scent of death on her clothes and even a cuddly toy of Madeline's by stating she was in contact with around 6 dead bodies before she left the country and that the scent was carried onto her clothes, and that she even brought the toy to work with her, how ridiculous is this? How stupid must she take people for, for one, to even believe she wore the same clothes at her work place to the ones she had on holiday, and that she brought the child's toy to work? Why would they even bring themselves to create these outrages excuses at all, only to eventually question the ability of the dogs? These people show all the tell tale signs of being guilty.

And sivispacem, I must be getting somewhat mixed up with my words, you've obviously seen what I've written and thought I meant that I was admitting to maybe being wrong, but what I meant is that Max was right in a sense where you can't always find a source using Google search, and as a result, can't always expect to be able to back your claims with a source. I know I won't be able to find a source stating the sniffer dogs had a 100% rate of positive findings, this source doesn't exist, but it has been said, that these dogs have never been wrong before, and whilst it's theoretically possible that mistakes can be made, I find it highly unlikely that on this occasion and this case that the dogs were incorrect, so I'm more in favor of the dogs being correct in their findings. I don't think either of the dogs which are already highly trusted were wrong, why the Police have decided to go against these findings I find very peculiar.

Edited October 24, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[sivispacem]

And sivispacem, I must be getting somewhat mixed up with my words, you've obviously seen what I've written and thought I meant that I was admitting to maybe being wrong, but what I meant is that Max was right in a sense where you can't always find a source using Google search, and as a result, can't always expect to be able to back your claims with a source. I know I won't be able to find a source stating the sniffer dogs had a 100% rate of positive findings, this source doesn't exist, but it has been said, that these dogs have never been wrong before, and whilst it's theoretically possible that mistakes can be made, I find it highly unlikely that on this occasion and this case that the dogs were incorrect, so I'm more in favor of the dogs being correct in their findings. I don't think either of the dogs which are already highly trusted were wrong, why the Police have decided to go against these findings I find very peculiar.

 

You seem to be misunderstanding me. By saying that you can't back up your claim that the sniffer dogs have a 100% success rate, you are saying that it may not be true. You still think it's true, apparently, but it's effectively an admission that there's nothing to suggest it is true. Which renders the rest of your musings largely irrelevant because they continue to assume that the sniffer dogs have a 100% success rate, which you've admitted you can't support, and therefore cannot reasonably be accepted.

 

This particular bit highlights the problem:

 

I know I won't be able to find a source stating the sniffer dogs had a 100% rate of positive findings, this source doesn't exist, but it has been said, that these dogs have never been wrong before

 

You must be able to see that the bit of this highlighted in red is contradicted by the bit highlighted in blue? You're saying that it has been said that the dogs have never been wrong, but you're also saying you can't say who said it, or when, or in fact can't demonstrate anyone with any credibility having said it, so the entire statement is meaningless. It is, to re-use an example I've already used once, like me saying that I've never been wrong about people being abducted by aliens before, so she must have been abducted by aliens. I've got no proof I've never been wrong about people being abducted by aliens, and no proof I've ever said anything about aliens, or abduction, but I'm still right. It's an absurd logical fallacy. You can't claim things are factual if you can't support them with evidence.

 

Man you are a retard, you're just looking high and low for something clever to say!

 

First you say I'm retarted, then apparently I'm clever? Hope you enjoy your forced exile.

Edited October 24, 2013 by sivispacem

[uzi 9mm]

Ok, I cannot find a source stating the dogs had a 100% successful track record, and I won't because it doesn't exist. But I don't need it, and the reason is because at the time when the dogs were being used, the tabloids and several stories state that the dogs had never been wrong, and neither Yorkshire Police or the dog handler himself countered this statement at any time.

 

There are many sources claiming the dogs had a 100% success rate, whether they've been proven to be reliable or not hasn't been proved. Here's one for the sake of it.

 

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/sun-newspaper-rubbishes-british-sniffer.html

 

The statement has been thrown around a lot and has appeared in newspapers and on internet pages as well, but nevertheless, it had been said publicly. Now, what you won't be able to find is a source claiming that the dogs don't have a success rate of 100%. I'm sure the dog handler or the Police would have said long ago that the dogs aren't 100% reliable in their findings, but the truth is that the Police did trust in the findings of the dog's, they obviously weren't expecting the turnout that was given.

 

So if I can't find a source claiming that the dogs are 100% successful, and you can't find a source claiming that they aren't 100% successful, where do we go from here? And no, that article that Tchuck provided doesn't help since it's not about the dogs Eddie and Keela in question.

 

I don't mean to contradict myself the way it seems I am, I'm just finding it a bit of a headache because it seems we're going round in circles with this whole f*cking thing.

[Tchuck]

Honestly, using a blog that on its title states that they are abusing human rights/power/what have you is not an indication of an unbiased source, therefore it can't be trusted.

 

Again, them being 100% successful is not a key point of the matter. Nothing will ever be 100% proof all the time. And beyond that, dogs aren't admissible as evidence, but only as leads for the investigators. It doesn't matter if they find cadaver smell 100% of the time, if those cadaver smell don't lead the investigators to the body/proof/evidence, they are useless. That's what you're failing to understand.

 

The article isn't about those specific dogs, but it's about ALL sniffing dogs, their behaviour will always be very similar. What affects one type of sniffer dog will affect other types of sniffer dogs.

[Raavi]

I can't help but find it utterly amusing that this tosser thinks a few loony-bin-admission-worthy ramblings can refute an extensive investigation conducted by Law Enforcement and Forensic professionals from two nations. Sniffing dogs aren't infallible, they relatively easily can be thrown off their scent. And let's be honest the actual sniffing-to-retrieve isn't exactly what you call an exact science. I have yet to hear a sensible argument that incriminates the Mccann's.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Raavi

[uzi 9mm]

I can't help but find it utterly amusing that this tosser thinks a few loony-bin-admission-worthy ramblings can refute an extensive investigation conducted by Law Enforcement and Forensic professionals from two nations. Sniffing dogs aren't infallible, they relatively easily can be thrown off their scent. And let's be honest the actual sniffing-to-retrieve isn't exactly what you call an exact science. I have yet to hear a sensible argument that incriminates the Mccann's.

I'm a tosser? Well, it's not really an insult, must say I used to enjoy a good ol' wank now n' again but who doesn't 'ey? Can't say I need to as much nowadays I was talking years ago minus once in a blue moon, I'd rather save my energy or my girlfriend will start to think I'm losing it, but more to the point, how'd you come to that conclusion? Takes one to know one they say.

 

I don't see why you feel the need to poke your nose in anyway, since you're not bringing anything new to the topic, you're basically repeating what's been said by other people, apart from the 'tosser' remark, you could've just gone " hi, the name's Raavi, just popping in if you don't mind" that would've basically been the same as what you just did, again, apart from the 'tosser' remark.

 

The forensic pro's you mention are the one's who produced the DNA results from the evidence, and the DNA results shows Madeline's DNA, but hey, how reliable are DNA tests these days anyway? I suppose there's a small possibility that they f*cked it up, you never know. And I'm pretty sure when you say lay enforcement and forensic professionals from two nations, what exactly makes you think the Portuguese law enforcement believe the Mccann's are innocent? Let alone the terrible reputation this whole incident has given the area there, I doubt the Portuguese favor the Mccanns just yet, especially since no real evidence has been produced that proved an abduction even took place to begin with, remember, the case isn't solved yet, and may never be solved, and because of that, there's always going to be people contemplating what actually happened.

 

Tchuck, I know what you are saying, but the dogs findings did lead to the DNA samples which were taken and those samples were Madeline's, are you saying this is false? Fair enough the cadaver dog's scent of death may have not been sufficient enough, but the second dog's findings (the blood samples) turned out positive and still nothing became of it.

[sivispacem]

Ok, I cannot find a source stating the dogs had a 100% successful track record, and I won't because it doesn't exist. But I don't need it, and the reason is because at the time when the dogs were being used, the tabloids and several stories state that the dogs had never been wrong, and neither Yorkshire Police or the dog handler himself countered this statement at any time.

 

If you trust anything that tabloid newspapers say, then that goes some way to explaining the issues you now find yourself in. This is perpetuated by the fact that newspapers archive old stories, so if these claims existed you should, theoretically, be able to find them in the newspaper online archives. Some are behind paywalls, but most aren't. So, unless you're alleging that the newspapers were also involved in this conspiracy, your suggestion that these claims existed in a verifiable way then and do not now simply doesn't hold water.

 

You've also got to accept that many of the tabloids had to pay substantial damages to the McCann family for making baseless accusations without decent supporting evidence, much like you have. Which isn't to say those accusations are factually wrong, but that even they couldn't prove them right to a reasonable degree.

 

There are many sources claiming the dogs had a 100% success rate, whether they've been proven to be reliable or not hasn't been proved. Here's one for the sake of it.

 

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/sun-newspaper-rubbishes-british-sniffer.html

It's a blog. It's not a decent source of information. I would expect to see these animals, if not referred to in police literature, at least referred to in newspapers in relation to other crimes, and given their apparently astounding success rate I'd imagine they appeared in some kind of academic literature too.

 

Thinking logically about the cadaver dogs, I struggle to believe the applicability of their use in this case for one simple reason, a reason you seem to be blissfully unaware of but which is fundamental. That is, cadaver dogs detect decomposition. A corpse doesn't begin to decompose until around 3-6 hours after death. So unless you're claiming that Madeline was kept in the point at which the cadaver dogs pointed to there being a body for this period of time, which is impossible because the police had already been called to the villa and searched it by then, then it's a spurious claim at best because it entails either the dogs being wrong, or whoever made the claim initially lying.

 

Now, what you won't be able to find is a source claiming that the dogs don't have a success rate of 100%.

That's not how proof works. It is logical, sensible and reasonable to assume that the dogs don't have a success rate of 100% until proven otherwise, because they're animals that have been trained to perform a role, and every study of cadaver and police dogs has proven that they are prone to inaccuracy. As you made the claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate it.

 

So if I can't find a source claiming that the dogs are 100% successful, and you can't find a source claiming that they aren't 100% successful, where do we go from here?

We throw the entire statement out as it can't be proven to be true. It's a spurious claim with no basis in reality. The fact I can't find anything that doesn't say it's true doesn't make it true. An argument from negative proof is a logical fallacy. It's no different to me claiming that I have an invisible pink unicorn and if you can't disprove it it must be true.

Edited October 25, 2013 by sivispacem

[uzi 9mm]

 

Ok, I cannot find a source stating the dogs had a 100% successful track record, and I won't because it doesn't exist. But I don't need it, and the reason is because at the time when the dogs were being used, the tabloids and several stories state that the dogs had never been wrong, and neither Yorkshire Police or the dog handler himself countered this statement at any time.

 

If you trust anything that tabloid newspapers say, then that goes some way to explaining the issues you now find yourself in. This is perpetuated by the fact that newspapers archive old stories, so if these claims existed you should, theoretically, be able to find them in the newspaper online archives. Some are behind paywalls, but most aren't. So, unless you're alleging that the newspapers were also involved in this conspiracy, your suggestion that these claims existed in a verifiable way then and do not now simply doesn't hold water.

 

You've also got to accept that many of the tabloids had to pay substantial damages to the McCann family for making baseless accusations without decent supporting evidence, much like you have. Which isn't to say those accusations are factually wrong, but that even they couldn't prove them right to a reasonable degree.

 

I would think it's ok to trust some things read in the tabloids, so to question if I believe in anything they say is unusual, I definitely don't believe everything they say. I already proved the reputation of the dogs to a certain degree, and this was from the Yorkshire Police themselves, a story which has long since been deleted, but luckily was retained by somebody which can be seen by this link: http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/south-yorkshire-police-killed-eddie-and.html

 

He kept the page, and if you read it you'll see that whilst it doesn't mention any word of the dogs being 100% successful, it also doesn't say they've been wrong before. You can also wonder why they even deleted it too. But to be fair, the scent of death wasn't the most important of the findings, it was the blood hound that found the samples of blood in which Madeline's DNA were found.

 

You also make a point about the dog detecting the scent of death even after the Police had searched during the period of time you said, but who's to say Madeline actually died on the day the Police searched? She could have died the day before, this would given the cadaver scent more than enough time to be produced.

 

But I suppose since there is no form of an actual credible source claiming the dogs were 100% successful, since even the page deleted by then Police didn't actually say the dogs were 100% unreliable, I suppose I might as well stop talking about the dogs altogether since there isn't a source. End of.

 

In the end of the day, whether the Mccanns are innocent or guilty will always be debated by people, since the case will eventually be closed, and in the eyes of the law, proof will never be found, things like body language or studying interviews will never be enough to stand up in court.

 

I personally don't think they will ever find the girl, and that the whole idea of her being abducted is bogus, I think the parents know exactly what happened to her, and if no proof will ever be found to prove them wrong, then at least it can be agreed that their negligence is what caused their daughter to disappear, they should never have left her alone. This is something that they are 100% guilty of, and the fact didn't that they were never charged for this is a mystery to me.

Edited October 25, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[sivispacem]

I'm glad you've finally understood my point about the claims regarding the dogs being invalid, though I can't help but notice you also mentioned the fact that you hadn't seen anything to indicate they weren't 100% accurate- which brings us back to the invisible pink unicorns/alien abduction logical fallacy examples.

 

In order for your claims about the cadaver dogs to be true, she must have died a day or so she was reported missing. Given that she was seen alive in this time, I find that highly improbable.

 

Your blog post, even taken at face value, does nothing to actually add merit to the claims that the dogs couldn't have been, or were unlikely to have been, wrong. It's also worth pointing out that it is possible to forensically determine where blood comes from with a reasonable degree of accuracy, so it's not really viable to argue that blood could not have been from a nosebleed without a source to verify this claim as it is likely that tests indicated the source of the blood was either benign or in line with the McCann's claims. Blood from arterial injuries, respiratory trauma, bone trauma, head wounds ect is very different in composition and collateral materials.